BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The United States government should stay out of my online poker business.

The Dude abides. A quick recap for those of you that don't play online poker or haven't seen it on the news as of late. A federal indictment was filed in Manhattan, NY. on April 15, 2011 by the U. S attorney, Preet Bharara. In the indictment, Isai Scheinberg, Raymond Bitar, and nine other individuals are accused of operating illegal gambling businesses online. This has affected Pokerstars, Absolute Poker, Full Tilt, and a few other sites. My main point will be that poker is not actually gambling. This has already been decided to be true by seven states, with more following suit. Gambling is defined as, "the wagering of money or something of material value (referred to as "the stakes") on an event with an uncertain outcome with the primary intent of winning additional money and/or material goods. " (. http://en.wikipedia.org...) Poker should not be considered gambling because there is no uncertain outcome. This has been proven by the worlds best poker players time and time again. It is a game of skill, patience, observations, perception, percentages, and the ability to read what the other players on the table are holding. I will not refute the fact that there is some luck involved in poker but there is just as much luck involved in dominant sports such as soccer, football, MMA, boxing, etc. Yet these sport are not considered "gambling" when the players take the field. If poker was gambling then it would follow suit with roulette, BJ, craps, and countless other casino games that have never had a predominate superstar emerge. Doyle Brunson, Johnny Chan, and Phil Hellmuth have all cleared the World Series of Poker fields of thousands TWICE, back to back, to become champions. There is also about 30 poker players that are consistently winning poker bracelets or at least making final tables in the PPT or Pro Poker Tour. Luck? I think not. The U. S. Government has shut down said sites is because of their own greed for money. They have filed a $3 billion dollar civil suit against the owners of the sites in question for "money laundering penalties". (. http://blogs.forbes.com...) and also seized 76 bank accounts in 14 countries. Of this $3 billion dollars, nowhere in the civil suit does it say that this money is to be repaid to the constituent of the poker sites for monies lost. These charges would not have even been brought about if the government would have just continued to go about it's OWN business in the first place and not said that Americans cannot play poker online. My opponent will try and argue that poker is in fact considered gambling and should therefore be regulated by gaming commissions. This is a false front and will be picked completely and utterly apart by myself in the following rounds. To him, I say, good luck and good debate.
The United States government should stay out of my online poker business.

I'll be your "Huckleberry". You're argument is flawed. And your topic, "The United States government should stay out of my online poker business", is completely short-sighted. My goal is, at the end of this debate, that you, and the judges, will agree with my contentions. I believe this first round is for salutations, so. .. "Greetings. .. .now, bring it on" Thanks for instigating the debate.
The United States government should stay out of my online poker business.

In this debate I will argue that unless there is definitive reasons for our government to intrude, (I.E. - Cheating.) they should not concern themselves with online gambling, specifically Poker sites. My opponent will take the con/against side of the debate and try to prove that our government should in fact be able to shut down poker sites that are accepting money from American citizens. I look forward to taking on anyone that would like to debate this point with me but would prefer, (not mandatory) that my opponent be an American citizen themselves with some knowledge of what's going on with the 11 big poker sites. This debate will be four rounds with an 8,000 character max. and 3 days to respond with a two week voting period. Thank you and I look forward to the debate!
Reality is just a prospective fantasy of biased.

It's fine,your excuse is valid. "every person on earth (Besides those with sensory or mental disabilities) can share the same set of observations about the world that rise through individual perceptions." To a certain point.Other then that,words can't describe your full state of consciousness. Reality isn't concrete through our individual perceptions,it's more of an evolutional form just like morality. This will give the audience and you a better idea of what i am explaining. http://youtu.be... You don't have to just apply this video to colores.
Reality is just a prospective fantasy of biased.

First of all, my apologies for missing the last round, unfortunately I was at a real-life debate tournament for several days and had little time for a response. Now while it is true that our society has differences in perspective, universally, every person on earth (Besides those with sensory or mental disabilities) can share the same set of observations about the world that rise through individual perceptions. Thus, as the human experience is one that is universal and concrete, reality must exist for others to exist,
Reality is just a prospective fantasy of biased.

Firstly thank you for accepting. "and good luck" It seem like you're the worthy opponent i have been looking for. Lets begin... Before you study your self you need to look at our civilisation as a whole. Yes you're right so far.But the human race is an emotional,social and somewhat logical species. Thus arise semantics...which emerges perceptional (i think i made that word up) conflicts between groups of people or each individual all because of the automatic emotional attachments a person put's on a word ergo each human being biased with out reason or rationality.It's in human nature.
It is logical to assume there are parallel universes

Thank you Con for sending me the challenge :)The way I understand this, Pro must give logical arguments for the existence of parallel universes, and Con must refute them. Therefore, if even one of Pro's arguments goes unsuccessfully refuted, then it will be a victory for pro. Also, Pro forfeiting the final round should not result in a seven-point victory because it was part of the rules. However any other forfeits rightfully give seven points to the opposing side. Let's dive in.________________________________________________________________________________In the first round I will simply list logical arguments based on some widely accepted theories about the origin of the universe1. If the universe was a random occurrence...P1: The universe was a random occurrence that actually happenedP2: This means that it has a chance above 0.0% of happeningC: Since the universe coming into being was a random occurrence, it must have happened again because of the laws of probability.2. If an omnipotent creator made the universe...P1: The universe was made by a divine entityP2: Therefore, that divine entity must have lived outside of and before the universeC: That creator lived/lives in another universe.3. If the universe was created by two membranes colliding P1: The universe was created by two membranes of higher dimensions clashing with each otherP2: There are other bodies outside of the universeC: Their must be at least two other universes existing at higher dimensions.
It is logical to assume there are parallel universes

Please note: I have made this debate impossible to accept. Inquire in the comments if you wish to debate this topic.PRO is arguing that it is logical to assume there are parallel universes. CON is refuting their arguments.This debate is not relying on evidence; it is not PRO's job to provide evidence of parallel universes but to show how they are logical.BoP is on PRO. Definitions LOGICAL - Goes along with logic, NOT relying on evidence ASSUME - Used interchangeably with "believe" PARALLEL UNIVERSES - I'll let PRO define this one. PRO is to begin their arguments immediately and should forfeit the final round to keep it even. Forfeits result in all seven points going to the other debater. Other than this, rules will be kept at a minimum.I look forward to a very interesting debate! Please inquire in the comments if you wish to accept.
It is logical to assume there are parallel universes

1. If the universe was a random occurence "if something exists for any length of duration, it has time" I disagree. Time is the progression of cause to effect; the progression of beginning to end. If something is infinite it has no beginning and no end, so time does not exist within it. 2. If the universe is infinitely expanding there must be a larger space holding it. "we do have mathematical proof that the universe is infinitely expanding" Again, I disagree. We have proof that the universe is expandping, but not infinitely so. The universe is qround 13.7 billion years old and, seeing as the speed of light is finite, we can only see into space as far as the light has travelled in that period of time. The universe could be expanding in our area of space while, elsewhere, it could be shrinking back together. We simply do not know. "[The idea that there was nothing before the universe] is not logical" (and the concurrent point) It seems PRO has wilfully neglected my arguments in this area. I pointed out that an infinite universe is neither logical nor theoretically possible and has failed to respond to my points in this area. 2. If an omnipotent creator made the universe "Why is that necessary? What logical process of thought got you to that conclusion? Whose to say he wouldn't create his own universe to live in? " Earlier in the debate, PRO claimed that an omnipotent being would live outside the universe and now it seems he is going against his own points. If, as PRO said, he lived outside the universe, he wouldn't be inside another one; this goes against his point. "So your telling me a being with no constraints on his power would choose to live in a barren void? " Again, PRO claimed God lived outside the universe and, accordingly, outside every universe. Again, he is going against his own points. 3. Membrane Theory "I think you and me have different definitions of infinity. Infinity in my book means constantly producing new ones. " Yes, I think we both have very different definitions of infinity. In my opinion, infinity is, as I pointed out earlier this round, with no beginning and no end. I apologise for not clarifying this earlier in the debate; if I ever debate this topic again I'll be sure to add infinite to the definitions. "Whose to say the new universe it creates is finite? " Time is finite in our universe; why, then, should the universe itself not be? Conclusion I thank PRO for this very interesting and thought-provoking debate; it has been my pleasure to debate this topic with you and I hope we can debate together again soon. I request voters are unbiased in their voting and judge this debate fairly.
It is logical to assume there are parallel universes

I will now continue with my rebuttals. 1. If the universe was a random occurrence However, given that our universe alone is 14 billion years old(1), and there can't be any sense of linear time in a giant space outside of the universes, it would appear that another universe being created would have or will have happened again at least once, because their is an infinite amount of time for another universe to be created There is not necessarily an infinite space of time outside our universe. If space outside the universe was eternal, time would not exist; how, then, would a universe with a sense of time come about? There could not be an infinite amount of time, therefore there would not be an infinite amount of time so other universes could not exist. If [the universe] is infinitely expanding their must be a much larger space holding it. Not necessarily. We have no proof to support either argument here; however, it is logical that there was nothing before the universe. If there was something before, it, how did that come about? It goes on; the only feasible answer is an eternal universe but, as demonstrated in my previous point, this would be theoretically impossible and, therefore, illogical. 2. If an omnipotent creator made the universe. This is an admission by con that their are indeed parallel universes. I apologise for miswriting my statement. I'll reiterate my point. If an omnipotent creator made the universe and there are parallel universes, he would have created the others as well. Therefore, seeing as he lives outside the universe, he would live outside every universe, not inside one of the ones he had created. Wouldn't you think a being with literally infinite power might want a domain of his own to live in? The "void" would be his own domain. 3. If the universe was created by two membranes colliding Thank you for posting the sources, as requested. They have been very interesting and thought-provoking. Although I am not in any way an expert in either M-Theory or String Theory, it seems to me that the theory proposed relies heavily on the existence of infnite parallel universes. However, an infinite number of something is a theoretical impossibility. In addition, if the universe is infinite, how could it possibly create a finite universe? Again, another illogical conclusion. I now pass you back to PRO.
It is logical to assume there are parallel universes

1. If the universe was a random occurrence1. "The probability would be too infinitely small". What Con fails to realize is that no matter how small a probability of something happening is, it can still happen more than once. It is just extremely unlikely. However, given that our universe alone is 14 billion years old(1), and there can't be any sense of linear time in a giant space outside of the universes, it would appear that another universe being created would have or will have happened again at least once, because their is an infinite amount of time for another universe to be created. Since their is an infinite amount of time, their is an infinite amount of tries, roll of the dice if you will, for another universe to be created. Say the chance of a universe happening is 0.0000001%. Well that just means that it would take 10 million random occurrences to make a universe.2. "Seeing as there was nothing before the universe, the universe is everything" This is false. You see, the universe is infinitely expanding(2). If it is infinitely expanding their must be a much larger space holding it. Also, "there was nothing before the universe" is an unsupported assertion. Their could have been a multitude of universes. Also, if the conditions for the random occurrence could not happen again outside of the universe, then how did it happen in the first place when the universe didn't exist?2. If an omnipotent creator made the universe."Seeing as an omnipotent creator created every universe, he would live outside them all". This is an admission by con that their are indeed parallel universes. Also, whose to say that an omnipotent being wants to live in a void for eternity? Wouldn't you think a being with literally infinite power might want a domain of his own to live in?3: "If the universe was created by two membranes colliding" Here are the links you asked for.http://www.wisegeek.com...http://www.dailygalaxy.com... Those two pretty much sum it up. Also, they show with purely mathematical and logical reasoning that their are indeed parallel universes.Sources:(1). http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov...(2). http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov...
It is logical to assume there are parallel universes

I will now present my rebuttals. 1. If the universe was a random occurrence. .. Here, PRO argues that, according to the laws of probability, the random occurrence that created the universe must have happened again. However, I argue that:1) The probability would be too infinitely small. While it must have been over 0.0%, it still could, and probably would, have been an absolutely minuscule number. and2) Seeing as there was nothing before the universe, the universe is everything. Therefore, nothing could escape the universe thus created and the conditions for that random occurrence could not have happened; any further occurrences would have happened inside our universe.2. If an omnipotent creator made the universe. .. Here, PRO is arguing that an omnipotent creator lives outside the universe. Therefore, seeing as the omnipotent being created every universe, he would be outside them all, not in a parallel universe.3. If the universe was created by two membranes colliding. .. I am unfamiliar with this theory; do you think you could post a link to a website explaining it? I will respond to this theory in the next round. Please present your rebuttals.
Footballers are valued more than teachers

Recently at school I have noticed that some teachers aren't given the respect they so surely deserve. Then I hear some students talking about footballers like they are gods. I just don't understand it. Teachers do more for this world than footballers ever will, yet footballers are paid a whole lot more and get more respect. Well I've had it. Teachers give teach give us skills for life, whereas footballers just kick a ball about. If anyone disagrees with me, then please, feel free to make an argument.
Footballers are valued more than teachers

Well my opponent failed to properly present her case, thus not allowing me to properly rebut her point of view. However, I will make a quick case anyway. "Teachers do more for this world than footballers ever will, yet footballers are paid a whole lot more and get more respect." To begin with, "respect" is a matter of opinion, and my opponent can not back up her claims that teachers are more respected than footballers. What we can look at however, is the salary difference between the two. It is true that footballers get paid more than teachers. In fact, many times as much. However, I would like to point of that pay doesn't always reflect job importance. A good example of this would be the President. Benefits aside, the President makes roughly $400,000 a year.[1] The Vice President makes a little over half of that. Now I'm sure my opponent would agree that the President of the United States is THE most important and respected job in the free world. Yet, footballers also get paid more than both the President and Vice-President. When it comes to the more important jobs, in actuality, you don't want pay to be too high, as to be the primary draw to the occupation. If the President's salary suddenly jumped to 400 million a year, it is likely that more people would be after the job for salary alone. When you can minimize the salary for an important job, you increase the likelihood that the people in the field are there because they want to be, and not because they want to do something that gets them rich. This is a trend you commonly see in investment banking, where the people who are working purely for money can't handle the strenuous workload and change occupations within the first three years. I ask voters to vote pro based on the lack of convincing points presented by my opponent and also due to the fact that salary is not a accurate measure of how "valuable" an occupation is to society. [1]http://www.infoplease.com...
The Montreal Canadians are the greatest NHL franchise ever.

Before I get started we all have are favourite teams for our own reasons may that be for showing our patriotism or just because they are a good team, but now onto the facts the Canadiens have not won the cup since 1993, I agree that they used to be the best team in the league but that was when there was 6 teams. The Canadiens have a decent lineup but for these 2 reasons they are not the best team in the NHL. Their coaching staff cannot seem to pull their team together as well I don't think they know what their doing for example they traded Cammalleri for Bourque and there team can't work together well. This year they should of been able to sweep the Sens because they were in the number 2 seed, but they lost 4-1 in the series. And the Year before that they didn't even make the playoffs and the year before that they lost first round to the Bruins. So it is for those reasons why I believe they are NOT the best team in the league.
Is there a god

Omni-potent, Omniscient and OmnipresenceConsciousness and AwarenessAccording to Einstein's general relativity there has been a beginning of the universe, a big bang, and all will come to an end by either a big crunch singularity, if the universe recollapsed, or at a singularity inside a black hole. The argument made by my opponent in Omni-potent, Omniscient and Omnipresence, has nothing to do with a divine creator because of two simple facts, first, he is explaining something that doesn't require divine creator for its explanation, its just physics, and doing so with something more complex than what he is trying to explain. This is also what he is suggesting in Consciousness and Awareness part of the argument. For you to say that the fine tuning could only be possible by a work of God, you have to explain where the God came from, but then one can ask the question where does the creator of the creator came from, etc. Its a meaningless statement. However narrow the range of the physical constants necessary to inhabit life are, or however improbable the origin of life and the origin of the universe are, only because of the fact that we are here we can observe it, it must have happened at least one. And here we are to observe the improbabilities.(1) Whatever the explanation of the fine tuning is, we can be almost certain that is not the work of God, because he is far more improbable and harder to accept, than the improbabilities l6;f the origins of lifek7;, cosmos and the fine tuning combined.(1) Anthropic principle https://en.wikipedia.org... Self-consciousness and Personal identity'Thus, the genetic code carries inherent meaning and information that is communicated between us on a regular basis. Since there could not be any conscious life before simple life emerged, God would not only have to be the explanation for the DNA information but a personal being like us who has intrinsic desires to create life.'After a very informative presentation of scientists encoding letters and pictures in DNA, my opponent suggests that the fingerprints of God are all over our biological information. He goes on explaining very little about how and why, to support his claim. Again, its not very plausible to suggest that God started life here on earth, beacause of his own uncaused existence. Surely its one of the few scenarios which we can imagine beacuse we don't have an answer to how life started. This hypothesis is tempting to believe because its enought of an explanation to satisfy us, withoth making any progress. It is too lazy of an explanation to say that because we don't yet understand, it must have been God, (God of the gaps). We know that life in the universe is extroadinarily rare, but we can't possibly be alone. There are millions of planets similar to our own, which are capable of inhabiting life. And now given these properties, life is not implausible.
Should Youtube be banned in schools

Seeing as my opponent has negated to reply to my arguments, I shall regard the last round as my victory. Therefore, my arguments stand, unchallenged. I would also like to add that YouTube is a brilliant place for dyslexic children to understand and enjoy learning the curriculum they have to know for their age-group. Most of these children (or even adults) cannot read without someone helping them, but with YouTube - they only have to click on the link sent to them... And they can listen to a twenty minute lecture about English literature. So for the arguments above and the ones said in the last round, please oppose the motion.