BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Common core testing does not capture the true intelligence of the person taking the test.

Con miss understood my previous argument. A student can be intelligent in many ways, all these ways of intelligence are equally important and the Common Core does not test for all of them. How can Common Core tests that are Mathematics and Language test how musically intelligent, bodily-kinesthetic intelligent or naturalist intelligent the student taking the test is? These test are tailored in a way so certain students do better than others. Common Core does not test to the strengths of all the recipients taking the test. Student's intelligence are more profound and unique than any Common Core test can ever measure with there silly comprehension and Mathematics and Language exams.
This is Impossible (Troll Debate)

Ok audience, the time for a votebomb is now. Extend arguments.VOTEPRO...................__............./´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸ ........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\ ........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...') .........\.................'...../ ..........'...\.......... _.·´ ............\..............( Bro Fist :D
This is Impossible (Troll Debate)

Son of a B!TCH. If you forfeit again, then the audience must vote bomb in my favor. Good day sir.Extend all arguments.VOTEPRO ...................__............./´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸ ........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\ ........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...') .........\.................'...../ ..........'...\.......... _.·´ ............\..............( Bro Fist :D
This is Impossible (Troll Debate)

Ok. Hi everyone. My name is Jayden, and ummm I'm here to prove something to you. So there is this triangle right? And MAN LET ME TELL YOU! It's freaking impossible to make. It's that simple. Now let me tell you why.1. It doesn't make senseLadies and gentlemen, ask yourself. Does this triangle make sense. No. Of course not. Why do we park in driveways, and drive on parkways? Doesn't matter really. What's important is that you realize that this triangle makes no sense, AND THEREFORE CANNOT BE POSSIBLE. Do infants enjoy infancy as much as adults enjoy adultery? I don't know. Probably not.2. You can't disagree with me Why do people ask you, "Can I ask you a question?" It's not like you have a choice, they already did. That's exactly what this is. You THINK you can believe that the triangle is possible, but in reality, you don't have a choice. Whether you now know it or not, you deep down believe that the triangle is impossible to make.Also, what's the point of thongs? It's like buying a wedgie.Anyhow......."This triangle is beyond belief. It's physical complexity is unable to be comprehended. This triangle IS, without a doubt, impossible to make. I don't believe even Einstein could have made it." -- Just Stein. B. Bear (The great philosopher) Visit this website for more info: http://bit.ly...3. Why do people make rubber duckies yellow, when real ducks are green, or brown? It's kind of dumb.This contention is so incredibly off topic, that I will just stop typing for a while. Ok I'm back now. But still, there really is no where to go from here soooo...If you can't drink and drive, why do you need a driver's license to buy liquor?Makes noooooooooo fvcking sense.VOTEPRO
This is Impossible (Troll Debate)

http://www.wackywong.net... <<<<< I stand affirmative, that this triangle is impossible to make. Round uno for acceptance. This debate is meant to be fun and funny. <>Profanity allowed <>Telling the truth not required <>Making sense not required(though don't get too carried away. Keep things at least partially on the subject. :D) VOTING: Category "sources" is to be changed to "hilarity point", and is to go to the person who was the most entertaining, and funny.
Human suffering can be ended with the elimination of the human race

Logic can be carried by the Pro: eliminate the human race, no humans can suffer since there is no living human to undergo suffering. Since that was my opps only response extend all my points, all my burdens, all my refutations and note that the Pro is clearly winning because:-Con provides no refutation-Con never showed how Pro wasn't achieving his burden.-No burdens were addressed by my opponent clearly showing that he acknowledges his own failure to provide refutation.I urge a Pro ballot
Human suffering can be ended with the elimination of the human race

Anyways, lets get started. Human-A human being, esp. a person as distinguished from an animal or (in science fiction) an alien. Observation:Religious examples/beliefs can not exist within this debate since religions view that souls go to heaven or hell, not the physical human being. Some religions also believe in reincarnation. Yet the individual's soul would reincarnate into an animal as no humans exist to allow that reincarnation. Yet the primary reason is that religion/beliefs in general carry conflicting ideas as to the afterlife, yet not a single one has been proven to be valid. No religion has been proven to be true. I contend that by eradicating the human race, one achieves the resolution. Since no human race exists, then thus you deduce that suffering cannot be experienced by a non existent species. The short term suffering one feels is permissible to this, because that momentous instant of suffering would lead to the long term end of suffering and the goal is to end long term suffering, whatever the means. Again, note that if the human race ceases to exist, the human population can not continue to undergo suffering(a characteristic of life) as they can no longer experience living characterisitcs. Thus you affirm.
Should people be allowed to own fire arms? (guns)

First off, I would like to say thank you to whoever has accepted this debate. I wish you luck and hope you enjoy this debate as much as I will. This debate will have three rounds. The first (this round) is be an introduction stating your position and defining terms which we can agree on to smooth out debate and ensure we are speaking of the same thing, plus any formalities you wish to include. The second will be where we shall make our main points and if we wish ask questions of our opponent's views and statements. The third round will be a rebuttal time and for answering the questions posed by our opponent from the second round. I hope the voters can look at this debate from both sides and set your personal bias aside and look soul on the essence of this (hopefully) exiting debate! (: I would ask that all voters, commenters and my opponent would be respectful and kind in their comments and word choice. Other than that, I have no specific rules unless my opponent would wish to add some. :) Here are the terms I wish to define and I hope you (my opponent and voters) can agree with these definitions. I have kept them un biased as they are from the Webster online dictionary and I shall place a link to all the web pages below the definition if you wish to check me. :) Fire arm- " : a weapon from which a shot is discharged by gun powder" Gun- " : a weapon that shoots bullets or shells" Own- " : belonging to one's self or itself" People- " : humans making up a group or assembly or linked by a common interest" Good luck to my opponent and thank you to ALL voters!
Ron Paul Supporters should find a new leader to advocate there views

He cant legalize pot, he never even got a bill on legalizing pot to the floor of congress to get voted on, When he gets to the white house and has the power to sign a bill to legalize pot, it will still never pass through congress for him to sign, and neither will anything else in our nation that he wants to do. he cant veto things but that a destructive power to keep things from happing not a creative power to cause things.the things he will be do will be related to our forces over seas, but legal pot, not going to happen. Gold standard? still not going to come back. Presidents have to learn to work with those across the isle and for Ron Paul thats every single member of congress.But this debate is not really about getting Ron Paul to the white house, its about Ron Paul being the man his supporters put up in the race to get to the white house.core conservatives had like 4 people in the race trying to get behind, some are better options than others. Moderates have about too people they could get behind. Gingrich was in there for people who are both old and stupid in the race to get behind.Libitarians right now have Ron Paul. Other Libitarians exist, all I am saying with this resolution is another one is needed to be found to take Ron Pauls place, one who can work with those of a different view in compramise to get key victories for his own libitarian views. Romney knows how to do that and has sucess with that for his own moderate conservative views, Santorum has had success with that for his social conservative views, Ron Paul has had no success, you should find someone else to who wants to legalize pot to get behind that can actualy compromise with other people in power.There is line that divides leadership and windbaggery, and it is time for libitarians to recognize wich side Ron Paul fits on. and its not leadership.
Ron Paul Supporters should find a new leader to advocate there views

But he is a total failure at getting anything like that done. he cant work with the rest of legeslature enough to get more than one bill passed how is putting him in the white house going to help that.you like him because he wants to legalize marujuana, fine, but he's never going to get it legalized. case closed. you need to put your support behind a poltician who wants to legalize marujuana who's not Ron Paul, who can actual lead others in power to get that done.I would say I look foward to my opponents response, but truthfully I'm just thinking I should have put some resrictions on who could accapt this debate now.
Ron Paul Supporters should find a new leader to advocate there views

This is not a debate over wether his supporerst should vote for him this GOP election but rather in reference to future election, both presidential and congressional for that matter.Of the 620 bills sponsored by Ron Paul during his long career in the House of Representatives, only four have ever made it to a vote on the House floor and only one of those became an actual law.this here is that one law he actually had sucess with in 14 years of his service in congress http://www.govtrack.us...=As you can see, its a incridebly unimportent pass that has next to nothing to do with advocating 'liberty'.Even if Ron Paul agree's with everything you yourself believe, or even you started to believe what you do because of Ron Pauls preaching it, you should look to get a new person to advocate it who's not Ron Paul to put your suppot behind. When electing someone to represent you, you need a leader who can, you know lead the change you want in washington.If they cant do that, then there just another talking windbag.Do you want the federal reserve audited, so does Ron Paul, but he's a faulure for getting that to ever happenDo you want us to get back on a Gold Standard to back the dollar bill, so does Ron Paul but he has been a failure at getting these things to get done.Next time you get to elect a consistant libitarien to stand up for your views, its most rational for you to give a new libitarien the chance to advocate them. Ron Paul has had his chance for 14 years and has shown he is not the leader you need to usher 'liberty' back to America.and once he is no longer in Congress Ron Paul can still do what you like him doing, talking in videos on youtube and saying what you want him to say in media interviews (thats all he's manages to do now sitting in a congressional seat). meanwhile the new libitarian you vote to congress can give his effort at actually making the comprimises needed to bring in the change you want that Ron Paul is always talking about.
People should stop putting down atheists for contradicting religion.

I noticed a good point in the comments section, and I think it should be posted in the argument: "Atheists contradict religion, and those who are religious contradict atheists. Atheists disrespect an idea, but religious people disrespect people." I believe your argument is quite valid, and I agree that often atheists bash religion, but religion bashes atheists too. That's what I've been trying to bring to light this whole time. Granted, religion fills a void that nothing else can, for some people, but what I'm fighting for is for people to quit "bashing" each other. Yes, atheists often dis on religion, but religion is also rather harsh to people.
People should stop putting down atheists for contradicting religion.

I think what we are missing here is that often atheists bash religious people's beliefs, not just contradict them. What you need to realize is that religion fills a gap in so many peoples life's that no other thing could fill, and honestly contradicting it and bashing it for no reason just is not helpful. Religion means so much to do many people and making fun of religious beliefs is just, honestly rude. I think that's why people are so mad at atheists so often. It is because religious people believe they are treating there rights and beliefs.
People should stop putting down atheists for contradicting religion.

Just because atheists don't believe in religion, doesn't mean that it's okay to be angry at them and put them down, just like it's not okay to put down those who do believe in religion. People, nowadays, are constantly fighting for equality and fighting against people who look down upon others, so why is it okay to then put down an atheist for not having any religion? Also, those who say that people are wrong for not believing in religion are rather judgmental. Just because some would rather have the facts at their disposal does not mean that they are wrong; it means that they're curious and have a scientific mind. Quite honestly, people should not be so quick to judge those that aren't like them.
People should stop putting down atheists for contradicting religion.

I've seen a lot of people who dog on the atheists for contradicting religion. Personally, as an atheist, I don't believe we should be throwing ourselves at religion. In my mind, it's more important to focus on what we need and want for ourselves so that we can enjoy what life we have here. I don't think we should concern ourselves with what happens after death. But that isn't my topic. My topic is "Why do people seem to be constantly angry at atheists?" Even as an atheist, I support anyone and everyone in their beliefs, because I accept that I may be wrong in my own, therefore I don't go around putting down peoples' religion, so why do people put down my lack thereof?
The General Theory of Relativity Is True

I. The Perihelion Precession of Mercury Pro evades. Even a slight change would change the curvature and rapidly change the APS II. The Expansion of the Universe Pro says eienstien"s first theory was for a static universe. This shows it can be made to fit. If the universe was contracting relativity can be changed. Relativity does predict expansion of the universe but at a certain rate. The universe is expanding at too fast a rate. The fact of eccentricity increasing is ignored (because he cannot refute it) III. Gravitational Lensing Pro ignores everthing here. This lensing was already known and was proven by quantum mechanics before relativity. Pro also ignores the fact that light goes off in all directions instead of bouncing contradicts relativity IV. Black Holes Pro evades again. Asking me to explain how instead of going after the argument "Relativity would cause black holes to increase in depth curvature causing an influx of increased black holes. Computer models can predict the number with a 0.7% error rate."[1] Here is a picture of pro"s performance in this debate http://www.best-of-web.com... 1. Greene, Brian. 2011 Black Holes interacting with quantum gravity.
The General Theory of Relativity Is True

1. The Perihelion Precession of Mercury Relativity cannot account for the loss of arc-seconds per century. As the sun is losing mass all the time[1][2]. If relativity is true the curvature of space-time is also in loss of the sun and a gain in precession mercury. Yet mercury"s arc-seconds per century is almost constant[3]. Relativity has ad hocs too, however they're never published due to censorship and reletivist bias.[4] 2. The Expansion of the Universe Eienstien also proposed a relativity theory for a static universe. So it shows the theory can be twisted to fit (like dark matter). Relativity only allows for a various expansion and eccentricity rate. Increasing expansion in the universe has been observed contradicting relativity[5] and increased eccentricity in things such as the moon have been observed contradicting relativity[6] 3. Gravitational Lensing This was already known, light gets bent by objects. Quantum Physics predicts this. If relativity was true the light should also bounce around other objects[7], however light spreads out in all directions. Argument against Relativity 1. Black holes. Computer models that are based off relativity predict a large number of black holes. More than are actually in the universe[8] [1] Williams, Tarry. 2000. The Sun and its mass [2] http://www.universetoday.com... [3] Femmingway, Lewis. 2010. Mercury"s Orbit [4] Morris, Henry M. 1998. Bigotry in science. Back To Genesis 114a (June). [5] http://www.eso.org... [6] http://arxiv.org... [7] Grille, Kim. 1998. Light waves with massive objects. [8] "The ratio of the mass of black holes in galaxy centers to the rest of the matter in galaxies is larger in the simulations than in the real universe." http://www.scientificamerican.com...
The General Theory of Relativity Is True

Anti-atheist made a comment on a debate claiming that the theory of relativity is false, so I challenge him to this debate to see if he can back up his claim. The definition: "The second is the General Theory of Relativity, which primarily applies to particles as they accelerate, particularly due to gravitation, and acts as a radical revision of Newton"s theory, predicting important new results for fast-moving and/or very massive bodies."[1] Rules: 1. The first round is for acceptance. 2. A forfeit or concession is not allowed. 3. No semantics, trolling, or lawyering. 4. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed from all moments after the debate has been formalized. Voters, in the case of the breaking of any of these rules by either debater, all seven points in voting should be given to the other person. Debate Structure: Round 1: Acceptance Round 2: Presenting all arguments (no rebuttals by pro) Round 3: Refutation of opponent's arguments (no new arguments) Round 4: Defending your original arguments and conclusion (no new arguments) Sources: [1]: http://www.allaboutscience.org...
Music battle: Rap [for flow only]

I personally found his flow very abrupt, with lots of pauses. But no doubt, in between the pauses the flow was smooth.I know I already used Eminem, but in this rap he is an extremely small part and is only a back-up rapper to Busta Rhymes.So consider this a Busta Rhymes rap.The flow is so fluid.http://www.youtube.com...;
Daniel Bryan is awesome

The main objection of a match is to entertain the crowd and trust me, being able to get an entire crowd of anywhere between 20,000-70,000 people into something is very hard. Plus, wrestlers, while they're trying to entertain the crowd, also have to be on the same page. In wrestling, timing and pacing is almost everything because the main purpose of wrestling is for the matches to look as real as possible so wrestling fans can suspend their disbelif. So yes, while they're trying to get the crowd into their match, they are telling each other what they're going to do while wrestling. If you only had a brain in your head to comprehend this, you would understand that's far from easy. The purpose of wrestling is not to hurt your opponent, but sometimes the risks they take are hard to not become hurt from. For example: http://www.youtube.com... I believe that's a little more complicated than faking throwing a remote at your dog. I also don't believe you've show any evidence proving that actors are better at acting than wrestlers you just said that. I Even though I agee, you never backed up your opinion as to why they are. But don't worry, I'm going to show you why wrestlers are good actors themselves, especially for never taken an acting class in their life. http://www.youtube.com... Now, look at his facial expressions, mannerisms,perfect tone in his voice and delivery on the mic and tell me that's not good acting. That doesn't sound contrived and as if he's reading off a script. That's strong, believable emotion. Please tell me in a straight face that's not good acting. Futhermore, in that picture, Daniel Bryan is fooling around. Many athletes do certain things that hurt their credibility much more than Bryan just fooling around with fans. If that's the most dirt you have on him that's going to hurt his credbility, you aren't trying that hard. Bryan is awesome because he has great psychology, knows how to sell properly, has an amazing ability to tell a story in the ring, an ability to have the crowd in the palm of his hands, knows when, where and why to do something in context to the story he's telling in the ring, and most importantly, his passion and heart for wrestling is off the charts. Wait, you tell me how wrestling is fake, but yet you should me a fake wrestling match where Daniel Bryan losses in 18 seconds as it that proves he sucks when the matches are FAKE. It's not like he really lost to Sheamus. He was booked to lose to Sheamus. And even though he lost to Sheamus, he got over with the crowd a lot more because even when he's not wrestling, they chant "yes" in reference to Daniel Bryan and chant his name. I'm done talking. Allow Brock Lesnar to tell you. http://www.youtube.com... Oh wait, he must be lying, right!? Give me a break. Never has a wrestler gotten this over with the crowd after losing an 18 second match. Not even Hogan, Austin, Rock, Flair, or any other of the great wrestler. So yes, that makes him awesome because no other wrestler has become that popular with the crowd by losing in such little time.