BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Lizard People Are Taking Over! Oh Noes! (New Discordianism Schism)

PRO concedes on the age of the univrse, but claims that he was referrng to a multiverse: however, he hasn't proven, nor has science proven, that this definitely the case, nor is the 10 trillion figure evidence. Demand evidence, or drop his entire anecdote.He then g oes on an incoherent rant about there being 11 dimensions, but again provides zero evidence. Even if this were true, he's dancing around the resolution. He dosn't provide any evidence that there are in fact lizard people, and recall that this is his BOP.He say that we can't calculate the amount of time between universes, and this is true if there were multiple universes, but (a) he doesn't prove that there are and (b) he, not I, made an assertion of 10 trillion years. He's admitting that he can't actually prove this number to the be the case, which is conceding that his entire R1 was nonsense. He says quantum mechanics could allow ridiculous things to occur - again, no evidence for this whatsoever, though even if it were true, there's no evidence for actual lizard people. The claim on an evil demon is merely an assertion, and his citation is nothing more than a sparknotes page on Descartes's Mediations. But this is a misrepresentation: the "evil demon" was a *thought experiment* in Descartes's work. This isn't evidence of creatures who go unseen - only the last sentence of PRO's round is even relevant, and for that he provides no evidence at all. Note also that PRO is only source-spamming. Two of his sources are on irrelvant material on quantum mechanics that doesn't even bear on the resolution, and the third is a piece written by Descartes that he used to "prove" the existence of an evil demon. He hasn't even linked his caims to his sources, which is a flagrant misuse of his sources. Once more, he needs to prove the existence of lizard people, *and* that they are taking over. He does nothing of the sort thus far.
The Lizard People Are Taking Over! Oh Noes! (New Discordianism Schism)

I submt tht the Erth may indeed be only as old or even the very univrs as old as my opnt claims it to be in fact I agree But I would add that that is only terrstrial time or the time for which this univrs we reside in is timed byAs we know thanks to the great work of our qantm phys there is indeed a great and expansive multivrs beyond our univrs and it is from those actions that our universe came into existence through the big bang Univers are dying out and being born in that multivrs potentially infinitelyTime applies to our universe and our erth and you cn time it by the amnt my opnt has calculated it as beyond time as it exists in that context there is also the contxt of time as it exists in the multivrs and all those other univers indeed as time exists in parrellel univers evenWhy there are as we now know thnks to the great work of quantum phys who r currntly working on this in String M Theory ther r 11 dimension and thruout all 11 dim one of the factors that is common to all is that time exist in them along with factors such as gravtyknow there are 11 dim because the math bears it for when you get up to the 12 or 13 dim then the structure of mathmtics becms unstble and breaks back into 11 dimcould we possbly calculate how much time has passd altogthr beyond our tiny little univrscouldnt We just know the number would be huge in proprtion to how long our univrs has existed within thatFurthrmr I submit that qantum mecancs allow the utmst ridiculous and impossible things to occr One moment you could be in bed and next you'd be floating on Mars! You have to wait until the death of the universe for that remote possibility to occur thanks to the law of averages but it will evntllyAn evil demon tries to deceive our minds/science There are creatures in other dim though they go unseen and cnt particlrly interact whttp://en.wikipedia.org...http://www.sparknotes.com...real is imagined
The Lizard People Are Taking Over! Oh Noes! (New Discordianism Schism)

I accept. PRO ha the entirety of the burden of proof to demonstrate that the lizard people are taking over. Thus far, he provides no evidence at all for this masive claim. His anecdote refers to an event from ten trillion years ago, but the universe itself is only 14 billion years, and the solar system 4.5 billion, so this isn't even possible [. http://tinyurl.com...]. Simply acknowledging that one fact, you can disregard everything he has written - and note, of course, that he cites not the tiniest bit of evidence. Truly, everything he has written thus far - and, because this debate is limited to 2,000 characters, I can't take it line by line, though I don't have to - reads like a science fiction novel. It's a cute story, though there's zero reason at all to think that any of it is accurate.
The Lizard People Are Taking Over! Oh Noes! (New Discordianism Schism)

I hereby submit to this august body that precisely ten trillion years ago (in phase IV, third dimensional time) that interdemensional reptiloids penetrated the veil of our delusional, effete potato-munching and highfalutin world and began the process of trolling the multiverse known as POPTART. When the rat that sat on the pink cat felt the anal blood fart rise through the MEST he mistakenly thought of as Elizabeth Taylor then this gave rise to our Gnostic Mother the Supreme Sophia who as such emanating forth as a mistake because the original postulate got all mixed up and instead of being a Black Russian sort of drink it became a White Russian drink and the Thetans she produced like a abortion & didn't much like the taste of such a strong tasting liquor so it got inside there in a kind of fat wombat sort of way and it all jams up you see and they were frozen in their pants as they peed themselves and that became Incident One and that became the main trigger for a mad little bowler called Xemu or Xenu and he thought he was God so he made up all these little turtles and he started stacking all these turtles up to the limits to see how far he could get but then there was this wild chariot that WHOOSHED by and knocked all the turtles back down so he had to start alllllll over but every time he did this the chariot would go WHOOSH and that became the DP5-Implant which today is more commonly thought of as the Sisyphus Conundrum and hence forth and so forth and so on this became a sort of Dialectic if you will and you may have heard of a fancy little puppet called Hegel and well this was definitely an Abolsolute Idealism because you got this mad dash to stack up all these turtles to the limits and we call it the noumenal world acting on the material universe of phenomena and really that's just a Form because in order to get a thing like table you're going to need a Form for tableness. Universe unfolds it through series of internet tubes.
Lets debate Evolution

I will assume that by debating evolution my opponent means debating whether evolution is a satisfactory explanation for the existence of life and humanity. He may expect that the position of Con would be filled by a creationist, this is not the case. I am not a creationist, I am not religious. Since my opponent did not present any guidelines as to the format of this particular debate I will assume that he would like to follow the standard format, opening statements for acceptance, no rebuttal in the second round, final round for closing statements with no new arguments. If he had something different in mind then he should feel free to put this in his opening argument. I look forward to a lively debate.
A Missile Defense System

Now why countries need a missile defense system is for their own protection. This can be optional for them and they can make as complex or as simple as they wish. They can make as cheap or as expensive. They can decide how long they wish to have this missile defense system. The countries that may not be able to afford a missile defense system may not have missiles anyway and there maybe some that do. It make sense to save money and in my opinion we can do that by spending less in the military budget to things the military may not need anymore. Now why are missiles necessary? Why did Hitler try to make V2 Rockets? Why did the USA make nuclear bombs? The reasons is because essentially missiles save lives. No I am not addressing the nuclear missiles which can kill far more but rather average missiles. Now these anti-missile defense systems will have a variety of weapons that can attack missiles from the sky. Depending what type of missiles it is will depend on what should counter it. For example the SDI can possibly use satellites from space that have lasers to attack missiles. This arms race is for protection against missiles which could cause a lot of destruction. The question is would a country with missiles fire on a country that can just repel them? Eventually if every nation had a missile defense system then the missiles would have not point causing nations to stop using missiles and try to find an alternate weapon which may not be easy. . http://en.wikipedia.org...
A Missile Defense System

Now, onto business. Why does every country need a missile defense system? My opponent seems to believe its a necessity for safety, to spend millions of dollars on such systems. How will every country afford this? Surely some countries wouldn't be able to, in which others gain a clear advantage. Now, why is the missile defense system a necessity? I propose that rather than spend more money on this war related device, that all countries save some money. Here is my plan. Everyone has their missiles for one reason, to defend themselves from other countries with missiles. Due to fear, they spend money on these missiles, and for that reason only, not to use them. They spend because someone else has a missile and they want to have their own so they can threaten, "Bomb me and I will bomb you. " I propose that, rather than spend money on these missile defense systems, that we move to have every missile carrying power disable their missiles. Now, my opponent has failed to specify what type of missiles these systems will defend against. I must assume he is talking about the larger missiles, such as nuclear missiles, and tomahawk missiles. I am assuming the smaller missiles, such as RPG's, are not considered within these systems. He also fails to mention what the size, and area of coverage these systems have. Will they cover 500 square miles, or will they cover 2 square miles? The size of the systems will directly affect what these systems will defend against. My opponent wishes to create another arms race, as we all have seen during the cold war. If one country gets this defense system they can boast, "Hey! I can bomb you, but just try and bomb me! " Is it really necessary to start such another money pit, or stop this madness and recycle those metallic revenue vortexes.
A Missile Defense System

The reasons these V2 rockets were built as well as the nuclear bombs was to save lives but that does not mean they still killed. The nuclear bombs killed 246,000 lives at Hiroshima and Nagasaki all together. When you put a missile defense system that can even save more lives because their intentions are to stop missiles from even causing any damage. A missile defense system would ensure the lives of millions of people that could be living in a country. Whoever gets the missile defense system first may not want war and second why would they go to war? The fact is that you can not predict what will happen when a nation gets a missile defense system because A) you do not know which country is is and B) you need to provide an example on why they would go to war. Some nations that you may see as ones that may go to war may actually not and C) how are you so sure that country would not want to share its technology to make the world safer? How will other countries react to this? There are a lot of things at stake when going to war. You have to remember that I said "Eventually, if every country had a missile defense system...". I said IF not when if it is their choice IF they want one. I want to get rid of missiles and the best way to that is to make missiles look obsolete by making something that can stop them. Missiles are one of the best weapons today that can fire on an enemy but when it is impossible to fire on that enemy due to a missile defense system then your plan to use missiles has failed. Because missiles are so important today no country would want to get rid of their missiles. The only way to make countries to stop using missiles is by making something that can stop them. This has been a routine that has happened through history. Armor was used to stop sword from hitting areas of your body, muskets were used to penetrate armor, rifles were used to shoot further than muskets, and one shot rifles were eventually replaced by repeating ones. Cavalry was the new fast moving force of the day, and then pikes as well as square formations caused forced to repel cavalry attacks, then the car comes and the tank too. History has shown that unless there is something better that can stop other things (like armor being used to stop swords from hitting areas) then they would mainly keep the same weapon. When something comes that can stop rockets then the world would finally see that there maybe no need for rockets anymore. http://inventors.about.com... http://www.history.com...
Peyton Manning will not win more than 9 games or take the Broncos to the playoffs

Since i did put or and we are starting the debate i choose this argument to be viewed as Pro and Con arguing both since i chose to use "or" as both. I believe Peyton Manning wont win more than 9 games for the following reasons. 1. Manning is 36 years old coming off 4 neck surgeries. It has taken Manning so long to get cleared to play. Just about over a year since his injury he has struggled. The schedule for the Broncos this year is a very tough schedule. Broncos also have a low rated O-line. Many saw Tim tebow scramble but instances show that the O-line has broken down around him forcing him to run. Peyton is 36 with a healing neck injury. Can you expect Manning to sit still and take hit after hit. I believe his neck will be re-injured. 2. Manning was with the Colts offense for over 10 years. He has built that offense and focused only on that system. Putting Peyton with the Broncos means Peyton has to change a lot of what hes learned. If the coaches decide to go by wait he learned then they would be forcing the offense to learn a different system. It will take a while for Peyton to develop the system and become successful. How can you expect Peyton to win within 4 years or 5 years before he retires. 3. Peytons division is also tough. Peyton Manning when playing for the colts had there perfect season ended by the Chargers. The Chargers also knocked the Colts out of the playoffs back to back years. The Chargers have experience playing against Peyton Manning. Eric Weddle is coming off a 7 interception season. Peyton Manning threw 3 interceptions to chargers Antonio cromartie in one game. The Chargers know how to play football. The Cheifs have a promising offense and a good defense as well as the Raiders who will also have some extra draft picks to get and even better team. 4. The Broncos have a very tough schedule and will face at least 8 of the playoff teams this year. Falcons, Saints, Packers, Bengals, Texans, Steelers, Lions. These are just some of the toughest teams on schedule Through this i believe Peyton will not win more than 9 games due to his injuries, new offense, face a tough division where offensive mistakes are made. The chances of Peyton getting injured are higher than the chances of him winning 9 games or more. The Broncos also don't have eddie royal or Reggie wayne who was thought to come with Peyton Manning. Peyton has had an offense filled with Pro bowlers and now he dosent. Thankyou http://indianapolis.about.com... http://mobile.bloomberg.com...
Peyton Manning will not win more than 9 games or take the Broncos to the playoffs

I accept, but let's make things clearer for the judges, When you ut OR it means Con has to prove he will achieve 1 or the other, or both. So, Pro's job is essentially to disprove Con's, So let's say i only advocate The Broncos winning 9 games, I still have kept my BOP. Good luck Pro, and these rules are laid out because of the wording of the resolution and the use of the word OR. OR and AND are two different connectors, i view or as 1 v 1 and AND and 1 + 1.
Earth will Have a Global Revolution within 500 Years

If we are to fight we have to start now. With the current mindset of the people i dont think any cares to fight against the govt./depressing corporates. "Small-scale city-states can easily ally with others or be independent. It's all in the government." So I guess it doesnt really matter large or small cities as i said in the previous argument. "Corporations will stay international, but I don't see how they would "take over" city-states as Con is saying." You are the one who said in the previous argument that Corporation will be local and HQ being dedidcated to state. Yeah people may or maynot fight back. As i said in the first sentence it all depends on the mindet and with the current going i dont think a proper fight back will be waged by the people. And also as i said in the previos argument still its a 50-50 scenario. And some corporations still give me hopes of brining advancement to humans namely Space X, Tesla Motors working closely with the governments all over the world. So if corporations with positive mindsets like that comes up then we can surely hope for a better future and i still beleive there will be many coming. Lets home best for the future of humanity :) Many Thanks to you also AwesomeSaucer for showing interest in debating with me and it was my first time here in debate.org and i had my difficulties but this sounds fun, looking forward for more.
Earth will Have a Global Revolution within 500 Years

Like I said earlier, humanity would surely fight against a large-scale government. It would be impossible. Small-scale city-states can easily ally with others or be independent. It's all in the government. Corporations will stay international, but I don't see how they would "take over" city-states as Con is saying. And lastly, I see your Con's point with corporations, but city-states can still team up and fight against corporation-takeover. Besides, why does Con think corporations will want to take over in the first place? It was a pleasure debating with you, CosmicSpirit.
Earth will Have a Global Revolution within 500 Years

Does it really matter if the city is small or big and the way the pendulum swing? Even if all you say is true do you really think that these small cities as you mention get independent powers and be able to exercise themselves? Can they just be themeselves they have to depended and be depended on the big shots.These governance will be always be controlled by some big guy. That is what I have been stressing from the start. Its not the elected government that takes decision but some shadow people. You can see how biased decisions and laws are being made. The biggest threat is these corporates are also swininging in a rather weird direction same as your case with small cities. Small or Big it doesnt really matter as long as they have control. We see how some governments take over the other countries and say they have established democracy and put a puppet government out there. And this is not a rare case we have seen the same thing happening all over. These are the government who will be pushing us into the idea of direct democracy, I seriously doubt if they will ever do that and even if they do it, it will be by making some hidden knots so that people dont exercise the ultimate power. I seriosly have no faith in way the world is moving. This is a 50-50 scenario we could maybe expect or wish that these worst scenarios doesnt happen. Ultimately its who exercise the power and who has the resource in hand and not if its small cities or big cities. Hence there is always that big shots who exercise the power. And i would like to add some more about the privacy and user data. As you mentioned the agencies themeselves use it and i agree yeah maybe they do just some good by spotting terrorist out. And to add if i say they can be used for even worser things. Say a Company Z sucessfuly makes a medicine for Diesease, and say a Company X gives money to Company Y to steal information from Z and so as to jeopardize Z. And thus here no government agency is involved corporates can simply sell the user data. Every common man can be a victim. I dont know how corporations can be local. It will always be global and be exercising as much power and area. They will try localize and get in each and every corner, I think thats the correct way of saying. It will be like watch out they are everywhere. I dont know if i am being too hard on Corporates, maybe they will be the one who is creating a fake global revolution :)
Earth will Have a Global Revolution within 500 Years

The progress of human history has generally swung from a very individual point of view into a very totalitarian one, and I believe it is currently swinging back.Think of it like this: the cavemen were extremely individual, all they had were their family and a cave. About 10000 years ago, different families started joining together, and eventually began farming. This was the beginning of human civilization. Then, about 5000 years ago, different city-states joined together and created places like Egypt and Mesopotamia: the first human countries and empires. These empires were all led by a very select few (mostly only one person), and they were the largest and most powerful governments humanity has ever had. The UK just 400 years ago ruled almost the entire world.Then, America came, and started swinging the pendulum back to small city-states. The most powerful country in the world shrunk from the entire world to a section of a continent. And this is where we are today: different sections of individual continents (with the exception of Russia) being sectioned off into countries, usually under a representative democracy rule.We can only swing the pendulum farther in the direction it is going at this point, and that direction is smaller countries.Now to technology.Privacy is a HUGE issue today, I will NOT argue with you there. But I will say most of our issues in provacy come from government agencies rather than companies. Google will never have a human look at your emails (it's all done by robots), but the NSA, for example, could easily look at a terrorist's communication.Is that a good thing? Maybe. We don't want terrorists plotting in secret, but the NSA could easily mastake a normal person as a high-risk bomber.Your best argument is certainly your argument about how people won't get involved in politics if Direct Democracy takes over. This issue has several solutions (Liquid Democracy, better education) and I really think its up to the now much smaller city-states to solve this issue. That said, because countries in 2515 have shrunk immensely, politics will become much more local, and as such, more accessable to the public.You ended off your argument on a note of conspiracy regarding corporations. You would be correct if the pendulum was pushed in the other direction, and the world would unite as one great nation, but since countries are getting smaller, corporations will only be more local. For all we know, an entire city-state could be dedicated to being the HQ of a worldwide corporation in the future.https://en.wikipedia.org...https://en.wikipedia.org...;