BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
I Am More Insulting Than You

So, if that picture entails a contradiction, that just shows how stupid my opponent is. So, my opponent is so stupid, that his GIF called me stupid, but also said it didn't have to insult me (which didn't make any sense, as it implies I wouldn't have gotten insulted). The picture in my last round is a depiction of my opponent and a paraphrasing of his first round. Therefore, if my last round's picture entails a contradiction, that just means my opponent's first GIF entails a contradiction, because it was simply a depiction of that. Basically, my opponent has lost all his marbles and has embarrassed himself twice in this debate. I found a school picture of this guy: I also found a picture of my opponent's grandma on the net, very disgusting indeed: I guess if you have a long line of smokers, drinkers, and drug users you will pop out something as messed up and dumb as UtherPenguin. Here is what the doctor said when he was born: I also found a picture of my opponent's first girlfriend with nasty hairy arms: I mean if even that ugly broad would dump my opponent, then he must be extremely nasty! Which we know already, as he is retarded as heck. Conclusion:My opponent is dumb, ugly, has a custy looking ex-girlfriend, a stupid grandma and parents (for keeping him). I mean, my opponent's life is just crap. He hasn't even been that insulting, funny, or anything. What a waste of space. .. .
I Am More Insulting Than You

My opponent has just contradicted his statement!In the image above my opponent states "'you're stupid, I won't insult you", HOWEVER didn't he just state that calling one stupid is an insult within of itself.That argument in of itself contradicts what he said. Hence forth invalidating his argument. Leaving the first .gif I had left above left unrebutted. Meaning that I am the only one to leave a valid insult as said insult is yet to be rebutted there fore being the most sound argument in the debate currently.
I Am More Insulting Than You

That picture posted by my opponent is completely nonsensical, because if I was too stupid to insult then there would have been no insult thrown at me. However, calling me "stupid" is itself an insult, which means there was an insult thrown at me. Ergo, the attempt at an insult which implies no insult was illogical. Ironic, because I am supposed to be the stupid one, yet, my opponent couldn't even post an insulting picture that made sense. Here is a picture of my opponent: Hopefully next time, creatures like my opponent get weeded out of the gene pool, and mothers and fathers don't have to suffer like they have due to having such a disappointing child.
I Am More Insulting Than You

The object is to insult the other person the most. and/ or argue for why they are more isulting. The voters will vote for the person who they would attack the quickest if in a diss-war. First round is NOT for acceptance. He/ She will start off the insults this round, and yes, he will get one more round than me to insult and whatnot. This is just an intro round for me.
truth is knowledge

I accept this challenge and will argue for why it is not the case that truth is knowledge and evaluate any argument my opponent puts forward for the case that truth, in fact, is knowledge. My opening argument goes as follows: 1. Some state of the world pertained before any agent existed such that it could have knowledge. 2. If (1), then something can be the truth without it being knowledge. 3. By (1) and (2), it follows that something can be the truth without it being knowledge. 4. By Leibniz law, if something is true of x that is not true of y, it cannot be the case that x and y is the same thing. Conclusion: From (3) and (4) I conclude that truth is not knowledge. If this is not in fact the disputed claim intended by my opponent, I could make a similar argument for the claim he makes about religion being belief. Further, when he writes "whatever truth is in the bible is not religious", I assume he means something in the lines of: "No true statement in the bible is about some supernatural entity or phenomenon existing or have happened". If this is what my opponent meant, then I forfeit this debate as I would agree with him (and I'm not interested in debating that particular question).
truth is knowledge

Your beliefs ought to be based on evidence. Believe only that which your evidence points toward the most. Evidence for a proposition p is simply something that makes p more likely to be true. Making claims without any supporting argument whatsoever does not provide any evidence that suggests that what you are saying is true. You say you don't believe in the Big bang theory, but if you want to use this to counter my argument, then you need to argue for why you think that Big bang didn't happen. You did also say "matter=transformation" in a seeming attempt to support your claim, but I do not see how this is relevant at all. What the "universe is to you" is of no importance here. In a debate, and as a seeker of truth, you need to give your opponent reasons to accept your views. A discussion is not about someone making a claim, and then someone else making a contrary claim until somebody gives up. If you can't explain why you believe what you do, then perhaps you don't understand the things you believe either. Taking all evidence available to you for a theory or claim into consideration (internet is pretty good for this), before making your own theories can be helpful to really understand your own beliefs as well. Even if it would be true (which I don't believe), the claim "truth can only be in the past" is compatible with my opening argument. If there was sometime in the past in which something was true without there being knowledge at that time, then it is false that truth is knowledge.
truth is knowledge

To clarify, "1. Some state of the world pertained before any agent existed such that it could have knowledge." does not assume anything about life, nature or whatever. This simply says that sometime the world was such that nobody had any knowledge (Like 13,8 billion years ago, a couple of seconds after the Big bang). Do you disagree with that? (Btw, I would recommend you at least watching "Cosmos" with Neil deGrasse Tyson to learn some more about the universe and evolution). Do you intend for "reality is true.. truth is in the past" to be a counter argument against premise 2 in my argument? If so, then some clarification on your position and the relevance would be helpful to have a meaningful discussion here.
Darwinian evolution can not account for the bacterial flagellum

Yes, you are arguing from ignorance, and your latest arguments demonstrate this. You use a presumptuous analogy, then you finish by appealing to the idea that science was wrong about the evolution of the flagellum. However, the discovery you cite only rules out one specific pathway, from a modern secretion system. Since the bacterial flagellum did not evolve from modern bacteria, I can't see biologists losing sleep over this. In fact, contrary to your proclamation, research efforts such as the Lenski affair increasingly demonstrate that creationist assumptions about evolution are bogus. Your appeal to uniformitarianism is ill-founded. It would be more reasonable to conclude, as biologists do, that since we only ever see biological traits arise through evolution or gene transfer today, this is how things operated in the past.
Darwinian evolution can not account for the bacterial flagellum

When I say the bacterial flagellum was made by an intelligence, I do not argue from ignorance. I argue from two points. (1) uniformitarianism -- the scientific principle that we should observe the cause of certain things today and apply this cause to explain things in the past -- today we only see intelligence create nano technology, therefore, the bacterial flagellum which is nano technology, I conclude, was made by intelligence. (2) The research by many scientists over the years has not provided any evidence that the bacterial flagellum could arise by itself, quite to the contrary, they have proven more and more that it could not by each research effort they perform, such as the discovery Luskin mentioned.Therefore, my argument is not one from ignorance, it's one from scientific investigation and reason.
Darwinian evolution can not account for the bacterial flagellum

No, I am merely affirming the limitations of our current understanding and giving what I believe is the most viable hypothesis for the origin of the flagellum. Perhaps we are permanently barred from investigating this. I understand that you might see this as a cop-out. However, you are arguing for an untestable alternative. As a result, our ideas about the origin of the flagellum are far, far from being on equal footing. All throughout history, people have turned to gods or other intelligent agencies to explain the unknown, and they have almost always turned out to be wrong.
Darwinian evolution can not account for the bacterial flagellum

You and Luskin are correct: the current phylogenetic research suggests that the type III secretion system actually evolved from the bacterial flagellum and not the other way around as previously hypothesized. However, the relationship between these two systems certainly is suggestive, and the current hypothesis seems to be that the bacterial flagellum evolved from a simpler protein transport system than the current type III system. Moreover, Luskin says that the flagellum preceded prokaryotic parasitism, but it may be the case that the earliest protein transport systems had other useful functions. Perhaps the study of protein secretion systems in nonvirulent bacteria will provide some insight into this important question.
Darwinian evolution can not account for the bacterial flagellum

You proposed an ion pump as the precursor to the apparatus -- I believe you're referring to the type-3 secretion system specifically. Here is why it could not have been a precursor, let me quote Casey Luskin:"The injectisome is found in a small subset of gram-negative bacteria that have a symbiotic or parasitic association with eukaryotes. Since eukaryotes evolved over a billion years after bacteria, this suggests that the injectisome arose aftereukaryotes. However, flagella are found across the range of bacteria, and the need for chemotaxis and motility (i.e., using the flagellum to find food) precede the need for parasitism. In other words, we'd expect that the flagellum long predates the injectisome. And indeed, given the narrow distribution of injectisome-bearing bacteria, and the very wide distribution of bacteria with flagella, parsimony suggests the flagellum long predates injectisome rather than the reverse."
Darwinian evolution can not account for the bacterial flagellum

I am not making anything up. According to the article, the bacterial flagellum developed from a protein export system. It originated from various parts, such as an ion-powered pump and an asymmetrical filament. Each one of these things could have evolved step by step before they were combined into the final product. Having a crude filament and a simple pump would provide evolutionary benefits over having neither. Once these parts evolved, perhaps a mutation or two came along and unified them into the bacterial flagellum we know today. Of course, we may never be able to prove this is how it happened. Perhaps it wasn't. Surely the bacterial flagella-all varieties of them-evolved many, many years ago. However, even if we had no explanation, or were wrong about the explanation, that would not prove it is impossible or even unlikely for the bacterial flagellum to have evolved. It does not warrant an unsubstantiated, untestable alternative.
Darwinian evolution can not account for the bacterial flagellum

First of all, I would like to note that I do not assume the steps have to happen one at a time, they can happen in any way you like -- but you have to provide an actual advantageous natural path that Darwinian evolution would take through natural selection, you can't simply make it up -- if you see where I'm coming from here.Then, you state: 'Many of the parts perform individual functions independently of the others, and a good number of the protein structures of the flagellum arise in other parts of the organism as well.' Well, what I'd like to begin with here is say that not all individual components have been found elsewhere -- but even if that were the case, I still do not see how that would prove the apparatus is not irreducibly complex, you have to elaborate on that.
Darwinian evolution can not account for the bacterial flagellum

Can natural selection explain the bacterial flagellum? In actuality, referring to "the" bacterial flagellum is misleading, as this argument points out: https://www.newscientist.com... In fact, as the article explains, bacterial flagella certainly are not irreducibly complex. Many of the parts perform individual functions independently of the others, and a good number of the protein structures of the flagellum arise in other parts of the organism as well. Moreover, the "irreducible complexity" rhetoric makes one major assumption: that the pieces of an organism have to evolve one at a time. In actuality, the parts evolve in sync with one another and may even change in function, as the fins of our aquatic ancestors have evolved into legs, arms, and wings. It is possible that the motor of the flagellum evolved from an ion-powered pump.
Darwinian evolution can not account for the bacterial flagellum

Now, to begin with, I would like to state my argument. The argument goes like this. The bacterial flagellum is a molecular machine attached to bacteria -- their function is to propel the bacteria through the micro world. These machines consist of approximately 50 components. These components, I argue, could not have come about step by step naturally, they had to have been assembled by an intelligent mind in order to perform the function. Now, before you answer my challenge, there is one thing you should absolutely not forget. You can not use your intelligence to assemble the machine, you have to propose a fully natural explanation through natural selection.
0.999999999.... is equal to 1

I wish I had more than 2000 characters to address this issue, but I will make due.1. "1 - 0.999999.... = 0.000000...Hence, they are the same number"Here, my opponent makes a simple mistake. 1-0.9 repeating does not equal zero. 1-0.9...=0.1... 2. 1/3 = 0.333333...0.333333... x 3 = 0.99999...And (1/3) x 3 = 1Therefore 0.99999... = 1Here my opponent makes the assumption that 0.3... is equal to 1/3. My opponent fails to realise that this is an approximation, and is off by an infinitely small amount. Consider Zeno's Paradox[1].3.Z = 0.999999...10Z = 9.99999...10Z - Z = 9.99999... - 0.99999..9Z = 9Z = 1Therefore 0.99999... = 1 Here my opponent makes a simple error in algebra.In order to multiply 0.9... by any number, one must first establish a constant number of Nines after the decimal. An infinite decimal cannot be multiplied by ten, because this simply makes the number of Nines after the decimal, which is infinity, ten times larger[2]. And so in order to multiply the number by ten one establishes a set number of nines after the decimal and the result is 9.999.....0. This value is not what my opponent included in his proof. and so:Z = 0.999999...10Z = 9.99999...In this step my opponent added nine to the left side of the equation and multiplied by ten on the right. He has not done the same thing to both sides and therefore his algebra is off balance.Had my opponent done his algebra correctly he would have gotten as follows:z=0.999999...10z=0.999999...0This error threw off the algebra subsequent to it and produced the faulty result.Sources: 1. Stanford Universityhttp://plato.stanford.edu... 2. University of Utah http://www.math.utah.edu...
0.999999999.... is equal to 1

0.99999... = 1 (The ... means repeating) The proof for this is quite simple. If there is no difference between two numbers, then logically they are the same number. So, 1 - 0.999999.... = 0.000000... Hence, they are the same number. A second proof: 1/3 = 0.333333... 0.333333... x 3 = 0.99999... And (1/3) x 3 = 1 Therefore 0.99999... = 1 A third proof: Z = 0.999999... 10Z = 9.99999... 10Z - Z = 9.99999... - 0.99999.. 9Z = 9 Z = 1 Therefore 0.99999... = 1 This is counterintuitive, but it is true. It has been proven mathematically (1) (2) If there is no difference between two numbers, they are logically, and mathematically the same number. 1. http://en.m.wikipedia.org...... 2. http://www.purplemath.com...
Soviet vs Nazi music

Con, you accept my rebate and ruin it. You chose to mess with the wrong person you know. Your not the only one here who can troll. Your new to DDO and I will personally make sure you don't win any debates. Con could have at least posted his favorite porn video for all I care, but anything would be better than that sh*t he just posted. Anyway, I will create Con's song since he did not bother to do so. Name: Hitler Spamming Year: 1945 What the song was about: Hitler got p*ssed at his dad and starts yelling at him. http://www.youtube.com...
Soviet vs Nazi music

Look, Snape killed Dumbledore, and Dumbledore was gay. That means Snape was actually Jesus Christ in Wizard form. Song: Haftbefehl Ich geh steil ihr bergab German Rap wird zerst"rt AZZLACK Wer macht krach ist doch klar Chab jetzt gehts los H.A.F.T flowt der Boss, ey Wer macht mehr cash als ich, du? Alter fick dich in Arsch verkackt, whey Sowie Mehrzad Marashi 30 ct pro CD Universal verdient Du warst kurz mal Superstar mit Vertrag und Deal And I don't know what it means, since I am no proffesor of Germany, but as an expert I belive that it talks of the 40 days and 41 nights Jesus came into the ocean and destroyed the world and made dinosaurs and Billy Mayes. #America.
Soviet vs Nazi music

I do not understand how any of that is relevant in this debate. Jesus and the Bible have nothing to do with this debate. Please avoid using inappropriate language. Failing to do so will result in a deduction of conduct points. Anyway, lets start: Name: The Guard Song Year: 1941 What the song was about: Written about the Great Patriotic War (WWII) as the German army was advancing toward Moscow. 'The Guard Song' was a propaganda song written about the heroism of the Red Guard in 1941. *Note to voters: Please listen to [at least] the 60 seconds of this song. http://www.youtube.com...
Soviet vs Nazi music

Hello, I have never had done debate four but I very good much. Now here is song. I have song for you, it from Bible. Song go like this: Hey, Macklemore! Can we go thrift shopping? What, what, what, what... [many times] Bada, badada, badada, bada... [x9] [Hook:] I'm gonna pop some tags Only got twenty dollars in my pocket I - I - I'm hunting, looking for a come-up This is foocking awesome [Verse 1:] Nah, walk up to the club like, "What up? I got a big cocck!" I'm so pumped about some shift from the thrift shop Ice on the fringe, it's so damn frosty That people like, "Dam! That's a cold asss honkey." Rollin' in, hella deep, headin' to the mezzanine, Dressed in all pink, 'cept my gator shoes, those are green Draped in a leopard mink, girls standin' next to me Probably shoulda washed this, smells like R. Kelly's sheets (Piiisssssss) Anyway you get the point. Jesus wins.
Soviet vs Nazi music

I have never done this debate so we will see how it goes. Basically the idea is that during each round, both me and Con post a song/musical piece from youtube or another website that was written in the years 1930-1945 (no earlier or later). You do not need to know Russian or German for this debate. We will be simply focusing on the sound and melody of the music. Voters will decide who posted better songs. Also, voters will not be required to listen to the entire song [in order to avoid impatience]; just listen for the first 30-60 seconds to get a feel of the melody. Both of us will provide the following information about each individual song we posted: 1. Name 2. Year written 3. What the song was about 4. Any additional information and sources (optional) I will be posting Soviet songs, Con will be posting German songs. Post 1 song per round, in the end we will both have 3 songs.
The Evolution theory (big bang theory) is stupid!

::An Impossible Task:: My opponent wants me to answer 20 questions with a 750 character limit. Needless to say, this can't be done. Furthermore, my opponent didn't even post these questions nor could he due to the character limit. Ergo, I must decline. The "20 questions" is a reference to my opponents website. ::Where did energy come from ?:: I don't know, yes there are some "explanations" but we simply don't know, however, the big bang theory is still plausible unless you can provide a better theory.
The Evolution theory (big bang theory) is stupid!

"Where did the matter come from? Where did the laws come from? Where did the energy come from?" The Big Bang. ::Planets spinning backwards:: "If the solar system planets were formed by the coalescing of planetesimals, then the early stages would have to be characterized by catastrophic collisions of proto planets. For example, the moon is thought to have been formed from debris ejected when a Mars-sized object collided with the earth. Collisions of this magnitude could result in some planets rotating in an opposite direction. There is no evidence whatever that this could not have happened." http://www.fsteiger.com...
The Evolution theory (big bang theory) is stupid!

Where did the matter come from? Where did the laws come from? Where did the energy come from? There is a law called conservation of angular momentum. If a spinning object break apart in a frictionless environment then the fragments are all gonne spinn the same dirctions. Thats because the outside is moving faster than the inside! How come Venus and Uranus and spinning backwards from the other planets? Here are also some facts why the evolution theory does not work..I agree with most of them! http://www.angelfire.com...
The Evolution theory (big bang theory) is stupid!

There are many holes in the theory. it is nothing you can observe or test it only happens in your mind. People are being brain washed every day because it is being teach in schools. People like this theory so much because it gets rid of god and then they are the ones in charge. If the evolution theory is true then there is no purpose in life..if it feels good do it. If the evolution theory is true then death is a beautiful thing. You have to kill the weaker ones so than the stronger ones dont get adapted by them. By the way this theory is tax supported :D...
The Phrase "Under God" Should Remain In The Pledge Of Allegiance

Jefferson doesn't refer in the Declaration of Independence to "our" God- he refers to "Nature's God." To understand his intent you must be intellectually honest. Jefferson rejected religion every chance he got, as did many of the Founding Fathers. When a deist speaks of God, he does so within the context of logic and reason, and not within the context of religious devotion, which is precisely what the phrase "under God" intends. The phrase does not say "under the Laws of Nature," nor "under Nature's God." This implies a particular deity. The question here is not whether Jefferson believed in God, or not, rather what was his intent in referencing Nature's God in the Declaration of Independence, vs. the inclusion of "under God" in the Pledge. One is a secular reference honoring no establishment of religion, the other is not. Ours is a government of men- the Constitution invokes "We the People," not God. Our rights are secured by us, and our relationship with our government- not God.