BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Let's get rid of gnats.

I empthize with your loss. But this issue isn't as black-and-white as a decomposing zebra.My Gnat Ecosystem Management System (or NEMS for short) is designed to prey upon the gnat's natural instincts and appetite for rotting flesh. No gnat can resist foul odors eminating from noses, mouths, ears, and hair-care products.I'm sharing with you my Gnat Ecosystem Management System (or NEMS for short) prototypes, ready for roll-out this summer as the gnats begin to breed in American suburbia. Place one of these Gnat Ecosystem Management System (or NEMS for short) into your yard. Gnats are automatically drawn to these like Japanese Beetles to those green catheter bag things. The Gnat Ecosystem Management System (or NEMS for short) are covered with toxic chemicals only found in Trump's hair and Hillary's makeup. It is 99.999% effective at destroying gnats that come in contact, without harming the environment or the global gnat population.I can't help your dreams but I pray you can find peace.
Let's get rid of gnats.

My brother had an SNES but he would never let me play it. On account of my skin disease. But it's not my fault my mom was attracted to zoo animals and ultimately hooked up with a zebra from the traveling circus. I like the circus though. At first I started going to the circus because I was trying to find my dad but I eventually stayed around for the cotton candy and peanuts and the bearded woman. Oh baby! But then one day I learned that my dad had been murdered in a circus performance accident. He broke his leg and being that he displayed strong animal-like features, he being a zebra and all, they had to put him down. But after he died his body was laid to waste. It slowly decomposed on the side of a decrepit asphalt parking lot where the circus had once been. And as his flesh began to rot and the homeless children ran away from the corpse in horror, he slowly became engulfed in a large storm of bugs. No, not bugs - GNATS. The gnats haunt my dreams and my reality. They must perish.
Let's get rid of gnats.

Thank you for the opportunity to debate this important issue. I have to accept the Con - Let's keep gnats. It's a tough position, certainly, and probably unpopular. You have identified a gnat's purpose: scavenger. You have identified their attraction to rotting flesh. I suspect a strong association between rotting flesh and your ears, nose, mouth, eyes, and grill. Perhaps your first line of defense should be personal hygiene. Gnats have limited intelligence. Any similarities between rotting flesh and your cheddar must be addressed and perhaps your gnat aversion will disappear accordingly. But I like ecosystems, blah blah blah. I have an aquarium. That's an ecosystem that I created. So I deduce: rotting flesh > attract gnats > artificial ecosystem. Boom. Gnats are important for the world, so instead of destroying them (which would be impractical), I will propose a Gnat Ecosystem Management System (or NEMS for short) which I will describe in the next argument and defend in round 3.
Let's get rid of gnats.

Back when I was a wee lad, playing in the local school yards and such, there used to be these large swarms of bugs. No, not bugs - GNATS. Friggin gnats. What is their purpose? I mean, I know... they're scavengers bugs which eat up rotting flesh blah blah blah, save me the wikipedia dialogue. They're friggin gnats. Tiny little bugs with tiny little bodies. They'd be flying up in my ears. They'd be flying up in my nose. They'd be flying up in my mouth. They'd be flying up in my eyes. Just disruptive little friggers gettin' all up in my grill. Tryin' to eat my cheddar. But seriously. Ecosystem. Blah blah blah. We don't need em. Let em go the way of the dodo birds. Exterminate them friggin gnats. Blowtorch em. Make em drink cyanide. Or whatever it is you do to exterminate an entire race of relatively useless bugs. But I digress. It's also a good thing that we are mandated to wear clothes in this society because god only knows where else them gnats would be flying.
Our Reality Was Possibly Caused by a Being That Can Be Defined As God

I am in a very similar debate and much like my opponent in that debate, you have the burden of proof. You must demonstrate that a God is a possible being. I will point out some rebuttals in advance to avoid common apologetics that people use when making the argument you seem to be making. If you plan to use logical possibility, you should be aware that logical possibility is only useful to rule a thing out as being possible. All logical possibility is is a test for contradiction. That a thing is logically possible only means that your definition for the thing is noncontradictory, but it does not come close to demonstrating that the thing is physically possible. To do that, you will need to demonstrate a justification for this god being physically possible. Making arguments like "the universe is complicated, so it can't come about without a creator" are old bad apologetics. Even if they weren't flawed(they are just reworked arguments from ignorance), they are more supportive of a universe creating pixie than an all powerful god because the pixies only assume the necessary power and the god throws in many unnecessary attributes. BTW physicists have discovered methods by which matter can spontaneously come into existence. The properties of the universe allowing for this fill the role of your gods very well and unlike gods, we have evidence for this and it makes no unnecessary assumptions. Another tack people often take is saying the universe was clearly designed because of its complexity. That a thing is big or complex by our standards does not mean it was designed. My body naturally produces very complicated and specific cells to keep me alive, but those are clearly not designed. There is no designer, it is just the natural process of my body functioning. If I draw a square, that square is clearly designed because it has a designer, me, but it is extremely simple compared to cells. I have no burden of proof since all I am arguing is that there is no justification for your claim that it is possible that a god created the universe. If I claimed that it was impossible for a god to create the universe, then I would need to demonstrate that, but I have no means to demonstrate that. Hopefully this opening will keep us from delving into arguments that I have heard many times because I am interested in hearing something fresh, and who knows, maybe you will convince me that a god is possible.
Our Reality Was Possibly Caused by a Being That Can Be Defined As God

My Introduction: My name is Paul and I hail from Clarksville, TN. I used to be a devout Christian. I joined the Navy and eventually found myself to be an atheist after studying religion, History, Science, and multiple other general things about our world. Later on, I started dabbling in Quantum Physics and was finding it hard to maintain my new Materialistic worldview. I was stuck between Atheism and religion and I couldn't go back to religion without being intellectually dishonest. My eventual landing position was Philosophical Theism. This is a position that does not include religious dogma. It is, simply put, the belief in the existence of something that can be generally defined as 'god'. ============================================================== As this is my first debate, and I am not formally trained in this sort of thing, I apologize for my seemingly rookie terminologies. I will do my best to clearly articulate my position and define difficult terms to the best of my knowledge. The topic of debate is focused on the existence of a causal agent that can be described as 'god'. For the purpose of this debate, the definition of god is going to be defined as: " Conscious " Processes Platonic Information " Has access to our four initial dimensions (x, y, z and time) Any other characteristics are essentially unnecessary to the definition of such a being. Consequently, any other characteristics are also unnecessary towards the existence or non-existence of such a being. The conditions for debating this topic are to agree with the general definition of 'god' as defined in this debate. I am aware that the concept of god is essentially abstract and, as a result, is difficult to narrow down. The purpose of this debate is not to prove the existence of any such being. Rather, the purpose of this debate is to open the possibility to a perspective of a reality with an intelligent cause via experimental data alone. There are four (4) rounds in this debate: Round 1 - I gave the definition of 'god'. CON will accept the debate by also accepting the definition of god for the purpose of this debate. If CON would like, you can also introduce yourself and tell us a little about who you are (optional, of course). Round 2 - I will be providing an argument for the existence of 'god'. CON will have the opportunity for their first rebuttal of the argument provided in this round. Round 3 - PRO's response CON's rebuttal Round 4 - PRO and CON conclude the debate.
which is better, tower-defense games(pro) vs other action games (con)

Yes the violence angle is ridiculous indeed but many sites say so, here are a few. http://www.drphil.com... http://www.huffingtonpost.com... Furthermore, other sites in google were also con for the topic. I really need to debate this. 'Not only is Call Of Duty a great way to release stress and pressure of every day life and exams, you want to go and continuously challenge your mind with the tower defence games. I'm not saying that the tower defence games require intellect (which they do) but they only contribute to the one aspect where as games like Call Of Duty have various game play modes; allowing you to use your intelligence to navigate your way to a checkpoint, or if you feel completely the other way, you can go on a rampage spilling zombie guts. The game has all elements that you can put it which are highly underrated.' First of all, Kingdom Rush is great fun as well, with enemies that explode and even cry. Plus you can play easy mode if you don't want a continuous challenge. It is too easy at hard anyway, but still. There are multiple modes in Tower defense games, like survival, 1 life, high difficulty and lesser money etc. Other tower defense games even let you become the enemy, like in plants vs zombies. Reaction time is tested by extra abilities like fire rain and reinforcements. We can also change positioning of our melee troops to block the enemy. Plus, they don't actually increase reaction time in real life. No, you only know how to run a keyboard or mouse fast, not run faster. Plus, you haven't rebutted rest of my arguments, but just given a list of games.
which is better, tower-defense games(pro) vs other action games (con)

Call of duty may be controversial due to 'the effect on violence on children's minds' angle. You yourself state you don't remember half the game and find it a cynical series. I suggest you play Kingdom Rush, it is better. I played Call of Duty once maybe, it is like all those shooting games. It is too difficult to co-ordinate arrow key movements to dodge bullets, take aim to fire and then press the fire button. I find this very hard. Tower-defense games, on the other hand, have towers that will auto-fire which help me keep much more calmer than running on the battle field. In call of duty(not sure which version), the computer allies were of no help, whereas in tower defense the computer is doing most of the job. Multi-player- Although multi-player is great in Call of Duty, it is as you said 'I was ashamed of myself for losing'. This may even lead to frustration for you at one point, and may end up damaging the computer mouse fire button. Plus the blood, explosion and all that effects are less scarier in tower-defense. You also have to orient yourself in Call of Duty by moving your head with the mouse to see your enemies which may already have killed you in that time, while in tower-defense we have an above view and technically 'we' are not the ones fighting. Storyline- Lastly, I doubt Call of Duty has a sensible story, as you didn't 'care' about it. Kingdom Rush, on the other hand, has a pretty funny and good story. Map- No complex roads for me to travel in tower-defense, thank you. Weapons- In most tower-defense, the towers can't be killed by enemies, and can be upgraded to see a devastating attack effect. In call of duty, I had a bazooka or something, but by the time I figured out how to fire, the enemy killed me, and I had a rifle again. So, that is a disadvantage. Strategy- I think tower-defense involves usage of brainpower, for you need to determine the arrangement of towers, the type you are gonna use, the money you are saving etc. It is better than just aim and fire.
which is better, tower-defense games(pro) vs other action games (con)

The Call of Duty franchise exists in a battleground between its eternal champions and its virulent critics. Some people love the games, some people hate them, and very few of us are caught in between. Where does one begin? How does one attempt to be right in the eyes of Call of Duty? With Advanced Warfare out tomorrow, I"ve compiled this handy ranking system for you in order to understand which games are worth playing and why. Note that I"ve cut out several retellings and side story games because, honestly, who cares? 10. Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 call of duty modern warfare 3.jpg I honestly cannot remember a single thing about this game despite finishing it and playing dozens of hours in the multiplayer. It is the ultimate vanilla product, and it pushed me into a zone where I thought that I no longer cared about this franchise. 9. Call of Duty: Black Ops II call of duty black ops II.jpg Here I will confess to believing that I have never played Black Ops II. However, a very good friend of mine claims that we played the game for hours and hours over one weekend when he was on a break from a trip abroad. We go back and forth about this"him with his strong memories, me with a total lack of them. What I can say is that this game was certainly a Call of Duty game. 8. Call of Duty: World At War call of duty world at war.jpg I played maybe fifteen minutes of World At War total. I was home from college and a thirteen year old challenged me to a one-on-one deathmatch. I thought that I would be able to win, and more than that I thought I could win quickly. He killed me over and over and over again from every angle and I left ashamed of myself. Also, you can apparently summon a horde of dogs to kill your enemies in multiplayer, which is a pretty weird design decision. 7. Call of Duty: Black Ops call of duty black ops.jpg Black Ops was the moment that the Call of Duty franchise really clicked into cruise control on both the single and multiplayer fronts. The former is largely forgettable outside of a few key moments (shooting a fake Fidel Casto; fantasizing about murdering JFK) and the latter steadfastly refused to progress in any way other than in the field of weapon customization. On top of its boring and static qualities, Black Ops might be the most cynical game in the series, featuring a scene where the "protagonist" puts a piece of glass in a prisoner"s mouth and then punches him in the face. It is not a game I ever want to revisit.
The United States Should Confront Saudi Terrorism Sponsorship

Throughout the course of this debate Pro has NOT provided a single example of their claim that Saudi Arabia and "their people" were using the "federal budget to endorse groups of the mujahideen in a war against the Civilized World." And, if the United States is going to confront Saudi Arabia for sponsoring terrorism, we're going to need concrete evidence that such sponsorship has actually taken place. Claims written by people at the Huffington Post or the Salon that aren"t backed up by a single shred of evidence are NOT anywhere near sufficient. In order to make such an extraordinary claim we are going to need rigorous standards of evidence. To use Pros own metaphor as an example, we know Obama won a second term as president - not simply because CNN reported it - but because CNN was able to provide the specifics of how they came to that conclusion. They provided county by county results for every single state and showed the sources from which they got that information. For the 2012 election we knew who was voting, when they voted, what mechanisms were in place to count their vote, and how the votes were tallied so that Obama came out as the winner. However, in the case of Pros argument, we don"t have anything like that. We don"t know who was supposedly sponsoring who, we don"t know when the supposed sponsorship(s) happened, and we don"t know how this information was collected or sourced. Pros standards of evidence are so low there"s no way to tell the difference between fact and fiction. Without evidence, there"s no way to tell the difference between false claims and true claims. In closing, as we don"t have any evidence that Saudi Arabia is sponsoring terrorism, the United States should not confront them. The time for such a confrontation would be AFTER we could show they were funding terrorists. Not before. I would like to thank Amedexyius for putting up this debate and hope we can revisit this or a similar topic in the future. Best regards.
The United States Should Confront Saudi Terrorism Sponsorship

It seems with your criteria of getting your form of factual information is a little too high than what a DDO debater can get. I'm assuming the type of information you're attempting to receive is United States Department of State Official Reportage of Saudi Arabian Expenses Report with a receipt that reads - "1 terrorism bought by Saudi Arabia to the shop of Al Qaeda.". With your reasoning, you can strike down any news source online or Wikipedia article because it isn't linked to an official report. With that reasoning, you may also refute CNN for saying Obama won a 2nd term simply because they didn't post the exact number and names of the electoral college voters. I'm also assuming you only skimmed through most of the articles as for example, Source 4, it stated that S.A promoted and financed "violent Wahhabist radicalism." which is the vocabulary equivalent of terrorism. As I also said which you did not argue against in Round 2, Saudi Arabia's economic system is virtually completely controlled by the government. That means family members and workers affiliated with and sponsor terrorism who may not directly work with the government do have connections with the Saudi Monarchy. And to put an end to this argument, I never said "state-sponsored".
The United States Should Confront Saudi Terrorism Sponsorship

Pros has not provided us with any concrete examples of Saudi Arabia sponsoring terrorism. I will go through the sources Pro provided one by one: The first source cited comes from the CATO Institute and is a paper full of empty assertions. There are no sources provided and the author gives us no specific examples to support their conclusions. There is simply no way that we can address the validity of the quotes Pro pulled from this paper like, "the Saudi monarchy has funded dubious schools and "charities" throughout the Islamic world". We do not know which schools are being referenced, why they"re "dubious", or what they have to do with supporting terrorism. The second source provided is a Huffington Post op ed that links religious leaders in Saudi Arabia to deeply anti-western rhetoric. While this in itself is extremely disturbing- and should be condemned - it is NOT an example of Saudi Arabia sponsoring terrorism. Rhetoric is not monetary sponsorship. The third source provided is an article from the Salon (and if you"re having to cite the Salon as a source you might need to reconsider your position). Almost the entire article is dedicated to covering the excessively harsh punishments for everyday crimes handed out by the state. Again, this is (1) not terrorism and (2) has been condemned by the US State Department. Towards the end of the article it makes the extraordinary claim that Saudi Arabia has spent a 100-billion dollars funding terrorism. But when I follow the link provided to support this claim it takes me to. . . . . . the fourth source provided by Pro which is an article about the about the making of a documentary and the difficulties of explaining the Quran in just one hour. The article states that - in the documentary - the claim was made that Saudi Arabia spent 100-billion dollars on promoting Wahhabism. While Wahhabism is not strictly terrorism in and of itself this would at least be SOMETHING. However, there was no explanation of who came up with this 100-billion dollar number, how this number was determined, which Wahhabist groups were supported, or when the money was supposedly given. Once again, another empty claim. When I said, "before we confront Saudi Arabia we need concrete evidence that can be verified by independent parties" - I mean just that. A specific example of Saudi Arabia giving monetary assistance to a terrorist organisation and evidence of that transaction. Opinion pieces are NOT evidence. Unsupported claims are NOT evidence. Pro has not given us a single example or piece of evidence the US could take to Saudi Arabia and condemn them for sponsoring terrorism. https://en.wikipedia.org...
The United States Should Confront Saudi Terrorism Sponsorship

There is evidence that Saudi Arabia is using federal finances to support Wahhabist extremists in the middle east and in agendas against Western values [1] [2] [3] [4]. If you read the entire Wikipedia article on S.A instead of the first sentence, you would realize how the Saudi state uses 'secondary' funding and direct. Saudi Arabia has government connections with families and control the majority of nearly all markets and industries in the country meaning the government is connected with nearly all transactions made nationally and abroad. Officials and families close to and working with/for the Saudi government uses their huge profits to directly and indirectly fund the Wahhabist agenda of radical Islamist terrorism. In source 3, for example it states "In the past few decades, the Saudi regime has spent an estimated $100 billion exporting its extremist interpretation of Islam worldwide." The Saudi government financing branch also directly funds 'charities' and 'organizations' in the Islamic world who are known for spreading radicalist beliefs. These churches then tunnel the money to violent extremist connections. Source 1, also states "Worst of all, the Saudi monarchy has funded dubious schools and “charities” throughout the Islamic world. Those organizations have been hotbeds of anti-Western, and especially, anti-American, indoctrination." which later in the article leads and supports the indirect tunneling of money from the primary beginning of the Saudi State financial branch. I hope my 4 sources are 'concrete' enough for for you to acknowledge the well known fact of Saudi sponsorship. Sources:[1] http://www.cato.org...[2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...[3]http://www.salon.com...[4] http://www.independent.co.uk...