BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Home-made cookies are better than the "tube" of dough.

Pre-Made Cookies, or cookies that may come from a "tube" are superior to home-made, made-from-scratch, cookies. I'd like to thank the Proposition for opposing me in this debate and wish her well. Opening Arguments: 1. Pre-made dough is produced the same way every-time so you know that you can consistently have great-tasting cookies and throw out the worries of making mediocre-cookies. This also eliminates the process of "experimenting" recipes and failing miserably once or twice before finding the perfect recipe. Experimenting with recipes can lead to the wasting of ingredients, something that is very hard, especially during tough times like these. 2. Pre-Made cookie dough also eliminates a lot of the hassle, especially when you want cookies made quickly, this allows you to go from cookie-less to happy in almost no time flat! It also takes away almost all of the dirty dishes that would have gotten dirty while blending the mix, not to mention the dirty counter from ingredients that didn't quite go directly into the bowl. 3. With Pre-made cookie dough, it is easier to find the nutrition facts included in the cookies so that you can better manage your diet. When making homemade cookies, you may be unaware of the calories, sugars, etc. included inside the cookie. All in all, Pre-made cookies are a quick, easy, and tasty solution for anyone and everyone who are craving cookies but do not wish to go through the long and tiring process of making them from scratch.
Home-made cookies are better than the "tube" of dough.

Home-made or "from scratch" chocolate chip cookies are better cookies than those that come from the processed, pre-formed tube of cookie dough. Round 1: Acceptance/ Opening arguments Round 2: Arguments/ Rebuttals Round 3: Closing arguments/ Rebuttals I wish to have a good debate to whoever accepts. Opening arguments: By using fresh ingredients, the overall product of the cookie will taste better. One can burn more calories by the whole evolution of making the cookies (beating the batter/dough) and thereby possibly break even when eating the cookies, than if just slicing the pre-formed tube and placing on the cookie sheet. This is good for some people prefer to watch their intake of sugar & their weight especially at holiday times. With home-made cookies, there are more possible options for variety in the end product of the cookie; such as chocolate mint chip, English toffee, et cetera. And more control if there are needs to care about allergies.
That Feature-Length films, when in Theaters, ought to include a Commercial Break during the Movie

Round one acceptance.Feature-length: 40 minutes is the cut-off mark.Commercial breaks: These are equal to or less than 5 minutes long and are included within the movie at the producer's and director's affirmations, as well as the theater's agreement. If the Producer, director and theater all agree, they will also be able to arrange times for when the commercial plays.
That Feature-Length films, when in Theaters, ought to include a Commercial Break during the Movie

Sorry, I realized in round two that I had possibly made a mistake since incredibly long movies might need more than one commercial break to be enjoyable. I surrender because I suppose the five minutes was too much. Perhaps only a one-minute commercial would be much more fair, or even two 30-second commercials laid out anywhere within the movie. Note that your sources do confirm that the "commercial-less" works for young generation more than older people though, since the younger people have shorter attention spans; while my studies cover the entire range of TV watchers.
That Feature-Length films, when in Theaters, ought to include a Commercial Break during the Movie

I accept the challenge. For clarification, will we be debating a single commercial break of 5 minutes regardless of movie length, or will longer movies have more commercials? Let's take Quentin Tarantino movies, for example. His first movie, Reservoir Dogs, is roughly an hour and a half. This would mean the commercial break would take up roughly 0.05% of the film's run time. Tarantino's latest movie, The Hateful Eight, is over three hours, making the commercial break around 0.027% of the film's run time. My question: are we talking about one 5 minute break per movie, or one 5 minute break after every 40 minutes, as you listed for the cut-off?
Gay

NickT Con Have a wonderful day- You are right I didn't support my facts I'm sorry. I did have sources, However I can't find them on browsing history, I will suprort my claims this time around: also I am very sorry I am in a hurry so I'll be writing less this time around. A child should be with there biological parents but I'm not saying adoption is not an option as adoption. Org states "can be incredibly beautiful and provide a loving family for a child who would otherwise not have a family of which to be a part. Adoption can also be an option for placement of children whose parents were simply unable or not ready to parent" but I strongly disagree in terms of same sex parenting, The study by sociology professor Paul Sullins found that "[a]t age 28, The adults raised by same-sex parents were at over twice the risk of depression as persons raised by man-woman parents. " In addition, There was an "elevated risk associated with imbalanced closeness and parental child abuse in family of origin; depression, Suicidality, And anxiety at age 15; and stigma and obesity. " 5. You claim that same-sex partner's surrogate children would be worse off still because studies show that biological parents have a leg up on one biological parent and one step parent. This is a false equivocation. The two are not equal. You need studies specific to surrogate children of same sex couples versus opposite sex parents. -true 6. You cite numerous "testimonies. " Anecdotal evidence is sometimes worse than no evidence. You need statistics to support claims relating to larger numbers of people. All your anecdote proves is that there is probably at least one person who felt they could've done better in a home with a father, And that isn't even proof her outcome was objectively worse, Just that she felt that she missed her father. -yes you are very right here to 1. There is no statistical proof that adopted children raised by same-sex couples fare worse than adopted children of opposite-sex couples. There are studies that show same-sex is slightly superior in some ways and others that show same-sex is slightly inferior in some ways. This is what we would expect to see if they are the same-very true I think that is settled on both sides Do same-sex adoptive parents lead to better outcomes than foster care? Yes they can sometimes, Agisn I'm not saying that same sex is always a bad option-after all there is a need for adoption Or do same-sex adoptive parents lead to better outcomes than a single-parent adoptive family? It depends on the situation, In some situations the single parent is abusive and creat a worse environment, This does however happen with Same sex couples to. I am looking in this argument not to fight (kind of ironic:) but to see a pro gay persons views and lastly to learn a little bit about arguments. Thank you
Gay

In this modern world we face many problems, Today I'd like to go over one of those-Gay's- What"s wrong with same-sex couples having children by adopting children? When you adopt a child they already struggle. Normally a child should should be raised by their own parents. Children are healthier when raised by their biological mother and father. The next best thing, Though, Would be for children to be raised by a married, Opposite-sex couple, As opposed to a single parent or a same-sex couple. Adoption by a same-sex couple would give children additional difficulties to overcome instead of giving them the best chance for success. This is because same-sex parenting would deny children the ability to have a parent of each gender (both a mom and a dad). This isn"t good, Because men and women parent differently. They bring different strengths and weaknesses to the table, So children learn different lessons from mom than they do from dad, And vice versa. Same-sex parenting would deny children the ability to have a parent of each gender (both a mom and a dad). If a same-sex couple brought children into the world through a surrogate, That would be even worse, Because they would be creating children with the intention up front of separating them from at least one of their biological parents. Studies show that children do better if they are raised by their actual parents rather than one parent and one step parent, But same-sex parenting necessarily involves a step parent. In fact, Numerous testimonies from people who spent their childhood in a same sex household bear out these truths. For example, Heather Barwick was raised by her mother and her mother's lesbian partner. Although Heather loves them both dearly, She writes about how the lack of a father in her home negatively affected her. She says, "My father"s absence created a huge hole in me, And I ached every day for a dad. I loved my mom"s partner, But another mom could never have replaced the father I lost" (Truth Overruled, 2015, P. 170). According to the champions of same-sex marriage, Though, Two parents of the same gender should be just as good as having one"s own mother and father. This simply isn"t true. Advocates of same-sex marriage are primarily concerned about the desires of adults, But they largely ignore the fact that, In the process, They trample on the best interests of children.
The United States should establish a base on the moon.

cc2. You never said who you're doing this through, so it can be a company that overspends. cc3. YOu stated thatsolar power would be profitable, so how'd you get the energy from the moon to the Earth. As in my article it states that in a test from space to a Hawanian island it last its energy down to .001% that and he never refuted the fact that solar power is 100% pure RADIATION.
Rock 'n' roll, is better than rap music.

Salve, Zeldafan69. Thanks for posting this debate. I look forward to a good one. I fully accept and agree to the first definition of music, as provided by you from www.m-w.com above, as being our common, explicit, and exclusive guide during the debate: "1 a: the science or art of ordering tones or sounds in succession, in combination, and in temporal relationships to produce a composition having unity and continuity b: vocal, instrumental, or mechanical sounds having rhythm, melody, or harmony" 1)"Though I do believe rap is a form of art, I wouldn't define it as music." -This is clearly untrue, as we are debating a resolution you titled (oddly enough) "Rock 'n' roll, is better than *rap music*." Whether this was intentional or not, you obviously think of rap as music, at least subconsciously. 2)"Though most rapists DO include a steady beat for the background, the MAIN instrument in the arrangement is their voice. Clearly, rappers do not sing. They are merely talking in rhythm. So, I would define rap, as poetry." -According to our definition of "music," rap is clearly music. Rap clearly meets, by your own admission, the minimum requirements to be music, as it is, at the very least, "a vocal sound having rhythm." 3)"You may say 'Wait a second, rap has distinctive beats and tones, and continuity' Alas, it doesn't." -How exactly is that? Any line of reasoning or empirical evidence, or theoretical or numerical proof, as you call it, to support this claim? For the text immediately succeeding this, which I quoted in point 2, has nothing to do with this concept. Rap does have "distinctive beats and tones, and continuity." I lay upon the reader that this is self-evident. 4)Even ignoring the first three points, which invalidated everything you argued in Round 1, we are debating a resolution to which the answer can only be an individual subjective judgement. Better to *whom*? You or I or Ted may all prefer rock to rap, but liking one genre of music more than another does not equate to it being "better" than another genre. The same would be true of the converse, as well as any other similar comparison: "Rap is better than country," "Jazz is better than folk," etc. You being the PRO and the instigator I would say the burden of proof is clearly on you, and you have a ways to go. Back to you Britt
Rock 'n' roll, is better than rap music.

First, let me begin by saying that both numerical proof would be accepted, and theoretical proof, would be accepted. Now, on to my opening statement. Though I do believe rap is a form of art, I wouldn't define it as music. Music is defined as --- 1 a: the science or art of ordering tones or sounds in succession, in combination, and in temporal relationships to produce a composition having unity and continuity b: vocal, instrumental, or mechanical sounds having rhythm, melody, or harmony 2 a: an agreeable sound : euphony b: musical quality 3: a musical accompaniment 4: the score of a musical composition set down on paper5: a distinctive type or category of music http://www.m-w.com... I shall refer to definition 1 as the definition applying to this argument. You may say "Wait a second, rap has distinctive beats and tones, and continuity" Alas, it doesn't. Though most rapists DO include a steady beat for the background, the MAIN instrument in the arrangement is their voice. Clearly, rappers do not sing. They are merely talking in rhythm. So, I would define rap, as poetry. I shall await a rebuttal from whoever chooses to accept this argument.
The Christian God exists (10)

This is a debate about whether or not the Christian god exists. I will be refuting arguments from my opponent, who will have the burden of proving that the Christian god is real. The Christian god is the god as described by Jesus and the Bible. Rounds 1-4 are all for claims, rebuttals, and counter-rebuttals. Since I would not be able to refute my opponent's fourth-round claims, I request that they write "no round" in the fourth round of the debate. You can use any type of evidence, or you could simply use logic and reasoning to make your arguments. This debate is not about providing definitive proof either way, but more providing valid evidence that the Christian god exists. I await my opponent's arguments.
atheism is disbelief, disbelief is belief, theism

dammit i deleted my response... couldnt send it for some reason......... how do you know you are not being tricked and its not a live feed you are waching? atheism is the negative position on and imaginary claim, to say you are a lier! is being an atheist, unless ts true the guy is lying, then i know, and its not about religion science is a religion because it relys on confirmation from machines i know you cant read these words on the screen with your eyes clsoed with absolute certainty belief is the opposite of know, know is something, belief is nothing again.. atheism dosnt reject anything, its an opposing stance on an claim, its no rejection or modern atheism is the rejection that its theism, there you go belief in science, is being a theist, there are no atheists..
atheism is disbelief, disbelief is belief, theism

:: "theist=belief=i accept imagination" Some may not like calling it imagination, but I guess so. --------------------- :: "atheist=disbelief=i accept imagination" No. You are using the word "accept" and that is not happening. Believing that god exists OR believing that god doesn't exist would be accepting "imagination". Atheism would be rejecting "imagination". theist=belief=I accept imagination anti-theist=belief=I accept imagination atheist=disbelief=I reject imagination --------------------- :: "agnostic=i dont know=i accept reality" How do you get "I accept reality" out of that? --------------------- :: "all g no stick" Heh, funny. :) --------------------- :: "nobody knows god, so everyone is agnostic by default, therfore the agnostic position by default is i accept, i dont know" No, this is where it gets tricky(ier). Note that the definition of Agnostic state "a person who believes...". This mean that if someone BELIEVES that they KNOW that gos exists or doesn't exist, they are Gnostic, not Agnostic. ----------------------- :: "belief is only relevant when i dont know, i know that i am reading these words on the screen, i dont have to imagine and believe it" No. You believe that you know. Because there can be no such thing as 100% absolute knowledge of something being true (except for your own existence), you believe that you know. For all you know, you could be in the Matrix; you cannot prove that you are not. [1] ----------------------- ::"imaginary claims are not about knowledge, future is the opposite of past, :: imaginaiton is the opposite of memory, knowledge is from the past" You are losing me on your use of the word "imaginary". Can you word it another way? ------------------------ :: "okay so, what evidence is sufficient for you to know i am wearing a hat, but you still have to imagine it?" The level of evidence is different for everyone. Personally, I am very skeptical, and I think I would be satisfied with a live video feed showing you wearing the hat. If I knew and trusted you well (i.e. you rarely lie), I would accept that as enough evidence. In actuality, I cannot *choose* what I believe without deluding myself. -------------------------- :: "disBelief is belief, not non belief" How do you figure? Please elaborate. --------------------------- :: "atheism is anti theism, like negative is anti positive" No. Anti-theism is negative (or anti-positive), theism is positive (or anti-negative), and atheism is neither. "a-" is a prefix that means "without", while "anti-" means "against, opposite" [2] [1] Wikipedia: The Matrix - http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] Infoplease.com - http://www.infoplease.com...
atheism is disbelief, disbelief is belief, theism

theist=belief=i accept imagination atheist=disbelief=i accept imagination agnostic=i dont know=i accept reality all g no stick nobody knows god, so everyone is agnostic by default, therfore the agnostic position by default is i accept, i dont know belief is only relevant when i dont know, i know that i am reading these words on the screen, i dont have to imagine and believe it imaginary claims are not about knowledge, future is the opposite of past, imaginaiton is the opposite of memory, knowledge is from the past okay so, what evidence is sufficient for you to know i am wearing a hat, but you still have to imagine it? disBelief is belief, not non belief atheism is anti theism, like negative is anti positive
atheism is disbelief, disbelief is belief, theism

:: "false dosnt exist in reality" This is irrelevant, because we are discussing belief, which does not exist in reality. ----------------------- :: "religion is a position on an imaginary claim, you can either believe, disbelieve, or accept you dont know i am wearing a hat" :: "lack of belief=i know or i accept i dont know" :: "you can believe my claim, disbelieve it, or accept you dont know" This is a motion towards agnosticism, right? Well... Definition: Agnosticism - "A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God." [1] OR, the second definition which everyone confuses agnosticism as: Agnosticism - "(In a non-religious context) having a doubtful or non-committal attitude towards something." [1] Agnosticism is completely separate from belief, as it pertain to knowledge. It is possible to be an agnostic theist, meaning that you hold a belief that God exists, but you admit that you don't know for certain. I currently do not believe that you are wearing a hat, nor do I believe that you aren't wearing a hat. But, I do admit that I do not possess knowledge of it. ------------------------ :: "disbelief="i believe that you are not wearing a hat" " No. That statement indicates that I am convinced that you are not wearing a hat. I lack belief, stating "I am not convinced that you are wearing a hat." In normal conversation, we have no reason to recognize the difference. However, that difference matters here. ------------------------- :: "if your position is that "you dont believe that i am wearing a hat", then why dont you believe i am wearing a hat?" Because I have insufficient evidence to convince me that you are either wearing a hat, or that you are not wearing a hat. Since I lack this evidence, I do not accept either as true. -------------------------- "in any case, if you believe that i am not wearing a hat, what is your potion on my claim?(atheist)" Again, I lack belief either way. My position on your hat-wearing is the same as my theistic stance. (atheist) Atheism is the lack of belief that god exists. If I come to believe that god does not exist, I shall then be an anti-theist. "anti-" means, opposed to, or opposite. -------------------------- [1] Oxford Dictionary - http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
atheism is disbelief, disbelief is belief, theism

false dosnt exist in reality religion is a position on an imaginary claim, you can either believe, disbelieve, or accept you dont know i am wearing a hat you can believe my claim, disbelieve it, or accept you dont know lack of belief=i know or i accept i dont know disbelief="i believe that you are not wearing a hat" if your position is that "you dont believe that i am wearing a hat", then why dont you believe i am wearing a hat? in any case, if you believe that i am not wearing a hat, what is your potion on my claim?(atheist)
atheism is disbelief, disbelief is belief, theism

I shall accept your challenge! It is my pleasure to debate you, good sir! Contrary to your statement, I can simply not hold a belief that you are wearing a hat. Definition: Disbelief - "Inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real." [1] Not everything in the world is true or false; sometimes, there is a middle-ground or gray-area. [1] Oxford Dictionary - http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
ps4 is better than xbox

Xbox one has 720p graphics while the Ps4 has 1080 graphics, which means that Ps4 has smoother and crispier graphics and thus is better for next gen. And yes it is true that it has better multi-tasking, this is a good reason.Now to my points on why the ps4 is better:-1080 graphics-cheaper membership-better software- 100 dollars cheaper-better and more games (my opinion)-Better exclusives-higher resolution
You are perfect

bae i love you until death do us apart yes i say this with all my heart ever since i came to this website i never knew that i would find my one true love and i found her its you im happy that i sent you a friend request because the first time i saw your face i knew that we were meant to be and here we are in love in only a short amount of time and look how far we are im happy that i have you in my life i will never leave you unless something happens between us you are the most amazing thing that has ever came into my life you got to know who i was and we went to the friend zone fast then here we are in a relationship i love you with all my heart and i would risk my life to see my beautiful in front of my eyes i love you my baby girl <3