BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Earth is spherical/spheroid shaped

Earth is a spherical planet as shown by pictures given by the ISS, the ISS is not based on NASA as it's an international space station, any country can work there. (UK/USA/China/Canada/India) https://gyazo.com... This telescopic view shows that the ISS is in space and orbiting Earth, you will also see an astronaut near it probably floating around in space. https://gyazo.com... They film regularly, the windows are fully flat so there's no excuse for curved windows virtually curving something https://gyazo.com... Occasionally filmed from the outside with these cameras https://gyazo.com... And in the end, we see a spherical planet being filmed, these aren't faked, maybe possible but the chances are low to death since there is definitely a space station up there with people in it. Ways to see for yourself: Shadows and Sticks If you stick a stick in the (sticky) ground, it will produce a shadow. The shadow moves as time passes (which is the principle for ancient Shadow Clocks). If the world had been flat, then two sticks in different locations would produce the same shadow: Stick Shadows On A Flat Earth What you'd see on flat earth: https://gyazo.com... What you really see: https://gyazo.com... Moriel Schottlender Stick Shadows On A Flat Earth Imagine the Sun's rays (represented by yellow lines) hitting two sticks (white lines) some distance apart. If the Earth were flat, the resulting shadows would be the same length, no matter how far apart you place the sticks. But they don't. This is because the earth is round, and not flat: Varying Star Constellations This observation was originally made by Aristotle (384-322 BCE), who declared the Earth was round judging from the different constellations one sees while moving away from the equator. Stargazing On A Round Earth: Moriel Schottlender: Stargazing On A Round Earth "After returning from a trip to Egypt, Aristotle noted that there are stars seen in Egypt and Cyprus which are not seen in the northerly regions." This phenomenon can only be explained if humans were viewing the stars from a round surface. Aristotle continued and claimed that the sphere of the Earth is of no great size, for otherwise the effect of so slight a change of place would not be quickly apparent. The farther you go from the equator, the farther the known constellations go towards the horizon, and are replaced by different stars. This would not have happened if the world was flat: Stargazing On A Flat Earth Moriel Schottlender Stargazing On A Flat Earth The Verrazano Narrow-Bridge was designed with Earth's "roundness" in mind, it's 2 towers seperated by 1300m and perfectly vertical are nonetheless 41 milimeters further apart at the top than at the bottom because of Earth's curvature. 3:20-3:41 What you see: https://gyazo.com... What you would see on a flat infinite plane: https://gyazo.com... {1} http://www.popsci.com... {2} {3}
Earth is spherical/spheroid shaped

I will challenge Edlvsjd for this debate as he seems to be one of the actually serious flat earthers and not a troll. He will argue Earth is flat while I shall argue it's round, good luck! Rules 1) No trolling 2) No ad hominem 3) No profanity 4) Sources should be given 5) Burden of proof is shared, we both must prove what shape Earth is, is it a sphere/spheroid planet or disk/infinite plane? Rounds 1) Acceptance 2) Opinion with your evidence and sources 3) Rebuttals 4) Defence Good luck with the debate and do your best!
Maximum happiness without the condition of limits is possible

Pain is a regular if not constantly happening with all the aches going through life. You cannot be emotionally happy while you are experiencing an ache or pain. Pain comes in the way of being emotionally happy. Unless there isn't pain even so much as a quantitive amount of happiness cannot be attained. Would a "soul" be the way, where there isn't a natural body? Is there something else? Something where there is still emotion or experiencing? Impossible. I will not become something different to a human body which endures this way of being where there is pain interrupting happiness AND is uncomfortable, or where there isn't feeling emotional or "high" regularly.
Maximum happiness without the condition of limits is possible

On seeing this title I intially immediatly thought of Buddhism, where the enlightment, the state of nirvana, a state of being or state of consciousness is the ultimate hapiness and the ultimate goal of a being trough the accumulation of many lifes. Yes I think it is possible. If we regard hapiness as a state of being instead of something gained trough materialistic desires. It becomes a mere choice and is completly up to the individual as to what thought train he should take. For this round I won't touch supernatural as this quite illusive to talk about in my opinion. In our very dualistic nature there are only two choices we can make at any given time which is love or fear. When we choose fear we are unhappy giving away our own thinking, desires and choices to some one else, if we chose love, we chose to think for ourself, empower ourself and choose happiness. When they say that a man who feels the world is in its way is only in its own way is completely true, meaning the only limits there are are those imposed on self, not talking about levitation or such things. But in our reality we can accomplish anything if we so desire to give it our maximum. Not saying this doesn't go without trial and error. Hapiness is a choice of staying unaffected by whatever happens to someone. For example. In the west it is quite normal for us to cry and mourn for the loss of a person who died. In the east such as India it is quite normal for people to celebrate their life and have a party at their funeral. For this round, I will leave it to this. You can sit and sob or you can say I don't care I'm making the best of it and I choose to be happy(engaging in the present). In order to do this buddhism comes in to teach us about the present being focussed on whats going on now and being centered, not getting carried away by emotion and depending on oneself and nothing external. Though envoirment and relations can affect it is up to the individual as to how much one allows oneself to be affected. If you want to be happy, teach yourself happiness, train your mind and train your heart. Act out of love and compassion, be selfless and unaffected. A wise man mourns for neither the living nor the dead. Suffering is universal, but why does one suffer? Cause the person is engaged in fawlty thoughts, or actions or desires that only lead to unfulfillment. Solomon says know thyself. All thoughts are either past or future oriented. Reason why in meditation one focusses to come to the point of silence. So engaging in the present means letting go of your thoughts.
This house would enforce a complete ban upon alcohol

Banning alcohol completely is a preposterous idea. This world has previously attempted to totally prohibit alcohol, and these scenarios have not ended well. I would like to begin by presenting you with two significant substantives which clearly prove that the moot should fall: Alcohol as a poison: I predict that my opponent will attempt to portray alcohol as a "poison." One of the most common dilemmas causing people to wish for a ban on alcohol is that they view it as a substance that causes great destruction. My position in the debate is not to deny that people can act inappropriately while drinking alcohol. I must, however, prove that it is not the alcohol that is the poison, but the way it is used. Alcohol can be beneficial to the human system, a glass of red wine every night is actually recommended by medical professionals to help with the prevention of heart disease. It only becomes unpleasant when it is taken excessively. This is the same with several other foods and drinks: milk is beneficial to the human body, however drinking it in excessive amounts can be harmful. We do not ban milk; why should we ban alcohol? Freedom of Choice: A lot of freedom of choice would be removed from society if alcohol was to be banned entirely. Responsible drinkers would lose their rights simply because others are misusing their alcohol-related rights. This is completely unfair. There are several irresponsible drivers on the road, but cars have not been banned for this reason. Banning alcohol would violate the freedom of responsible drinkers, therefore the moot should fall: alcohol should not be completely banned.
Social media are damaging to business and the economy

Thank you if you accept this. Social media do not damage business, and in fact act to the contrary. Primarily, the false argument proposed by my opposition is that companies lose media through which to communicate with their target shoppers. This is absurdly far from the truth. Cookies and tracking of account activity allow for marketers to reach their audiences much more strongly. These companies have an easy way to get valuable advertising space on social medium sites and allow for their businesses to thrive at a much greater rate. On that note, it is quite similarly the case in terms of the accessibility of purchasing items. When an ad is put out, it doesn't have to say "Visit the store at [x] main st.!" It can link right to their site wherein people can make purchases directly. This is an extreme advantage for speeding up purchases and company cash influx.
Luxury cars limits poor people's freedom of driving

Ok so when I am driving I am not saying oh snap thats a nice car let me stay away from it that just doesn't make sense. You say rich will make the poor bankrupt yet you never give any statistics of the amount for "Poor people" (by the way you are dehumanizing that class) who stay away from nice cars or the amount of "rich people" who are wanting the "poor" to go bankrupt. Even tho the rich are already rich and the low income class doesn't have money.
Ptibulls should not be kept as pets

According to a debate on debate.org I read 64% of people in the debate said no to pit-bulls being illegal, and I am just one of the 64%. Pit-bulls are just like any other dog, loveable, but vicious. In actuality, Pit-Bulls can be very nice, or very ferocious, it really just depends on the owner, so I suggest not to judge them immediately. Honestly pit-bulls are usually just as aggressive as the average dog. People tend to just make a big deal out of them because of their bad reputation. Pit-bulls are currently used as rescue dogs in some places along with other dogs proving they can work with other dogs and humans. Pit-bulls are a breed I think we can live with in harmony.
Ptibulls should not be kept as pets

If an owner trains a dog to be vicious it will be vicious. If an owner trains a dog to be nice, protective, loving and fun, then it will be exactly that. The way anyone or thing is trained to act is the same way they will most likely for the rest of their lives. The same rules apply to pit-bulls, but because most dog owning criminals choose to have a pit-bull doesn't mean they are worst than other dogs. I've seen dog bites worse than pit-bull bites and from what I heard it basically was the owner's fault. That's the way the media portrays them and I think they're over reacting. I mean they're dogs what else would you expect?
Vigilantism is justified when the government has failed to enforce the law.

Well I think that your laziness is rubbing off on me now, lol. C1 - We both agree C2 - First of all, we're not debating if the government is moral or not, we're suppose to be arguing if the government fails to enforce the law, should the people. It's a matter of enforcement and not legitimacy. Second, this is a big if by the Negative. He is only hoping that the government is illegitimate. But looking at the big picture, people enforcing the law keeps order, but if the government fails, then we are in an anarchist state. C3 - The law isn't at fault if the government fails, the department that is supposed to uphold the law fail (mainly the police department or military) C4 - An act of vigilantism is an act of civil disobedience. It's not bad thing to do if the law fails you. You're trying to show the government the fault in their actions so they can repair it. In the mean time, justice is being achieved by upholding the law, rather than leading an anarchist movement. When the government fails to enforce the law, the only thing that is keeping law and order is the vigilantes trying to uphold the law. When you look at the resolution as a whole, it is much better for vigilantes to uphold the law rather than doing nothing at all and leading to anarchy. Thus I urge you to vote for the Affirmative side. Thank you, Luke, and good luck in the rest of the tourney.
Vigilantism is justified when the government has failed to enforce the law.

I'm using the theory argument of laziness. You should vote for me knowing that I can argue better but I'm being extremely lazy making me incapable :D C1: Agree with value analysis. Whoever gets it more. C2: Against this all I really have to say is that the law is not guarenteed to be moral. And it would be unwise of us to blindly assume it as good. Otherwise there is literally no ground for me to argue on. Futhermore, it would be even more unwise to hope that one person knows better than the people as a whole. And if you vote on anything, vote on a group of people being right more than one person. Especially in a society. C3: There is a reason that the law failed, and generally it is the laws fault. This is why we should move to strengthen the law rather than to put our faith in inconsistent law (EG: Vigilante) C4: Here is the problem with this argument. If you become a vigilante, not only are you trying to prevent unlawful acts, but in your attempt, you break the law once again. Even what batman does breaks the law, thus only when it is done as awesome as batman does it, will my opponent get value. However, when it is done poorly, only legal justice can achive value. And since we don't know how the vigilante will act, you must default CON. For these reasons, I urge you to vote CON! Thanks and sorry for my laziness!
Vigilantism is justified when the government has failed to enforce the law.

I've officially hit the peak of laziness. And I'm really busy. So I hope I can post all of my rounds. If it were anyone but la croix I would have forfeited but I knew this would be too good to miss. So with that, I wish good luck to my "biggest rival" :D I negate: Vigilantism is justified when the government has failed to enforce the law. CONTENTION ONE: VALUE OF LEGAL JUSTICE ---Making this value stronger, makes it so that vigilantism won't need to be used so much CONTENTION TWO: CRITERION OF ADHERENCE ---In order to legitimize legal justice we must adhere to it. Breaking from it at any time loses the point of government in general. CONTENTION THREE: Vigilantism may be inappropriate, just like the government, however, we need to keep something consistent. ---The way the law must work consistently or else there is no point to it. And although it may fail time to time, we must also recognize that vigilantism fails from time to time as well. Therefore, the net benefit is given to the con side where there is actual consistency. CONTENTION FOUR: Legal Justice is the decision of all whereas vigilantism is the decision of a few (or less). ---Thus, the legal justice decision is almost always the decision of the people. And whether it is right or wrong (usually right), it is what must be done. Changing from this is unjustified. His Case V- Justice ---Neither of us can guarantee justice. However, con guarantees consistency through the law. Furthermore, the law gives chance for permanent change, whereas vigilantism is always random. C- Taking Action ---Action can be taken through changing the law. And history has shown that often this is the more just action. In the case of this resolution, it may be the lesser of two evils, but it is still the right thing to do. Batman was created in an idealistic world that can not be compared to in the real world. After the law has been "failed to be enforced", I offer you two options. Either A) Become a vigilante risking more than anyone wants to risk, or B) Change the law! History has shown through Civil Rights and Suffrage that the law can be changed if you work hard enough. And it's only until you do that, where you will get REAL change. Batman will die eventually, the law will never die. Vigilantism will fail just like the law will. Vigilantism is flawed for similar reasons that dictatorships fail. It gives too much power in the hands of one individual. Government is made to protect all, which is not accomplished with a vigilante. If you were to truly accept his final argument, then it would work fine to eliminate all laws and to only prosecute each other. This is a flawed idea, and thus this resolution is flawed. I therefore urge you to negate! Thanks and good luck.
Women should not be punished for sunbathing topless.

Though the UN is free to pass resolutions on any topic they choose, the recent history of those resolutions and their efficacy is sketchy at best. Consider UN resolutions and sanctions regarding Iran and North Korea. These actions have failed to substantially change the policies of these regimes. UN resolutions have been notorious historically for their impotence, and principles of individual liberties and local sovereignty dictate, and rightly so, that the UN have no substantial power to influence or direct policies of member nations. Without a substantial shift in the authority and mission of the UN, my opponent's conclusion cannot be implemented. My many regards to my opponent for his thoughtful topic!
Women should not be punished for sunbathing topless.

Many thanks to OncomingStorm for his considered comments. With regard to the role of the United Nations, although it cannot impose the collective will of its members upon any given nation, they can exert a great deal of influence on oppressive regimes and their respective electorates. For example, while the United Sates were unwilling to unilaterally criticise Israel when they recently bombed Palestinian homes, schools and hospitals in Gaza and their soldiers used Palestinian children as human shields, for fear of upsetting Jewish American political donors and media moguls, they were, as members of the UN, able to express their dissatisfaction by echoing the concerns of the wider international community. Similarly, a country such as France with its large Muslim minority population and strong historical links with the Islamic world could use a UN resolution to ensure that Gallic totty on holiday in Dubai could get their fabulous French funbags out without worrying about being arrested. Thank you.
Women should not be punished for sunbathing topless.

You posit an interesting topic - thank you! Your premise, that unequal decency laws that prohibit women from sunbathing topless but not men, is acceptable, but your conclusion, that the UN should force the abolition of unequal laws, is harmful to national, regional, and local sovereignty. Any and all decency laws should be issues of only local jurisdiction, based on the moral and aesthetic standards of the community. Now, if your community continues in this practice, you are free to defend equal protection as you see fit.
Women should not be punished for sunbathing topless.

It's sexist and it's wrong. While a man on a beach can take his shirt off and run about willy-nilly, in repressive countries such as Saudi Arabia, the Islamic Republic of Iran, North Korea and the United States of America, women who strip to the waist are liable to be arrested and charged with indecent exposure. So why is that? Both men and women have nipples so that can't be the reason and a lot of fat blokes have bigger jubblies than some slim women do so that can't be the excuse either. http://www.gotopless.org... No, at the end of the day, it's just sexual bias, pure and simple and it's time the United Nations stepped in and passed a resolution that would enshrine the right of women to get their thru'penny bits out on the beach without fear of getting into trouble with the authorities. Thank you.
anything that seperates us is evil.. therfore god is the evil one

I disagree with your premise that anything that separates us is evil. There are various degrees of separation such as physical separation, ideological separation, and spiritual separation. Likewise there are different degrees of evil such as physical evil (the lack of some physical good like health that should be there by nature) and moral evil (a depraved action that harms/destroys love for someone). Love for one's country could be the cause of one separating oneself from that country to go fight in a war but in this case the cause of the separation is not evil so we have already found an exception to your premise. Also, I fail to see how it is that God separates us. I believe that there is one perfect all-loving God that wills everyone to spend eternity with Him. Spiritual and ideological separations with regard to belief in God come as a result of things like ignorance, malice, and personal experience all influencing the decision on where to stand.
Abortion

Definition of abortion: the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus. http://www.merriam-webster.com... I believe that abortions should be allowed. It is the woman's choice whether she wants to have a baby or not. There is absolutely nothing wrong with abortions. Abortions don't kill babies since the baby is not born yet. What if a woman is raped and wants to have an abortion? There are many such cases in the world, even today. Anyway, I need Con to post some arguments; for now I can say no more.
The Gospel of Jesus is a patchwork of plagiarized material from non-Judeo-Christian sources

Christians claim that eternal life is offered by belief in Jesus Christ and his death on the cross for the sins of humanity, by belief in the Jesus of the gospel writings of the bible (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John). The gospel story of Jesus is a remarkable story to say the least. But I maintain it is just that-- a fictional story about a fictional character, and a story composed of fragmented borrowings from other sources. The gospel story of Jesus is actually nothing more than a mix of characters, names, sayings, and events from other crucified savior mythologies, religions, and ancient writings. There is little to nothing original in the gospel story. One would think that a God coming to earth as a human (Jesus), requiring humans to believe in such a fantastical story, would at least make the story original. I posit that the gospel story is anything but original, that the story is almost completely plagiarized, that it is non-original, and as such certainly is not a story of a divine person or god. Saint Augustine, the eminent early Church leader, himself admitted "That which is known as the Christian religion existed among the ancients, and never did not exist", i.e. that christianity is simply a retelling of the ancient savior mythologies that have always existed among civilizations. The Christian Father Justin Martyr (c. 100-165 CE) even admitted that christianity offered nothing new that did not exist in ancient pagan religions. In Justin Martyr's First Apology and his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, Justin Martyr admits to similarities between Christianity and the many ancient savior gods; he admits to virgin births, of miraculous healings, and deaths and resurrections, of other savior gods outside of christianity (e.g. Justin admits to Hercules' virgin birth, resurrection, and ascension to heaven. Justin admits to Perseus' virgin birth, and how Aesculapius raised the dead and did miraculous healings and imitated the prophecies about Christ). Lactantius (240-330 CE), an early Church writer, wrote, so as to convince the pagan elite to convert to christianity, about how the ancient pagan savior-god stories were proof that christianity was a valid religion, since christianity was thus as valid as those religions. Thus the challenge: What is original in the gospel story of Jesus, to make it worth even considering as a valid basis for the Christian faith?