BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The literal interpretation of the flood,as reported in the Christian NIV bible, could have happened.

I tried to start one off before, but as anyone who saw knows, it wasn't a debate at all. Hopefully with this new one, we will have ourselves an exciting debate ;D. Being Con, I contend that a worldwide flood did NOT happen, and no such thing as the Ark (as is noted in the Bible) ever was built and had survived the ocean's waves as biblical literalists claim to be. This account in Genesis may have very well been an allegorical version of a much smaller flood, but that is not the debate at hand. I won't put too much, since there's just TONS of evidence to the contrary. I will just list the most significant ones in my opinion. (A) In the bible, it says God flooded the earth to the highest of the mountains. Scientifically speaking, such a flood would be impossible. It would take more than five times the amount of water in the oceans and atmosphere to submerge the earth up to its mountaintops. And if that amount of water entered the atmosphere, the resulting pressure would crush people's lungs. . http://www.howstuffworks.com... (B) Genesis says that God instructed Noah to build an ark 300 cubits long, 50 cubits wide and 30 cubits tall. That translates to just under an acre in square footage (4046 square meters), as described in the Epic of Gilgamesh. Noah would have constructed the ark from wood, but the specific type is debatable since different translations specify different types. Whatever the case, it would have been huge. Because of the size and the technology -- or lack thereof -- at the time, wood experts don't think the literal ark could have withstood sailing . http://history.howstuffworks.com... Also, even if the Ark was made, how could more than a handful of the predator species on the ark have survived, with only two individuals of their prey to eat? All of the predators at the top of the food pyramid require larger numbers of food animals beneath them on the pyramid, which in turn require large numbers of the animals they prey on, and so on, down to the primary producers (plants etc. ) at the bottom. And if the predators survived, how did the other animals survive being preyed on? After a flood, how could many species survive with precious habitat destroyed? What about short living animals, like the adult mayflies. They would've died on the Ark in a few days, and the larvae of many mayflies require shallow fresh running water. Many other insects would face similar problems. These are only but a few of the many contrary evidence against flood geology.
The literal interpretation of the flood,as reported in the Christian NIV bible, could have happened.

Being Pro, I believe that Noah's Ark did happen as biblical literalists claim to be. My only requests for this debate is that my opponent prove to me the following: (A) A worldwide flood did Not ever happened. (B) Noah and his family did NOT create an Ark filled with animals and survive such a massive disaster. Remember, everything must be proven scientifically without having at any time resorting to the tired "God did it". Please make your arguments clear and orderly, and let's have fun debating :D
Ron Paul's claim that neocons are leftist liberals, and not the conservatives that they claim to be

If you look the word conservative up on wikipedia, it says: "Conservatism is a term used to describe political philosophies that favor tradition and gradual change, where tradition refers to religious, cultural, or nationally defined beliefs and customs. The term is derived from the Latin, com servare, to preserve; "to protect from loss or harm". Granted that wikipedia isn't the most credible of sources, they've covered the basic philosophy of conservatism which that is that conservatives favor gradual change, and that the term conservative is derived from the Latin for preserved. Clearly, this is not simply my definition of conservatism, and thus your claim that my "definition of conservative is simply using myself as a definition, or fundamental historical libertarian conservatism as a defintion." is false. There is nothing gradual or preserved about the massive increases in government spending and the unconstitutional reallocation of power to the executive branch brought about by neocon republicans. Just because they say that they are conservative, doesn't mean that they are. If you search wikipedia for paleoliberalism and neoconservatives, it says: "According to Michael Lind, in the late 1960s and early 1970s many "anti-Soviet liberals and social democrats in the tradition of Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Humphrey and Henry ("Scoop") Jackson… preferred to call themselves 'paleoliberals'". According to Lind, this group of people influenced or later became neoconservatives. - Lind." I am not claiming that just because neocons aren't conservative that they are liberal, I'm claiming they are liberal because they ARE liberals under a conservative guise. If one party should ideally give balance to the other, neocon republicans are wolves in sheep's clothing. If the liberal opposition is liberal itself, then the scales tip to one side, and there is no balance to the system. There's nothing democratic about a system without balance. As far as your claim that "conservatives were for slavery and resisting women's rights, given things like resisting gays and insisting on women's subordination by the bible etc", you're correct to a point. That is not to say, however, that all conservatives subscribed to these principles or that liberals are themselves without fault.
Ron Paul's claim that neocons are leftist liberals, and not the conservatives that they claim to be

you need to accept that there are variations of conservative. liberals, as everyone knows, as a rule do not believe in the iraq war for example. your definition of conservative is simply using you as a definition, or fundamental historical libertarian conservatism as a defintion. either way, it's not proper to say that if it's not that, then it's liberal, with the example i gave as proof. conservatives then are known for being war mongers, as a variation. not liberals. i'd argue conservatives were for slavery and resisting women's rights, given things like resisting gays and insisting on women's subordination by the bible etc and how liberals are known for civil rights etc. i suppose you could argue liberal, in a way. it's an open question perhaps. but you can't peg things as nebulous as political affiliations as you are doing.
Ron Paul's claim that neocons are leftist liberals, and not the conservatives that they claim to be

I have spoken to several people who claim that George Bush and the other GOP candidates are conservative in their efforts to promote the war in Iraq, the notion to go to war with Iran, the massive increases in government spending during Bush's terms in office, and the unconstitutional reallocation of power to the executive branch. Conservatives advocate small government and give balance to liberal spending and policies. The principles stated above are anything but conservative, therefore, they are liberal. If you think this is a false statement, debate how and why it is false. Please, do not waste my time by replying with a personal attack against Ron Paul. If you want to have a debate about Ron Paul, then let's have a separate debate about Ron Paul. Also, please put your emotions aside and do not reply with anything but concrete refutation to this topic. I'm simply looking for a rational debate in which I can challenge my own beliefs, as well as yours. Maybe I'm right, or maybe you are. Maybe we can both learn a thing or two from one another. Either way, keep it RATIONAL.
HAHAHAHAAHha

Anti-troll? I'm afraid my opponent was not around during my reign as the Troll Queen on this website, during which I established a working government and a head of security known as the Knights of the Troll Table, any of whom would've taken out this fool in an instant for trolling poorly.However, let's move away from this digression. Now while my mom does do that sometimes, I would like to hear my opponent's thoughts about the actual topic, which is nuking marshmallow meadows. It seems a little illogical don't you think?Marshmallow meadows bring joy to all the children. What if children were playing in the marshmallow meadows as they were being nuked?That would make my opponent worse than Hitler.Worse than Stalin even.Actually, he would probably become Satan himself.I will not stand for this treachery. Thank you for reading.
HAHAHAHAAHha

For clarification I'm going to translate my opponent, because he appears to be speaking a different language, but do not worry, I speak it fluently.HAHAHAHAAHha means "Resolved: Nuclear war should be waged on marshmallow meadows."AHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAahaa means "Nukes are kill."Ladies and gentlemen, you cannot vote for my opponent in anyway. Just because nukes are kill does not logically mean that we should use nuclear weapons on marshmallow meadows. That is ridiculous.I expect my opponent to present something more intelligable in the next round. Until then, I simply call my opponent out on his non-sequitur fallacy and thank you for reading.
Rap Battles on DDO Should Employ Vocals Since Vocals are the Meaning in Rap

The Premise for each opponent goes:Pro: Rap Battles on DDO should include at least one vocal representation of the written lyrics.Con: Rap Battles on DDO shouldn't include a vocal representation because...In actual Rap Battles the opponents are judged on more than just punchlines & insults but also delivery & the use of their delivery (aka flow). So why do Judges adopt a pardoning attitude of a lack of accountability with DDO members? Shouldn't DDO members be held to the same "judging criteria" as real rappers for their "vocal delivery"?Pro will demonstrate vocal delivery can be a key essential in determining which DDO member has lyrics that can actually be practically "rapped" thus showing which opponent would likely win in a real Rap Battle.Con must demonstrate vocal delivery isn't a key essential in determining the opponent's lyrics are practical representations of real vocal rapping.Both parties must use these person's lyrics as examples:ShadowKingBlade of TruthMikal9SpaceKingChosenWolffAND (if space & content warrants it) any DDO member who submits their name. Serious Debate (but informal & not restricted to tech speak). Trolls will get ethered in ALL my upcoming Rap Battles.Only Lyrics previously used in past debates.
Rap Battles on DDO Should Employ Vocals Since Vocals are the Meaning in Rap

"All modern computers have built-in microphones. Your argument is dead." I tried finding one on my desktop, asked various sources for how to do it, they said my pc doesn't have a built in mic, so i have to use an external mic. Unless you can show me how to do it (not that it's relevant), your argument is dead. ""Freestyle is a style of rap, with or without instrumental beats, in which rap LYRICS are improvised, i.e. performed with no previously composed lyrics, and "off the top of the head" That's what i put emphasis on. 3. Well the point is, i won that debate thanks to people voting for me. 4. Yes, i admit i lost to Blade, but that was my first rap battle. Ever since then I've made progress and you can see the evidence. 5. It seems to me that you contradicted yourself saying that it's not about great lyrics, but if they can be vocalized evenly, but when it comes to Mikal, you say "most of [his] lyrics in a formatted only suitable for reading not rapping. Very few of his lyrics can be vocally flowed with balance." I can see some of my raps being rapped, but i mostly stick to text drops not worrying about syllables, breaks, etc. because lyrical style and substance are what's more important. You would agree that lyrics would have been modified so that one can flow consistently and fluidly with vocal balance. My opponent in conclusion, fails to address these points: 1. The fact that not everyone can afford a mic, etc. 2. The fact that DDO is text-based 3. While you can vocalize your lyrics, for online purposes, it's not required. In closing, my opponent failed to fulfill his burden of proof.
Rap Battles on DDO Should Employ Vocals Since Vocals are the Meaning in Rap

Some people don't have mics, so that prevents them from participating. If you look up "Free style rap" on wikipedia, it says that it's to perform lyrics, no where does it say that it must be vocalized. Again, that was a nice flow you demonstrated, but i'm more interested in your argument for why vocals should be used. as of now, you haven't shown why breaks in audio would be any more effective than just lyrics. that being said, I'm going to txtdrop my lyrics and not worry about recording my voice. Your exactly right, my lyrics should make you feel like you're about to get sodomized, hacked into pieces, pooped on, cuz you are in this rap battle.while blade is a great rapper, may I remind you that I won that battle you linked people to, so your statement that people would vote "hell naw" is false. you're welcome to try and beat me in a rap battle with Blade's lyrics to audio, but at another time. For now, are you implying that all this time on DDO you have been writing just lyrics and not rap? Your rap battles seem to back that up.. my opponent fails to address the other points listed..
Rap Battles on DDO Should Employ Vocals Since Vocals are the Meaning in Rap

When i said "not everyone is a vocal rapper", i mean that not everyone can vocalize their lyrics for lack of a mic or other things, but stick to written lyrics. Pro states "It"s not about being a professional battle emcee. Simply--its about vocalizing your lyrics as a "reliable source" to provide validity of flow." Like i said, DDO is constructed for a lyrically based rap battle, not for audio. Based on the format of votes, it's more suitable for judging lyrics (grammar, spelling, convincing arguments, etc.) rather than flow. While yes, i agree with you that vocalization in person is preferable, Con states "In real life youre typing on your computer penned down lyrics, so in accordance to real life those lyrics should be feasible to vocally deliver." Not necessarily, i tried to vocally freestyle complex lyrics as i did when i write them online and it disrupts my rhythm. I have to limit my syllables and word uses to a more simpler form. DDO rap battles have more freedom to add a variety of words to their lyrics and can get away with it. "I established not the impossibility of enough breath to spit my lyrics, but that READING them improperly would cause you to get tongue twisted on their flow when you mentally envision the vocalization of them." I argue that it's less effective to add breaks and adding vocals will probably only ruin the power of your visualization of the lyrics. If i write aggressive and powerfully inflicted burns in my lyrics, but my voice isn't suited to create an aggressive tone, it's only going to reduce the effectiveness of my raps. Put it simply, it's better to be straight-forward and lyrical than to have proper flow online. You have a nice flow, but it's not consistent with my visualization of your lyrics so your punchlines aren't as effective to me.
Rap Battles on DDO Should Employ Vocals Since Vocals are the Meaning in Rap

While rapping vocals would be nice, DDO was not really designed to work that way. If you really want vocals, be a part of an actual live rap battle, but other than that, rapping on DDO is simply to drop text. My other point is that the lyrics you deliver online aren't always practical to rap them in real life. I'll illustrate with one of your lyrics from our rap battle . http://www.debate.org...: "I got many fiery fluent flows filled with flare, I fling at you feminine flea bags The first to flaunt fulgurous rapping fatality directly against you fruity f@gs The truth, TruthSeeker: They turn you off like a terrible TV show with trivial teenage vocabulary And tune in to me to be treated with terrific tales as they take a trip through the dictionary I got many fiery fluent flows / filled with flare / I fling at you feminine flea bags The first to flaunt / fulgurous rapping fatality / directly against you fruity f@gs The truth, TruthSeeker: / They turn you off like a terrible TV show / with trivial teenage vocabulary And tune in to me / to be treated with terrific tales / as they take a trip through the dictionary" In that same comment, you admitted that it's not possible to rap this with a considerable amount of breath. May i remind you also that not everyone on DDO is a vocal rapper. That being said, it's easier to create cleverly devised lyrics in which you can write whatever complex words you want and it's valid. In real life, that won't really be possible to vocally deliver. Online you can analyze each other's lyrics and it's alot faster to respond accordingly, whereas in a vocal track, it takes longer and you have to keep up with their vocals. If they mess up (audio isn't loud enough, etc. ), it already disrupted the rap battle. For those reasons, while in real life it's better to rap with vocals because of the purpose and structure of DDO, rappers should stick just to text drops.
Gun Control is an ineffective comfort tactic used by the government to fool the American people

Please excuse my absence, I have been busy doing more important things than debating strangers over the internet I said there was no use of nuclear weaponry because it is not used to defend one's property or self, it is used to destroy an area of interest, I would be killing myself in the process, my opponent is once again putting words in the my mouth to throw me off the debate. I don't have a problem with any of these weapons because they are not the chief weapons in mass shootings, in the last 10 years of mass shootings, I haven't heard any reports of grenades going off or bazookas killing dozens of people, this isn't gun control, it's common sense, guns are used on a personal level, nuclear weapons are used as a group, as a country, there is no use for nuclear weapons, I have a use for automatic weapons, to defend myself, something I couldn't possibly do with nuclear weapons. Are you aware that you can legally own an RPG-7 in the United States? Why hasn't that been used in a mass shooting? Taking away guns does nothing because the people that don't follow the laws WON'T surrender their guns, so why should we put the responsible gun owners in a more vulnerable spot? My final statement on the fact that government gun control DOESN'T work is because it labels law-abiding citizens as enemies, people who just want to live their lives in protection and want true freedom, my opponent has used facile arguments that clearly don't pertain to this argument therefore I cannot recognize them as valid statements
Gun Control is an ineffective comfort tactic used by the government to fool the American people

My opponent has made clear that he is in favor of the government eliminating the use of weaponry that can be used to demolish a large mass of a population. He has used several criterion for restricting weaponry: 1. Imprecise 2. Able to demolish more than one person at a time 3. Unable to be used for self defense without endangering innocents By being in favor of restricting nuclear weapons my opponent acknowledges a few key points: 1. Some forms of weaponry should be restricted by the government (as defined above in points 1, 2, & 3) 2. Government restriction of weaponry is effective enough to prevent use on a marginal basis (implied) --->This is an implied point as my opponent. If my opponent believed that government restrictions of nuclear weapons did absolutely nothing to prevent them from being used then he would otherwise would have been against this issue. Using my opponents logic he would also be in favor of banning/restricting/controlling the following: 1. Grenades 2. Bazookas 3. Automatic weapons This clearly negates my opponents R1 that Gun Contol does "absolutely nothing". If my opponent believed that government control of guns did absolutely nothing, he would also believe that government control of nuclear weapons does absolutely nothing. Clearly he feels differently.
Gun Control is an ineffective comfort tactic used by the government to fool the American people

And so you see, this is where my opponent likes to put words in my mouth, I never said anything about nuclear weapons, firearms are about precision, accuracy, and about hitting a specific target, a nuclear weapon is used to demolish a large mass of a population, no one ever said they were used as self-defense tactics I never said that nuclear weapons should be freely available so again you are putting words in my mouth, there is no reason to concede from this argument when my argument is completely valid and always has been proven for decades Since when did nuclear weapons come up in a gun control debate? The NRA nor the law-abiding citizens are asking for permission to use nuclear weapons, we are demanding that the government respects our rights as Americans to keep and bear arms so that we can protect ourselves when they aren't there to
Gun Control is an ineffective comfort tactic used by the government to fool the American people

By my opponents own stated logic in R1, he should also believe that nuclear weapons should be freely available to the public and that nuclear proliferation does absolutely nothing to prevent a nuclear bomb from being used. If he agrees that nuclear weapons should be freely available to everyone including the mentally unstable, then I will concede this debate. If he does not concede this point, then he must point out in his R2 the differences between owning a nuclear weapon and owning a gun and how the conclusions differ logically.
Eff Iran.

Im confused. The debate was Eff Iran. This is assumed to be F*** Iran, because you provided no alternative. You took the pro side, indicating you were for having sex with Iran. I took the Con, indicating that I do not want to have sex with Iran. I do not understand what action you want to take against Iran, simply saying they are bad is not an argument. Anyways if that is your argument, Iran has oil. We need Oil. So We need Iran.
Eff Iran.

Thank you for that introduction. Since you havent clarified anything, I will just take it literally. I do not believe that sex (f***) is the correct response to Iran's terrorism. I dont even think sex with a country is possible. I mean you might be in to that terrorism stuff but the logistics of it do not add up. There are better ways of dealing with terrorism than having sex with Iran. Vote for my argument if you think it is impractical to deal with terrorism by having sex with Iran.
Mortal Kombat is better than Street Fighter.

I think Mortal Kombat is better than Street Fighter. Starting with that for one, why is the BOSS A PLAYABLE CHARACTER? Feels weird, and I don't get why they at least would make him good for a boss. I also will say, that most of the costumes and characters are extremely dull/stereotypical. Like Ryu, he's an average karate-boxing guy, and we have a fat guy, some quick girl, and a small girl that speaks some native language and attacks with an annoying voice. Not just that, but Capcom hasn't released another Street Fighter since 2009, and NetherRealm Studios only took 3 years to release another one. Sure, the costumes in Mortal Kombat are slightly inappropriate, and the ninjas are often retextures, but Mortal Kombat is unique, with more advanced AL, and more combos and things like that. Personally, I like how Street Fighter is more for kids, but can't they do something more unique for it?