BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Best Music Videos from a specific artist

Can't stopThis song borders the line between rap and rock music. The verses are rapped whereas the chorus is sung at a relatively slower pace. The video shows the band performing random actions but it fits well with the theme of the video.http://www.youtube.com...Sample LyricsCan't stop addicted to the shin dig Cop top he says I'm gonna win big Choose not a life of imitation Distant cousin to the reservation Defunkt the pistol that you pay for This punk the feeling that you stay for In time I want to be your best friend Eastside love is living on the westend Knock out but boy you better come to Don't die you know the truth is some do Go write your message on the pavement Burnin' so bright I wonder what the wave meant White heat is screaming in the jungle Complete the motion if you stumble Go ask the dust for any answers Come back strong with 50 belly dancers [Chorus:] The world I love The tears I drop To be part of The wave can't stop Ever wonder if it's all for you The world I love The trains I hop To be part of The wave can't stop Come and tell me when it's time to
Best Music Videos from a specific artist

I thank Lickdafoot for accepting this fun challenge. In this debate, we both choose 1 artist each and post 4 music videos from that particular artist. Arguments about why the chosen video is awesome are optional but encouraged. Round 1: acceptance and posting the name of the artist chosen.Rounds 2,3,4 and 5 for posting videos and possible descriptions/arguments/samples of lyrics.I choose the Red Hot Chili Peppers.
Jesus walked on water.

"It says clearly in the Bible Jesus could walk on water, and the Bible was written by highly scholars and musicians of the time. It is only logical to say they are correct in their assumptions. Jesus could have very well used his positive aura to walk on water, which is nearly as light as gravity, by the way." maskedmoleThe Bible makes many claims that science has proven false. For example the creation date of the Earth, first humans, and so forth. The Bible cannot be seen as a credible source for claims about the physical world.
Jesus walked on water.

I just don't see how it is possible that Jesus walked on water. I think plenty of people must have tried that and fell into the body of water they were walking on. Dolphins can walk on water, yet to the best of my knowledge Jesus was a human, and therefore could not be a dolphin. I just don't see how this is physically possible. Most of the creatures that can walk on water are very small. [0] Also, I've never seen any human walk on water. So, I guess the question remains why do people think Jesus walked on water? There is a logical explanation. First, there is evolutionary psychology that explains why religion is pan-human. [1] Therefore, humans had religion and believed in religion because it helped them survive and pass on their offspring. This meshes well with Darwin's natural selection. The tribes that were religious were better fitted to survive and the non-religious tribes went extinct. So, this is why we believe something that can't possibly be real. 0. http://voices.nationalgeographic.com... 1. https://www.psychologytoday.com...
Traditional Families vs. Contemporary Families

If you agree than perhaps you can save us both some time and concede the debate. Society once held that black people wouldn't be any good at sports (how laughably wrong they were) and that AIDS was created by homosexuals. This may come as a shock but society has this little habit of being wrong. it also has a habit of changing it's way of thinking and coming around to new ways of thinking. As more "non traditional" families emerge society will come to understand and respect them. Society has never liked new things. Society is like the only child being told it's getting a new sibling, It will kick and scream for a bit but will eventually come around. Society is not the issue however. The issue is the family dynamic itself and whether or not it will work in a non traditional family. You have yet to give me any evidence to support your claim that a child in a home with gay parents cannot get the love and respect of a child in a home with straight parents. In fact you have agreed with me that there would be no difference at all.
Traditional Families vs. Contemporary Families

For the sake of this argument I am going to assume that the parents in either situation are kind loving parents who respect and support their child. Are you saying that a child cannot get the same love and respect from two same sex parents? why would the child grow up any differently? Perhaps the child growing up in the "non traditional" family will have a different world view. Possibly a much more caring open minded one. I don't see any reason to believe that having two moms or two dads who love and support you would be in any way damaging.
Plethora V5

Claims: 1. "the odds are stacked against us being real people. As you can see by that ratio, there is only a minute chance that we are real people" Rebuttal: 1. I will ask my opponent what it is exactly that stacks the odds against us being real people? Is it the hypothetical situation he suggested? The obvious response here is to quote Rene Descartes, "Cogito ergo sum" or "I am thinking, therefore I exist". The fact that we are self aware and have the ability to have thoughts means that we exist on some plane of existence. Therefore we are real. But I will take it a step further and state that it is far more likely that we live in a 'real' world than that we live in a 'virtual' world. All 'brain in a vat' philosophies suffer from the same unfortunate problems: they are highly unlikely and not at all falsifiable. There is no evidence supporting, or even suggesting, that we live in a virtual world.
Plethora V5

Okay, so basically, it's been calculated that technology advances at an exponential rate, because one new technology opens the window for many more. (http://www.kurzweilai.net... [first paragraph only]). As technology increases, computers become more and more advanced, there is no finite limit on their capabilities in sight. As they become more and more advanced, they will obviously have more functions, and older ones will be more in depth. You probably know of the computer game known as Sims, right? It it an extremely popular concept, that will likely be copied by another company once the patent expires. So basically, in the future, in all likelihood, there will be about twenty versions of Sims, and the software will be so advanced, it can create AI worlds, in which there are virtual people who don't even know that they are a part of this. They will think, talk, and act just like real people, but they aren't, they are nothing more than data on some kid's hard drive. Basically, since there can be so many copies of this software, there will be trillions upon trillions of these AI people. I mean, today when Sims 2 came out it sold more than a million copies in 10 days (www.joystiq.com/2004/09/28/sims-2-posts-record-setting-sales/). If only 1 million were sold in this future, there would be 6 quadrillion AI people, and significantly less real people. Basically, the amount of AI people in existence in this hypothetical future is almost limitless. The amount of real people is a finite number, so the ratio of all these AI people to all the real people in history is huge. Think 1 trillion to 1. Maybe not that exactly but something like that. If you want you can calculate how many real people have walked this earth, and how many are likely to do so, and then we can get a more accurate number, but in short, the odds are stacked against us being real people. As you can see by that ratio, there is only a minute chance that we are real people.
Plethora V5

I will provide a list of topics, choose one, you're CON, I'm PRO. Then in R2 I go and post. Note, I am playing Devil's advocate in some places. 1. Most nonhuman Animal's do not deserve rights. 2. Utilitarianism is superior to Kantianism. 3. Sarah Palin is not as incompetent as she is made out to be. 4. Cannibalism of dead people should be socially acceptable, if not encouraged. 5. Agriculture was a mistake. 6. Anarchy could feasibly work. 7. Functionalism is a flawed theory of mind. 8. The Turing test is fundamentally inaccurate. 9. John McCain will win the 2008 Presidential Election. 10. In all likelihood, we live in a virtual world. 11. In Soviet Russia, car drives YOU! (This is a joke, just in case you're an idiot). 12. Moral Luck is fundamentally flawed. 13. Resolved: That it is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save more innocent people. (LD Debate). 14. Man is not the main cause of global warming today.
Plethora V5

Wel this debate seems to have fizzled out. Claims: 1. "If I say how, you can win. I don't want you to win. I assure you however that it is falsifiable." 2. "But my first source shows that my hypothetical isn't hypothetical, it will happen." 3. "It is growing by leaps and bounds." Rebuttal: 1. Need I say more? 2. The article offered only a theory, not an absolute truth. The fact that technology will continue to advance exponentially is not set in stone. A number of things could happen to stop or slow down the pace, nuclear war, extreme famine, or any number of other possible scenarios in which a large percentage of people die. Or the entire world could come to an end before we reach that state. 3. My opponent offered no other argument for this point. I would like to close by thanking my opponent for this debate. I like some of his topics, and would look forward to future debates.
Plethora V5

"1. The fact is, this philosophy is not falsifiable. My opponent knows how to debate and would have proved it was falsifiable if it were in fact falsifiable. The burden of proof is yours." If I say how, you can win. I don't want you to win. I assure you however that it is falsifiable. "2. This is a hypothetical situation, not reality. Merely saying that it is more likely does not make it so. If I were to say it is very likely that the universe was created by a flying spaghetti monster does not make it true, or even likely to be true." But my first source shows that my hypothetical isn't hypothetical, it will happen. "3. Technology would have to grow by leaps and bounds. People have been attempting this for decades and have failed. They found that the human brain is far more complex than they imagined. Just because we can imagine the possibility does not itself make it possible.' It is growing by leaps and bounds.
Plethora V5

Claims: 1. 'Brain in a vat' is falsifiable, but my opponent has decided he doesn't want to say how. 2. Reiterates the hypothetical situation. 3. The sims I speak of are self aware. Rebuttal: 1. The fact is, this philosophy is not falsifiable. My opponent knows how to debate and would have proved it was falsifiable if it were in fact falsifiable. The burden of proof is yours. 2. This is a hypothetical situation, not reality. Merely saying that it is more likely does not make it so. If I were to say it is very likely that the universe was created by a flying spaghetti monster does not make it true, or even likely to be true. 3. Technology would have to grow by leaps and bounds. People have been attempting this for decades and have failed. They found that the human brain is far more complex than they imagined. Just because we can imagine the possibility does not itself make it possible.
Plethora V5

"1. I will ask my opponent what it is exactly that stacks the odds against us being real people? Is it the hypothetical situation he suggested?" The odds are from the hypothetical situation I suggested. The thing is, the hypothetical situation probably has occurred. I have shown that we will almost certainly reach that level of technology in what we call the future, and that would mean that the number of virtual people would outnumber the amount of real people that will and have ever existed. Think about it on a smaller scale. Assume that someone in your household has a game like Sims. There are something like 30 people, probably more, I don't know, I don't play Sims, but anyways, there are a lot of people in this game. There is a virtual world on your hard drive. It is less advanced than the one I speak of, but it is there. Now, there are 30 fake people and say 3 real people. If it were impossible to distinguish between being a Sim, and a real person, the odds of being real would be stacked against you. Now it is possible to tell the difference, but the futuristic Sims will be indistinguishable. So the odds of being a real person are very slim, because the amount of Sim people is a trillion times larger than real people. "The obvious response here is to quote Rene Descartes, 'Cogito ergo sum" or "I am thinking, therefore I exist'. The fact that we are self aware and have the ability to have thoughts means that we exist on some plane of existence. Therefore we are real. But I will take it a step further and state that it is far more likely that we live in a 'real' world than that we live in a 'virtual' world." The Sims I speak of can think, are self-aware, et cetera. Effectively they are people. They just exist as pieces of data, not as chains of carbon molecules. "All 'brain in a vat' philosophies suffer from the same unfortunate problems: they are highly unlikely and not at all falsifiable. There is no evidence supporting, or even suggesting, that we live in a virtual world." This is falsifiable, I won't say how, but it is theoretically falsifiable, and I have shown it is very likely. I have proved my point.
Lincoln-Douglas is better than Cross-Examination

Thank you. The website is not credible because you say so; it must have some sort of merit along with its claims (which, it doesn't.) This essentially collapses Pro's statement of the alleged CX incident is null. Secondly, to humor you I'll argue my case. It was hard to when there were/are so many holes in your arguments. First of all, CX debate involves loads of research (you've bashed CX for this reason.) Think about it, the more research you've done, the more you know about what the debate is all about. You know exactly what to say, how to say it, what to expect, and you're well-immersed with the case. Essentially, the research pays off. In addition, CX debates tend to be more in-depth than most because of this reason. If your environment is what you say it's like in the CX community, I'll have to take your word for it. I'll leave that point off with saying "you can't judge CX debaters as a whole because of what you see around you." That's like saying all Muslims are terrorists because of 9/11. You've defeated your case here. You say LD involves little research. Instead, it involves thinking on the spot and you say it "makes you smarter." How? You're using information you've heard and are simply arguing it. Indeed you get some sort of intellectual stimulation, however moreso than CX? Nah. I'd like proof saying LD-ers are smarter than CX-ers. To conclude, I'd like to say CX involves research, which in turn makes you more involved with your debate. Instead of spending time thinking about what to say, you'll know what to talk about and how to talk about it. Essentially, CX debates are more in-depth. My opponent also has shown carelessness in regards to this debate, and I've done my duty of showing that LD is not superior to CX (I achieved this somewhat due to my opponent's lack of adequate sources and his unwillingness.) Due to this, I encourage a vote for Con. Thank you.
Lincoln-Douglas is better than Cross-Examination

I wold like to start my last post by saying the website I cited earlier is incredibly credible because I say it is. I have won this debate because my entire first contention stands; my opponent never adressed it besides saying, "the fact that there were (still are) so many holes in your argument." this is not an argument and as my opponent never elaborated on this, this contention stands. My opponent then never stated a single reason why LD isn't better than CX, my opponent merely tried to disprove my disliking of CX; thus my opponent never had a single argument showing that LD is not in fact better than CX. Next I would like to say that my stereotypes on CX-ers are completely true (I am one, just made the debate for the laughs), and thus I have first hand eyewitness accounts of how terrible CX-ers can be. Therefore we can conclude that LD (with all the benifits that I stated in contention 1), is superior to CX. My opponent then goes on to say, "Just because CX debaters have a different form of debate research does not make them eligible for discontinuation." I never stated or infered that CX should be discontinued, if it were I'd be out of a job; I mearly said LD is superior. Now lets talk about research; in LD (as I stated previously) you have very little evidence based research, instead your time is spent thinking, learning and philosophicating. These methods have been scientifically proven to make people smarter and more critically thinking human beings while in CX debate; you spend your time slaving over a computer screen trying to find any evidence you can and then dump it in buckets. http://upload.wikimedia.org... Surely this is not a healthy or beneficially way of spending debate research time. And for those reasons I urge a strong vote for the AFF. Thanks for listening.
Lincoln-Douglas is better than Cross-Examination

I'll first state that the reason I never responded to the first contention was due to the fact that there were (still are) so many holes in your argument. Ladies and gentlemen, my opponent states that the procedure of Lincoln-Douglas is better than Cross Examination due to the fact that the stereotype of CX debaters apparently make them lose credibility. This is a large fallacy, not to mention illogical. How is the form of debate weakened if the type of people who practice the form of debate are "misfit? " Secondly, my opponent claims that he indeed stereotypes against CX-ers and is therefore biased. Of course there's nothing wrong with bias, but this shows that instead of giving logical reasons why LD is better than CX, my opponent instead focuses on apparent cataclysms that have occurred with CX debaters. The link my opponent provided me with is not a credible source (lol, look at the title). Therefore, my opponent's former claim of an incident with a CX debater is hearsay and is discredited. Just because CX debaters have a different form of debate research does not make them eligible for discontinuation. Nothing good has come out of a CX debate? I'd like proper evidence rather than a blog with a title "trollin the internet. "
Lincoln-Douglas is better than Cross-Examination

My opponent claims that my second contentions; the dangers of CX is invalid because of it's lack of evidence. I must ask my opponent; have you ever seen CX-er? They are frightening creatures. In fact you can tell who in a room is a CX-er because he/she will be the person in the corner. If a CX-er walks into a room and all four corners are taken, they will make a new corner. Which leads me to my next point; loneliness. In debate prep CX-ers often spend hours f not days n front of a computer looking up evidence; while LD-ers are allowed to use their time more freely either practice debating, thinking about or discussing the resolution with others and having a good time. LD-ers are not confined to the shackles of evidence that CX-ers and CX debate are. But to back up my claims with evidence I offer the following; http://decorabilia.blogspot.com... And let me ask you; when has anything good ever come out of a CX debate? On the contrary many good things have come from LD, like hmmmmmmm... let me think; the Abraham Lincoln presidency!! Next my opponent claims that I stereotype CX-ers. Yes. Yes I do. And I stereotype them pretty darn good thank you very much! Now back to Lincoln-Douglas, my opponent never responded to any of my first contention, so I look forward to my opponent's future rebuttal of it. But as it has so far not been touched, we can only assume that means my opponent agrees with my entire first contention. And thus I am forced to make the logical conclusion that LD debate is simply better than CX. Thank for letting me ramble. I am a grumpy 70 year old man stuck in a teenagers body.
Lincoln-Douglas is better than Cross-Examination

Alright, I'll bite. My opponent has failed to cite sources for the disadvantages of Cross-Examination, therefore until he does, I will surmise this as hearsay. My opponent's opening statement is riddled with bias and rather than representing what the advantages and disadvantages of each form of debate are, my opponent instead capitalized on this fallacy of Cross-Examination. Clearly my opponent is not serious about this debate if they go on about an alleged event yet failed to back it up with actual facts and sources. In addition, my opponent says the following: Obviously this logic shows you that Cross-Examination debate and CX-ers in general are dangerous. And the longer we wait, the more they breed. Stereotyping and a complete deviation from his actual thesis are present here. I await my opponent's defense before delving further.
Lincoln-Douglas is better than Cross-Examination

Resolved: Lincoln-Douglas is better than Cross-Examination. Definitions: Lincoln-Douglas: Lincoln-Douglas debate as defined by the National Forensic League. Cross-Examination: Cross-Examination debate as defined by the National Forensic League. Better: more advantageous or effective. CONTENTION 1: Value of Lincoln-Douglas. It is a common held fact that Lincoln-Douglas debate is one of the more mentally engaging and thought provoking forms of debate. This is mainly because it is a one person debate, and thus, the one debater must carry the weight of their case on their own. It is also a philosophical debate which forces a debater to think independently instead of relying on a load of evidence and others to do the work of their cases for them. In Lincoln-Douglas you are free to think and argue in whatever way you wish with or without the shackles of evidence. CONTENTION 2: Disadvantages of Cross-Examination. Cross-Examination debate is dangerous! Legend tells that once, a CX-er was stabbed with a pen in a round by an opponent. And as they gasped for breath and tried to stop the flow of blood, the kid kept debating! Surely this is not a safe environment. Also notice that ALL CX-ers carry around big tubs of stuff; does anybody know what this stuff is? No. For all we know it could be filled with more pens for stabbing. Obviously this logic shows you that Cross-Examination debate and CX-ers in general are dangerous. And the longer we wait, the more they breed. I hope I have clearly shown you why Lincoln-Douglas is better than Cross-Examination. I look forward to an opponents response.
Gay conversion therapy should be illegal

C.1 Attending a gay therepy is your own choice. Anything else is irrelevant.If people want to convert, yet it does not work it is their own problem. They are not harming anyone and it is at their own will to do so. However, my opponent argues people are forced to go gay conversion therapy, therefore gay conversion therapy should be illegal. That logic falls. A better situation would be for it to be illegal for people to force someone GOING to the gay conversion therapy. Which is irrelevant to this debate because this is not about wether forcing someone to go to gay conversion therapy should be illegal, rather if gay conversion therapy by itself (ignoring all other variables such as forcing someone to go). My opponent should have stated in the resolution that that forcing is relevant to this debate however fails to do so. Adding rules further to this debate would be unfair. C.2 Pseudoscience? Yes Illegal? NoJust because this is Pseudoscience on a bigger scale does not mean it should be illegal. One may argue that religion is Pseudoscience however, we have freedom of religion.Gay therapy alone is according to law and therefore should be legal. Forcing someone is not, however forcing someone is irrelevant. I will perform rebuttals in the following round.