BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
was Alexander the great was the most influential person throughout history

no he wasn't, even though he expanded the roman empire; but he also weakened its central hold as an empire, and which led to its demise. but the question was 'was Alexander the great was the most influential person throughout history'. the definition of 'influential' is; Power to sway or affect based on prestige, wealth, ability, or position... although he did accumulate wealth, ability, and prestige, he didn't "affect" people. those conquered people were part of the roman empire, but they didn't consider themselves that because their land had been taken over by force. influence also means; To affect the nature, development, or condition of; modify. Alexander didn't do much developments,nor did he affect the condition, unless you want to argue he worsened their condition. but lets just say he did have lots of influence, because to a certain degree, he totally did. but would he be considered the MOST INFLUENTIAL? if you look at history, many figures meet the category of "influential', including Karl Marx who created the concept of communism; Jesus, who started Christianity, Hitler, who brought about many devastation; from ww2, to the holocaust, to Zionism, to potentiality ww3. i don't really know why you chose alex the great as the 'most influential', and you should have gone first, because i can't give a rebuttal to a round in which u didn't even participate in, because you know that not doing so forfeited this round for you? but personally, i find Jesus as the most influential in history. because a lot of events in history occurred in his name. from the crusades, to colonialism, to endless wars, an even to ww1, where it partially was started because Russia wanted to "win back" the "holy land". Christianity is the current predominate religion, even if some might argue it has been only used in name, but not in practice in the above mentioned... also, Jesus is the most respected in the world, not only do Christians, who are in the largest religion which is Christianity, but so do the Muslims who are the 2nd largest religious group, because they also believe in Jesus. :)
Debate me only using spongebob quotes

Ay Ay Craptain Is mayonnaise an instrument? It's A giraffe I guess your going to miss: THE PANTY RAID MYleg! My leg! Remember, licking doorknobs is illegal on other planets BBBIIIIGGGGG MEEEEEEAAAATTTYYYYY CCCCLLLLLAAAAAAWWWWSSS BBBIIIIGGGGG MEEEEEEAAAATTTYYYYY CCCCLLLLLAAAAAAWWWWSSS BBBIIIIGGGGG MEEEEEEAAAATTTYYYYY CCCCLLLLLAAAAAAWWWWSSS BBBIIIIGGGGG MEEEEEEAAAATTTYYYYY CCCCLLLLLAAAAAAWWWWSSS BBBIIIIGGGGG MEEEEEEAAAATTTYYYYY CCCCLLLLLAAAAAAWWWWSSS BBBIIIIGGGGG MEEEEEEAAAATTTYYYYY CCCCLLLLLAAAAAAWWWWSSSBBBIIIIGGGGG MEEEEEEAAAATTTYYYYY CCCCLLLLLAAAAAAWWWWSSSBBBIIIIGGGGG MEEEEEEAAAATTTYYYYY CCCCLLLLLAAAAAAWWWWSSSBBBIIIIGGGGG MEEEEEEAAAATTTYYYYY CCCCLLLLLAAAAAAWWWWSSSBBBIIIIGGGGG MEEEEEEAAAATTTYYYYY CCCCLLLLLAAAAAAWWWWSSSBBBIIIIGGGGG MEEEEEEAAAATTTYYYYY CCCCLLLLLAAAAAAWWWWSSSBBBIIIIGGGGG MEEEEEEAAAATTTYYYYY CCCCLLLLLAAAAAAWWWWSSSBBBIIIIGGGGG MEEEEEEAAAATTTYYYYY CCCCLLLLLAAAAAAWWWWSSSBBBIIIIGGGGG MEEEEEEAAAATTTYYYYY CCCCLLLLLAAAAAAWWWWSSSBBBIIIIGGGGG MEEEEEEAAAATTTYYYYY CCCCLLLLLAAAAAAWWWWSSS BBBIIIIGGGGG MEEEEEEAAAATTTYYYYY CCCCLLLLLAAAAAAWWWWSSS
God Exists

1. My opponent states that writing about what a scientist says is not citing a scientist. Yes it is. Ad Interim, you have yet to cite a single thing. 2. When I say that they are "my" numbers it means that they are the numbers that I have cited. Question all you want but you are showing your inability to do even a modicum of research to refute my claims and instead simply hurl insults. Simply pathetic. 3 "if you cannot cite proper evidence that is one for you" Meanwhile my evidence is entirely valid AND the only evidence presented in this debate thus far. 4. Once again you state that the numbers I posted are "fake and fraudulent" and that i got "caught red handed" yet, you have failed to actually refute me. Logically, if my numbers were fake and fraudulent, a simple google search would be able to expose me. you seem incapable of doing even that. 5 what does genesis 1:26 have to do with free will? absolutely nothing. Did you even read it? that verse exemplifies the care that God took in our creation. It does not regard free will. Next, my opponent cites genesis 11:7 and the Tower of Babel. If anything this verse provides greater support to my argument because it shows that we had the ability to go against what God would have for us. If we didn't the whole business with the tower would never have happened. 6 He asks about the "us" and "our" this is actually a deep theological discussion that regards what Christians call the Holy Trinity. you can do some research on it if you want but given what I've seen so far I don't think research is your strong point. 7 I'm not getting into the "text is a terrible form of communication" thing again. It's just a stupid argument on your part. 8 Richard Dawkins said this: "it"s possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the um detail, details, of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer.and that designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe." 9. His next and final point is just restated arguments that I've already addressed as well as more insults.
Free speech is FAKE NEWS

I can assure you you will not be arrested for simply being racist otherwise the KKK would already be in jail. Now if your inciting violence against someone of color then yes that's a hate crime. Like saying black people suck for example it's different from saying I'm going to kill mr. Jones who is black on 19th Street. You know? As for the vanity plate I don't know I guess it's just a certain rule that you can't have it there if you really really wanted to pursue that you could probably win a lawsuit against that. You're free to stay at whatever you want but in society you got to face the consequences for what you say. Like if you're just a dick to everybody and say whatever comes off the top of your head of course you're going to be fired or punished socially. But on a government level know you're going to be completely fine. Free Speech only applies to the government towards its citizens. That's the reason social media can ban people without any problem. Because there are private organization letting people use their service.
Free speech is FAKE NEWS

So I can be racist, Homophobic and just a plain a-hole and say whatever I want and not suffer consequences? I think you can be charged by the government for being a racist a-hole. Or possibly be charged for homophobic remarks. I believe being racist is considered a hate crime and you can be charged with that also it's a way for the government to say you are inciting hate and causing a disturbing behavior and be arrested for that. Like if I stood in the middle of Harlem and started yelling racist remarks, I would probably be arrested for causing a disturbance. Therefore there is no free speech And why can't I get a "Fvck Off" vanity plate on my car if we have free speech? Therefore there is no free speech
Free speech is FAKE NEWS

I think you Misunderstand Free Speech. Unless You are Directly Threatening Someone, The Government cannot arrest you for anything you say. The Government cannot censor our thoughts or ideas. However, You are still responsible for the outcomes of what you say. If i call my Boss a Dick, Of Course I'm Going to be Fired. Its All about Respect. While Yes, We Have Freedom of Speech, You have to deal with the social consequences of what you say.
Free speech is FAKE NEWS

According to the constitution we are supposed to have free speech, But I don't think we do, It's just fake news. I mean if I call someone a nigger, I'm racist and will be fired or suspended from school. If I call a Jew a kike, I'm being racist. If I call a lesbian a dyke, I'm vilified If I call a woman a whore or slut, I will be fired I call a Pakistani a towel head or Paki and I'm being a racist and will be vilified and fired I can't get a FVCK YOU vanity plate for my car These are just some examples, So what is free speech? I thought free speech meant that I could say anything, It didn't matter how insensitive, Racist and rude the remark is, So than why is it racist or hate speech or justifiable for a firing. This is why I think free speech is FAKE NEWS. There is no free speech, Otherwise I could call that gay person a f@g, Or queer and not get in trouble for it, But yet in the general public we need to be politically correct so we can't say things like that. Therefore free speech is not free speech, It's just fake news
Free speech is FAKE NEWS

I mean, Peoole Have the right to be offended, Just as much as you have the right to say dumb things. Being Offensive and mean to others intentionally should Get You Fired in my Opinion if you start to lash out towards customers and co-workers. Free Speech Exists, But on a government level. For Example In The UK, You can be arrested for being offensive. Look up the Markus meechum, Or Count Dankula case. Weve got it good here.
Free speech is FAKE NEWS

So essentially I can call the government anything I want and I will not be arrested or chopped up like the guy in the Saudi Embassy, BUT that is only the government. I say anything that is not politically correct at work, In public anywhere, I will be fired, Crucified, Quoted from social media and vilified in public for either being a racist, A homophobic or insensitive individual. So free speech therefore is not really free speech without consequences, Therefore in reality there is no free speech. (Just against the government) So I can say the President is a fvcking moron), But if I say that about anyone else in public I will be crucified. That does not sound like free speech to me. Free speech would be for me to say anything. Anytime, About anyone, And using any type of racist derogatory language I choose to use. Now that is free speech!
Gun Rights

It has been thought provoking. 1: Natural Rights I have mentioned that Pro’s contention for gun rights was hinged on the assertion that self-defense is a natural right and labeled it a bare assertion. The only warrant that he has provided for this is a quotation from the Declaration of Human Rights. Even if this appeal to authority satisfies voters there has not been a solid link presented between that supposed right and the right to defend yourself with a gun. As I pointed out last round this line of thinking that the right to defend yourself is natural and therefore you can use anything to defend yourself is ludicrous. Is it reasonable to defend myself with a bazooka? To defend myself, may I use an atomic weapon? Is that reasonable? Pro confirms this thought process when he says “Whether this self-defense is realized through the use of firearms or not is, in reasonable conclusion, unimportant. This would mean that an oppressed individual could, ethically, use any means to defend themselves. ” He also says “Thus there is no need to provide any 'solid' link towards firearms” Thus we see that pro’s argument is based on a bare assertion that does not have a solid link to the topic at hand. Thus his argument is ultimately unconvincing. 2: Bear Arms Pro questions my claim, that governments can reasonable restrict arms, by asking “Who is to say that Government can do this? ” As this is the last round and I cannot make new arguments I will refer you to Round 2 argument 2. Essentially I demonstrate that the government restricting citizens from owning some arms, like bombs, it would then follow that a government can reasonable restrict arms. 3: Deterring tyrannical government/repelling invasion Much of pro’s argument here revolves around an occupying oppressive government. The examples that pro has given of this Again I would mention that this debate was limited to the scope of 1st world countries per pro’s statements. . I maintain that no first world government if corrupt could be overthrown by gun wielding militias as the Government has far superior resources. The concept that owning a firearm will deter invasion or corrupt (1st world) government is outdated. It is no longer a valid reason to support the owning of guns. Conclusion: Thus we see that pro’s argument is based on a bare assertion that does not have a solid link to the topic at hand. Thus his argument is ultimately unconvincing. Gun ownership is clearly not a natural right. The second amendment is so vauge as to not clearly apply to guns specifically. The concept that owning a firearm will deter invasion or corrupt (1st world) government is outdated.
Gun Rights

Gun rights: I do not have a strong opinion as of yet. The purpose of this debate is to give me an opportunity to feel out my thoughts on this subject. Please read carefully. Clarification: 1: What this debate is not about This debate is not about gun control. This debate is not about the NRA. This debate is not about gun crime. This debate is not about gun deaths. This debate is not about gun safety. 2: What it is about: Many claim that bearing arms is a “right.” Often times this is cited back to the second Amendment and used to argue that “gun control” (which we are not debating) is a violation of the constitution. The second Amendment: Below are two of the versions of the second amendment, one passed by congress, the other ratified by Thomas Jefferson. The punctuation is different. “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” (1) “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” (1) What I would like to debate is the following question: Is owning a gun a natural right? Pro will argue that owning a gun is a right. I will be taking the position of Con, as I imagine there are more potential opponents that are Pro: Format: 4 rounds, 6,000 characters, 72 hrs. Select Winner voting 1st round Pro may begin arguments 2nd and 3rd rounds for arguments and rebuttals 4th round overview, Pro waives This debate is impossible to accept: Please comment if interested in accepting, please include a brief summary of your position. (1) https://en.wikipedia.org...
Nepal Should Recieve Comprehensive Assistance for Its Children Over The Listed Nations Below

to make it easy on you ill repost it here round 1 "aughhhhhhhh, it wouldnt let me post this, even though theres three minites left in before i forfit. i can give u a screenshot of it if you want, but youll have to post an email address anyway heres my first round. i would be glad to help you with your school debate. i negate the resolution, Nepal Should Receive Comprehensive Assistance for Its Children Over The Listed Nations Below. to clarify the debate, i present the following definitions Over: more than nations listed below: Bhutan, Indonesia, Myanmar, Philippines, and Vietnam. As the con i only have to show that at least one of the listed countrys have a greater need of comprehensive assistance then Nepal does. while the pro must show that Nepal has a greater need then all of the nations. good luck :)" now on to my second round theres really not enough time left to have a real debate, so if you want to just challenge me to debate this over again id be glad to accept. or we could just finish this, your choice.
The United States should decriminalize drugs.

Final Rebuttals/Closing ArgumentThroughout round four, Pro more or less simply states that he should win without really going into any great detail as to why he should win. I've demonstrated in my argument that illicit drugs are extremely dangerous to ones health, and have damaging societal effects (in terms of family, the ability to maintain a job, etc.) I've also highlighted that when drugs are legal, as in the case of alcohol and tobacco, they are more widely used and thus more open to abuse; this is one point that Pro has essentially dropped. In arguing that people are hospitalised for self-harm, I was merely attempting to demonstrate that self-harm is heavily discouraged, and that the 'right' for people to commit-self harm, is practically non-existent. Indeed people who self-herm or attempt suicide so not receive prison sentences, but they do have the right taken away in the form of psychiatric prevention. For example, if someone wants to commit suicide, they can be involuntarily sectioned--thus, that proposed 'right' to do what we want to ourselves is extremely limited when we overstep the lines of doing ourselves physical harm, which inevitably occurs in the case of drug use (as I have demonstrated in my round one argument, by listing all the effects that specific drugs have on the body.)In round three, I additionally looked at the state of Colarado and the overall impact that marijuana legalisations has had on the state so far--as can be seen, it is largely negative. (Pro appears to have dropped these contentions, though.)In regards to Portugal (and I'll use this as my second-last rebuttal), drug-legalization hasn't actually been a complete success. No fact, there's plenty to indicate that's it's been quite the failure. [26.] http://www.bmj.com...Note that delegalisation, doesn't necessarily equate more regulation, less crime, or indeed less drug use; as the above statistics clearly show. ***************************I didn't have the opportunity to fully negate Pros argument on marijuana, either. Pro placed a great deal of emphasis on marijuana alone (whole somewhat ignoring my inclusion of other drugs), and argued that marijuana can actually be good for you. However, the 'relaxing' effect it has on people is mostly psychosomatic; and actually 'real'. And again, there's a number of detrimental physical effects that smoking it can incur--blood pressure alteration, blood sugar alteration, and lung damage. Not to mention the psychological impact it can have on some people; I.E, the severe anxiety and paranoia that it can cause. I will leave my closing case here. Thanks to Pro for this debate. Once more I urge judges to assess those three key parts of my argument (health, society, and the overuse/misuse of drugs that are legal) and take them into consideration when deciding who to vote for.
The United States should decriminalize drugs.

Resolved: The United States Federal Government should decriminalize drugs.This debate is the first round of Bsh1's summer tournament. If Emilrose would like to change any of the definitions, rules, or structure, she can PM/comment on the debate. I've asked her to not accept the debate (or at least post her acceptance in R1) until August 4th. I will not have time to work on this from Thursday-Monday, so delaying it would help me on this.Only Bsh's pre-approved judges will determine who advances as far as the tournament is concerned, but anyone can vote.Structure: Round 1: Acceptance Round 2: Constructive (No rebuttals) Round 3: Rebuttals Round 4: Case Defense/Closing ArgumentsDefinitions:USFG- United States Federal Governmentshould- compelled to do something as it is the best path of actiondecriminalize- to change the current laws so that drug users are not given prison sentencesdrugs- often illegal substance that can cause addiction, habituation, or a marked change in consciousness Rules: 1. No new arguments in the final round.2. No kritiks of the resolution.3. No counterplans.4. No trolling.5. No semantics.6. No forfeits.7. BoP is shared, resolution must be looked at on balance.If any of these rules are violated the offender loses the debate.Thank you and good luck, may the best debater win!
Theistic Evolution is the most reasonable explanation for the formation of Life

I think there were prophets that came after who Jesus that should be examined however I will accept the premise that the God of Jesus, Mohammed, Isaac and Abraham did in fact create the universe. I will also be arguing that Theistic evolution is false and Creationism is more plausible. I accept your definition of life. I also will be arguing on a Christan basis and leave all Non-Abrahamic holy books out of this(Tao Te Ching, Vedas, ETC). Are the Koran and Torah acceptable sources? Thank you for hosting this debate.
Theistic Evolution is the most reasonable explanation for the formation of Life

Alright, your misinformation aside the decisive factor in this debate now is the definition of the "day". You say that the length of the day to God at the time of creation may have been well longer then 24 hours. The issue with this as I pointed out previously is why would God choose to reveal this to mankind as he did to the classical world in an unit of measure different from the contemporary or all future understandings? I will give you another opportunity to answer why he would do this and what purpose would it serve.
Theistic Evolution is the most reasonable explanation for the formation of Life

First, I can see CON's point, but the 24-hour day period is an earthly thing. The "day" for other planets can be much longer or shorter than 24 hours. If God created this universe, then one knows that these 24-hour "day" time periods could have been small amounts of time, until the earth was created. One cannot measure what the time of a "day" for God would be. So what could be considered a day to him, may be a significantly long period of time for us. And to cover CON's point on the fact that the rest of the Bible is consistent with the actual 24-hour days, this is easily understood. Once the earth was created, and time was established, humans had what they knew to be how to measure a day. When once recorded Jesus" resurrection, time had already been established on earth, so when God told someone to record it a certain way, when the word day was used, they assumed 24-hour period. This could also explain how the word day had the interpretation that it did in Genesis. If God had sent the message to note that he took 6 days to create the universe, days would be assumed to be a 24-hour period to the one recording this message from God, even if that is exactly what God meant. However, this wording misunderstanding does not apply to any earthly situations in the Bible, such as the resurrection. Second, Theistic evolution obviously believes in all the proof supplied by evolution. As I made my first point, I was simply trying to note that evolution was, of course, considered in all of this. However, when I previously stated that humans were last to evolve, I simply meant we are the most advanced species to evolve yet. This still does not change my previous point of humans having ownership over the land and animals, and does not note at all the ability or the idea of humans further evolving into something else. This confusion was due to my misinformation.