BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Women's dress sizes should be limited by law

As those gentlemen who are regularly out on the pull in the pubs and clubs of Britain will readily testify, there is an increasingly desperate shortage of attractive women to choose from in this country. Yes, there are a few girls with attractive personalities (which is very important of course), but you would have a hard job finding one that didn't also have a dirty great toilet on her. For those of you lucky enough to live in countries where most girls do not fall into the category of "fat slags", here's a typical assortment of the sort of foul-mouthed munters the average Saturday night offers English gentlemen out on the lash: http://farm1.static.flickr.com... http://www.bbc.co.uk... http://www.cupcakepdx.com... Now, contrast that with the sort of Asian babes a man about town in the Far East gets to choose from: http://farm1.static.flickr.com... http://a66.ac-images.myspacecdn.com... http://photos-897.friendster.com... So, when it comes to the dash for gash, most British blokes are obliged to either accept some third rate tart or go home empty handed. But why us and not Japanese, Korean or Chinese guys? That's because British women's average weight has increased dramatically over recent years. http://www.esrc.ac.uk... So what is the Government doing about it? Well, they have implemented a cross-department strategy to tackle obesity, but as the figures show, it has failed. Miserably. http://www.dh.gov.uk... But wait, my totty-deprived British chums, do not despair! I have the solution, and here it is: Since most girls spend a great deal of time reading fashion magazines and waste a hell of a lot of money shopping for clothes, it would be fair to conclude that fashionable clothes are important to them, right? So why not ban the manufacture for sale of all dresses over UK size 12 (UK) / 40 (EU) / 10 (US) and make the overweight women wear either old dresses, homemade dresses or coal sacks with holes cut into them for the neck and arms? That would provide a real incentive for girls to shed the pounds and thus provide British men with a decent selection of nice, fit birds to choose from on a Saturday night. I can't see how there could be any objection to this proposal, but since the Government hasn't already adopted it, I assume there must be some flaw in the plan that I have missed. Perhaps my opponent can spot something?
peyton manning is the greatest quarterback ever

Defense carried one game. Also tom Brady is two missed kicks and a running play play from being 1-5 in Super Bowls so you can't talk about being carried. Also let's think about it if Tom Brady retired the same time as peyton, he would be constantly be called a cheater and his name will be forever around controversy. Also tom Brady even said peyton was better http://m.bleacherreport.com... Even tailb a former patriot said peyton was better http://mweb.cbssports.com...
Obama is the progressive agent of change, not John Edwards.

My point in the FYI was literally, for your information, just kind of a tidbit. it had nothing to do with this debate. Anyway, Obama gives young people hope for a brighter future with a president who will not lead us down the path which we have already gone down, war, horrible economic settings, having the USA as literally everyone's worst nightmare as well as enemy, no one agreeing with us on any issue anymore, our allies not even allying with us, our enemies still taunting at us and flaunting what they have, and above all he gives the hope of a new, fresh, young president who sees the future of an America where everyone is united, rather than what our current president has done and divided the nation. That is incredibly correct what Obama said about offering us to go to Pakistan for the war. But you cannot say that this war on terrorism is a war in which poverty is the issue. If you take the example of the horrible atrocity of 9/11. The men who hijacked the planes and flew them into the towers were not poor people at all. They were doctors, scientists, engineers, get my point? They were not poor people, and they actually lived in nice areas of the country they lived in. And not all terrorists are poor people, some of the richest people are terrorists (not saying there are poor terrorists). If you take the example of Imam Nasrullah (leader of Hezbollah), he is a rich man who is educated and does not live anymore in Lebanon, he had lived in Paris for a while. With Edwards spreading aid across the world, that is the duty of the State Department's USAID program. Simple as that, USAID gives our foreign AID to places where they need it the most. Obama's foreign policy advisers are also advisers not only who have served previous presidents, but have seen how foreign policy was 20 years ago, which, in my opinion, is repeating itself, so would it be better to have people who are knowledgeable of the area we are in? or not?
Obama is the progressive agent of change, not John Edwards.

I'm still not hearing hope for what, exactly. Reform in election finance? Because Edwards dominates that issues in this campaign already. And what's the point in saying this: *****FYI, since 1967, every president running on the "Anti-War" Campaign, and who has won the Presidency, has "beefed up" military operations and has extended stays in war zones and has even spent more money on defense....***** Both Edwards and Obama are peace candidates...so that's not good for both of them. On the record, however, we do have Obama who already offered going into Pakistan without permission to presumably find Bin Laden. On the other hand, John Edwards said that fighting terrorism is an issue of fighting poverty, because its only poor, desperate people who are willing to carry out terrorist acts. Once the US image abroad is not one of invasion and military might but one of a government that builds schools in foreign countries for the simple good of humanity, terrorism will stop. In his plans, Edwards outlines how the US will spread aid and education across the world and into poor countries. And I stand by what I say that you should only expect so much from a man (or woman) by what he promises. Granted, John Edwards may not pull through on his promises, but what else can you go on? Prayer? Well, arguably, you can pray that George Bush will come to his senses and bend to the will of the American people, but he won't. If Edwards was elected, he would know exactly why, he'd have a clear mandate from the people. Obama has yet to really promise anything, and he keeps putting on a different face depending on who is asking the questions. And lastly, Obama has picked a team of foreign policy advisers that are all linked to very things that got us in this mess in the first place. This is from a report that came on Amy Goodman's show a little while ago: "Obama's top adviser is Zbigniew Brzezinski. Brzezinski gave an interview to the French press a number of years ago where he boasted about the fact that it was he who created the whole Afghan jihadi movement, the movement that produced Osama bin Laden. And he was asked by the interviewer, "Well, don't you think this might have had some bad consequences?" And Brzezinski replied, "Absolutely not. It was definitely worth it, because we were going after the Soviets. We were getting the Soviets. and.... Another key Obama adviser, Anthony Lake, he was the main force behind the US invasion of Haiti in the mid-Clinton years during which they brought back Aristide essentially in political chains, pledged to support a World Bank/IMF overhaul of the economy, which resulted in an increase in malnutrition deaths among Haitians and set the stage for the current ongoing political disaster in Haiti." Hardly champions of peace. They are the imperial Democrats, and they are advising Barack Obama.
Obama is the progressive agent of change, not John Edwards.

Well as I said before, and if I didn't then here you go. All though I do agree with you for some of the argument, I do still disagree. Is it possible to agree to disagree in the USA with politics? I doubt it? I do realize that Fmr. Senator Edwards has pushed against lobbyist and special interest groups in Washington, but Obama was the one to endorse it and co-found the, "Honest Leadership and Open Government Act." Not only did he endorse and co-found it he did it in the 2nd part of his term. Understand though, it is merely impossible to receive money from anyone outside of public donations ie., next door neighbor, friend, family, generously giving people, and even from private donations for example (only example, not truth) lets say Microsoft or someone from another government. It is just impossible for anyone to run for any elected official spot and win, without receiving money. Gifts, yes, I understand, and Senator Obama said this in the NH Debates when asked about this, in fact, both he and Edwards agree on quite a few things. I believe Obama has a lot of "good hope" despite what most nay-sayers say. Most people believe he is going to be like any other Presidential Candidate and give "false hope". I hope and pray he is not like this, and I believe he isn't. *****FYI, since 1967, every president running on the "Anti-War" Campaign, and who has won the Presidency, has "beefed up" military operations and has extended stays in war zones and has even spent more money on defense....*****
Obama is the progressive agent of change, not John Edwards.

While I completely agree that Obama is a very charming and persuasive man, with incredible oratory skill, he lacks substance. Politicians historically almost never do anything that they have not promised, and Obama is promising very little. He promises hope, he promises working together, and he promises change, but there must be questions asked that he has yet to answer. What are we going to be hopeful about? What, exactly, is Obama promising he will get us all to work together towards? He talks tough on China and globalization on NPR, but then he turns around and promotes Free Trade on MSNBC. While Edwards does not have perhaps the 'feel good' message, he is very clear as to what he thinks are the problems in America, and how to solve them. Corporate power in Washington is one of our greatest problems, but only John Edwards dares say it. The vast majority of Americans feel that the whole system is corrupt, and again, only Edwards dares to criticize his own party. I will concede that Obama is a step in the correct direction, away from Clinton, but there is a reason why over 10 percent of the Democratic party is siding with Edwards. I believe America needs a fighter, not for the left, not for the right, but for the people, for the health of our democracy. Obama's got the charm, but not the plan, and the proof is in the details.
Obama is the progressive agent of change, not John Edwards.

All though I do agree for the most part of what you have said about former Senator Edwards, there is a lot of similar aspects that Senator Obama is facing as well. Senator Obama not only is a charismatic person who argues very well in the face of his "enemies". He has the audacity to change as well. If one were to look at what he accomplished while in the Senate in Illinois, as well as an attorney. He turned southern Chicago into a better place by helping the poor and destitute people. I am sure he has seen poverty in his life. He grew up to a single mother who worked hard to get her son where he is today (no doubt any mother would). He lived in Jakarta, Indonesia. Indonesia, while growing extremely fast, he had to have seen a lot of poverty while living there. Mr. Obama even saw poverty while growing up as a child (even though he did also live in a middle class area). At the 2004 DNC Mr. Obama said, "There's not a liberal America and a conservative America--There the United States of America...We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the Stars and Stripes, all of us Defending the United States of America." According to Obama, "The Audacity of Hope," is "God's greatest gift" to Americans.
Obama is the progressive agent of change, not John Edwards.

John Edwards is the change candidate of 2008. His positions on trade, on the American economy, and on the corruption and disconnect between Washington and the American people are right on the money. He is one of the few candidates who actually addresses the issue of poverty in the United States, and he does not address it like an abstract issue. To John Edwards, poverty is very real, and while the media and the GOP likes to poke at his house, his own personal success has not made him forget the struggles of others. Most polls indicate that the American public thinks more a long the lines, issue by issue, with someone like Dennis Kucinich, but candidates like him never get any traction. John Edwards on the other hand nearly won Iowa, and got another 17 percent in New Hampshire. His name is too large for major media to simply ignore him, though they do try. With a 70 page plan already composed and ready to build 'One America', Edwards has time and time again forced the hand of Obama and Clinton to present a plan to the American people. John Edwards took the lead in saying no to Fox News, and refusing to participate in their media events, and was then followed by the whole Democratic field. Truly progressive, John Edwards is the best hope to put someone in to the White House who is on the side of the American people, and is ready to fight for us.
The Problem of Evil (PoE)

So I guess I'll get straight into it. Suffering,Evil and the is/ought problemPro conflates suffering,pain,disability,death with evil but these are entirely different things. Suffering, death, pain etc are all descriptive statements but to say something is "evil" is to make a moral statement. Also it is implied that suffering, death, pain etc ought not to happen and thus are "evil" if they do. But how does Pro bridge the gap between descriptive statements and moral statements ? This brings us to the is/ought problem which says. .. "In meta-ethics, the is-ought problem was articulated by David Hume (Scottish philosopher and historian, 1711–1776), who noted that many writers make claims about what ought to be on the basis of statements about what is. However, Hume found that there seems to be a significant difference between descriptive statements (about what is) and prescriptive or normative statements (about what ought to be), and it is not obvious how we can get from making descriptive statements to prescriptive. " [1]So once again, how does Pro bridge the gap between suffering,pain,death exists (the descriptive statements) to suffering,pain,death should not exist (the ought/prescriptive statement) ? Now maybe Pro could reply that suffering is unpleasant, suffering is agony, and so forth, but these are just tautologies and don't tell us one way or another if suffering ought or ought not to be and thus the existence of evil has not been established. With no way to bridge the gap between what "is" and what "ought to be" it can't be said that evil exists, or that gratuitous evil exists, as this is the same as saying that there are things that "ought" not to be. As such both premise 2 & 3 of pros argument are false. You need good to have evilIn order for evil to exist, then good has to exist, as evil is some how either in contradiction or opposition to the good. But what reason do we have to believe that good exists in the first place ? The argument is as follows. ..1) Evil can only exist if Good exists2) Good does not exist3) Therefore Evil does not exist. It has not been established what good is, therefore you can't have something in contradiction or opposition to it, thus you can't have "evil". So once again premise 2 & 3 of pros argument are false. I look forward to Pros reply. Sources [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org...
Theoretically the past will exactly repeat itself.

PS:I read a lot about black holes, the universe etc, etc and a lot of it was beyond me, so I apologies if I am completely misinterpreting/understanding something. 1)Theoretically I'd say that "time" is infinite and the state of matter is what changes. I cannot think of any way to show that time is infinite. 2)Black holes. In theory there are also white holes which spew new particles into the universe, and which are connected to black holes and are the other side of black holes, meaning that the particles sucked into a black hole will eventually exit out a white hole back into the universe. 3)Second law of thermodynamics. Some researchers believe they have found another universe that exists alongside our own that has collided with our own leaving a visible imprint; this tells me that outside our universe there is something else were particles, heat etc. can be exchanged. http://www.popsci.com... 4)The philosophical bent. In my first post were I explained my position and so forth I excluded the fact that the events would occur at different times on a time line. So I agree with you point; but I feel that it should be excluded.
Theoretically the past will exactly repeat itself.

First, my opponent's argument, as presented, requires an infinite timeline in order to entail the mathematical certainty that is required. Only when dealing with infinities could we say that any event dealing with probabilities will happen. We don't know if time will go one forever. My opponent needs to demonstrate this for the argument.Second, the scope of the argument includes the entire universe. However, for the past to repeat itself, that includes every particle that exists now will exist when the past repeats itself. However, the existence of black holes ensures that this cannot happen. Blackholes irrevocably absorb particles, thus permanently alterting the configuration of the universe to prevent exact duplication of any state.Third, the second law of thermodynamics says that the universe will increasely become more disordered, preventing past, orderly states, from happening by chance. My opponent needs to demonstrate that this law is false, or that the universe is not a closed system.Fourth, in a more philosophical bent, there is the question as to whether or not an event that is repeated is the same event. Events are uniquely defined by their space-time coordinates. So even if the same particles behave in the same way, those events occupy different points along the time line, and, therefore, are not identical.
Theoretically the past will exactly repeat itself.

If you roll a die once the chance of landing on 3 is 1 in 6. If you roll a die twice the chance of landing on 3 at least once or more improves. If you have a deck of cards labeled 1-1billion the chance of pulling out the number 5 is 1 in 1 billion, which is very slim odds and anyone betting on pulling out a 5 would most certainly lose their money. But what if you they had 1 billion chances to pull out a five (assuming after pulling out each card you replace it and shuffle the deck); then theoretically you should pull out a five at least once. Also if you pulled out a card indefinitely until you got 5 then the chance of you pulling out a 5 becomes a 100% certainty. So back to the subject at hand; the chance that my life it its whole will be repeated again sometime in the future is astronomically slim, considering that there are trillions upon trillions of factors that could be changed. However theoretically the chance that this occurs is 100% if there is an infinite amount of time/chances. It would be like if you continued to draw a card out of the deck forever you'd eventually draw a certain card, or a certain combo of cards. To summarize, theoretically the past will repeat exactly how it was at some time in the future given that there will always be a future and a future for that future meaning unlimited amounts of time and chances for said past to occur.
Theoretically the past will exactly repeat itself.

Hawking RadiationParticles generated by hawking radiation are distinct and independent from the particles absorbed by the black-hole itself. They aren't the same particles. Your assertion is that the past would repeat itself without any differences, but using different particles to recreate the past is a difference.WhiteholesAgain, whiteholes are just speculation, unless they actually exist, they don't support your resolution.SummaryThe argument depends on the universe being a closed system in which it is possible for any state or configuration to occur on a long enough timeline. It discounts the existence of laws and entities which irrevocably alter the state of the universe. Namely: entropy and black holes.The resolution is not: the past can repeat itself but will repeat itself; the latter require a larger burden than the former.Thank you.
Theoretically the past will exactly repeat itself.

Hawking radiation. From what I understand the emissions from black holes would be made of photons. Photons can be removed and added to particles, meaning that just because particles enter a black hole and come out different doesn't mean that matter is indefinitely changed. The photons can be re added to the particles that lost them. I do not think that the idea that when black holes are created a white hole is created as the birth of a new universe discounts my resolution. First the white holes doesn't necessarily have to create a new universe it could be just emitting particles into an already created universe. Second I don't see why the forming of a new universe, and the exchanging of particles from t3o universes makes it so that those functions can't occur in reverse, or be repeated. Another black hole can form in the new universe and send the particles back to the universe that lost them. As my last post in this debate; I would like to thank my opponent for his contributions. I did a lot of reading and feel that I've learned something from this debate, and rather enjoyed having it. I hope my opponent feels the same, and if not I ask him to not say so because sometimes ignorance is bliss : )
Theoretically the past will exactly repeat itself.

Infinitude of TimeSince your argument depends on what is theoretical, and it is theoretical that the universe (and, hence, time) could exist forever, I will grant you this point. Time could, theoretically, be infinite in the sense that it has not been ruled out as an option within the field of science.Black Holes/White HolesWhite holes are still in the realm of speculation. Firstly, the problems that White Holes allegedly fix vis-a-vis Black Holes are fixed through other, more accpeted means, such as Hawking Radiation. In this sense Black Holes and White Holes are the same object, though being the solution to different mathematical consequences of General Relativity. Other hypotheses which include White Holes place them at the beginning of other universes. Thus, when a black hole is created in our universe, a white hole is created as the birth of a new universe. Neither of these explanations allow for your resolution. 1) The Hawking Radiation consists of the emission of particles that are distinct from the particles absorbed by the black hole. They are, therefore, not the same particles. 2) The past and the future refer to a timeline, ostensibly this timeline, of this universe. Spacetime are part of the fabric of this universe, not indpendent abstract concepts. Another universe would have another timeline and events happening within that universe do not count with regards to this universe.Universe CollisionThis is more speculation and only causes us to regress. If our universe isn't a closed system, but rather a component of a larger system, then the second law still applies, just to that larger system. So, ultimately, it would need to be shown that the second law is, somehow, wrong. Furthermore, you need to posit a mechanism by which such collisions happen ad infinitum. The collision theory posits a collision as an explanation for the beginning of our universe. Your resolution depends on an infinite number of tries in order for the past to reproduce itself. You need to show that the universe will collide an infinute number of times.Philosophical UniquenessI'll defer this point at the moment.