BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
9/11 was an inside job

Though my opponent did not respond to the previous round, I would still like to point out some things showing that 9/11 could not have been an inside job. Mainly, if the government wanted a war, or to invade somewhere, then they could have started that in ways that would not involve such massive amounts of lost American lives. The government stands to gain nothing from murdering hundreds of its own people. Also, information is leaked from the government fairly often, and the government is aware of that fact. The American government would never be able to completely cover up the fact that they were responsible for 9/11, as evidenced by the fact that we are even having this debate. If 9/11 was an inside job, and that information got to the public (which is a large possibility), then the government would have a full-scale revolt on their hands. They would never risk that information getting out, and if they needed an act of "terrorism" they could have done it in much more subtle ways than 9/11. Still, that is besides the point. 9/11 was not orchestrated by the government. Whatever small gains they could make by that act of terrorism, there are many other less violent ways to get those same small gains. They would have no motive for killing all those people, or organizing the 9/11 attack. The statement that 9/11 was an inside job is just too improbable and ridiculous to be believable.
9/11 was an inside job

It was not an inside job because there is no motivation for anyone in the government to commit such an act. Also, the time and work effort needed to do something like that don't seem likely at all, especially for someone on the inside. Plus, the terrorist organization that really did 9/11 took responsibility for it, and would have no reason to make an enemy out of America. They admitted to being responsible for 9/11 because they did it and wanted to cause terror, but they wouldn't have if they weren't truly responsible for it. Therefore, it could not have been an inside job.
racial discrimination sucks

"Well slang can be used on this debate site, how do you keep a debate about movies and God formal? Now this really SUCKS. "I agree that slang CAN be used, but remember that the formal definition is always better. I misquoted here ". http://www.merriam-webster.com......slang : to be objectionable or inadequate"The slang for the word sucks means to be objectionable or inadequate, but the real definition is to draw or pull into the mouth. Slang is only used by certain people as it is "typically restricted to a particular context or group of people. ". Since the official definition of sucks to to draw into the mouth, I have thus proven that racial discrimnation does not suck into the mouth. It may be bad, but it doesn't suck into the mouth.
racial discrimination sucks

My definition triumphs over Pro, as 1. That definition is only used in North America 2. That definition is slang. As this is an official debating site, we should use only official definitions, not slang. http://www.merriam-webster.com... slang : to be objectionable or inadequate As you can see, Pro definition is inadequate Asia is unofficial slang. Slang:a type of language that consists of words and phrases that are regarded as very informal, are more common in speech than writing, and are typically restricted to a particular context or group of people. Google Sucks as pro says it is only used by certain people, not by English as a whole. It would be as if I said "Smoking is good" and then argued it was bad because bad can mean good, in slang. So use my official definition instead of Pros. Also, as my definition was presented first, you should use mine. Racial discrimination does not draw into the mouth, thus I win.
The God of Judaism/Christianity is the ultimate Solipsist

As con it will be my job to prove that the God of Judaism/Christianity is not the ultimate solipsist, and ultimately to disprove solipsism in itself. My opponent puts out a few reasonable arguments , but I find his theories to have a few holes. 1. The first thing I would like to do is to briefly point out a major religious clash in my opponents argument, or a few rather. First off, we are questioning God's decisions and, according to both Christianity and Judaism, this is wrong and shouldn't be occuring. Second, if we are giving god a human characteristic, we are essentially comparing him to humans and trying to understand him. Since no one can understand God's infinite wisdom, this is wrong and pointless. (Now on to the main points of the debate) 2. The definition of solipsism in the Merriam-Webster dictionary is as follows: : a theory holding that the self can know nothing but its own modifications and that the self is the only existent thing. My opponent stated himself that he recognizes God as all-knowing, and if this is true then God wouldn't be limited to knowing nothing but his own self-existence. 3. Now on to solipsism as a whole. For this argument I will use the very username of my opponent: Cogito ergo sum (which translates "I think therefore I am"). This is a philosophical statement in Latin used by Renï¿½ Descartes, which became a fundamental element of Western philosophy. The simple meaning of the phrase is that if someone is wondering whether or not they exist, that is in and of itself proof that they do exist (because, at the very least, there is an "I" who is doing the thinking). So if we all think, then we are not a figment of God's imagination. 4. Also, when the human dreams or is envolved in hallucination we loose the senses which we have when we are concious (taste, touch, smell, et cetra). When you dream of getting punched, you don't feel the punch, and you probably wake up in a cold sweat grateful that it wasn't real. 5. Just briefly I would like to point out the fact that my opponent used the Bible for many reasons in his argument. The Bible said god created mankind. It didn't say He thought about mankind. We should focus on and use what the bible says rather than what it doesn't say. 6. Lastly, in my opponents last few arguments, he mentions that God could just be mulling us over in order to see what would come of us. Also, like I mentioned before, he stated that God is all knowing. If all of this is true then there would be no need for God to mull it over to see what would happen because he already knows and this would be a pointless task. As you see in the above, it is illogical and foolish to believe in such a theory as "God: The Ultimate Solipsist" because of so many contradictions in an already weak theory.
The God of Judaism/Christianity is the ultimate Solipsist

Good day. Thanks to my opponent in advance. As per the Topic, I am in the affirmative of my resolution that the God of Judaism/Christianity is the ultimate and only confirmable Solipsist. I have made this debate one round per person (1 for Pro, 1 for Con) so that we have one shot to put our arguments forth and let our expressed theories stand on their own (This is to avoid tangents being taken such as God's existence etc) The ontological argument of human existence has many facets, either by chemical chance, matter in motion, causality i.e. action - reaction and so on, or the teleological Theist theory in which God created us and we are the product of that creation by the Almighty. If as solipsism says, the mind is the only truth we can ultimately know, our thoughts are what make up everything we see, hear, touch, smell and taste then God does indeed fall into this category. From a religious perspective God's thoughts do indeed take shape, God thinks it an it occurs. This is made possible by the tenets that Judaism and Christianity attribute to God - Omniscient[1], Omnipotent[2] and Self-sufficient/Self-existent[3] What strikes me as then becoming apparent is that, via religion's assertions and my theory that God would be deemed as the only true solipsist is that - How can we prove our own existence? Either we're here as a product of God thinking us into existence, or, we are just a train of thought belonging to God. God created _______ and saw that it was good etc etc or did he just think it, and thought that it was good? If God knows all, he knows exactly how me writing this will end, he knows who'll read it, who'll stand against it in the position of Con, who'll be deemed to win by the most votes and so on: my point is, why would God bother? Why would God do something, physically will something in being, if he knows the criteria and outcome already? Why would God need to affirm something he already knows to be affirmed? 'In the beginning God created......'[4] - Did God create anything? Are we subsequent to the alluded beginning, and here I am writing this and asking these questions? Or is God just mulling it over, back their, at the beginning? Has the beginning begun yet, or are God's thoughts being collated and weighed up by God to see if it is worth it? I get the feeling (or God is thinking of me thinking of getting the feeling) that maybe I have gone too far past my initial resolution, too many tangents? I'll let you decide. [1] Psalm 139:2-6; Isaiah 40:13-14 [2] Genesis 18:14; Luke 18:27; Revelation 19:6 [3] Exodus 3:13-14; Psalm 50:10-12; Colossians 1:16 [4] Genesis 1:1
Most Debates on DDO are not serious/professional and/or are just theism vs atheism

Thank You I accept. Serious: (of a person) solemn or thoughtful in character or manner. Professional: appropriate to a profession: professional objectivity. So by the definition of serious you have to someone prove that most debates arent serious, I disagree because an unintelligent person may start a really stupid debate and it can still be 100% serious. A debate on DDO cannot be professional, you have simply mis-used the word. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------To the left you can see how many debates each category has, Religion taking 4775 as I'm writing this. most debates on here currently is held by Politics holding a whooping 8000 at the time this was written. Unless you can disprove that the numbers are flawed your argument is completely invalid. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I look forward to your response and eagerly await your radical position.
Most Debates on DDO are not serious/professional and/or are just theism vs atheism

I'm not exactly sure how to make my argument, but if you look through current and past debates, a LOT are very unprofessional. There are many joke debates, debates where people have terrible grammar, and a HUGE amount of theism vs atheism debates (mostly christian vs atheism) . Not that religious arguments are necessarily bad, but few know how to pull one off professionally.
Bananas can get you high

In Marijuana, the primary chemical that gets user's high when smoked is Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (Delta-9-THC). When consumed, it produces psychoactive effects on the brain, and releases dopamine to the brain, which should be noted that dopamine is not the cause of the psychoactive effects of Marijuana. If bananas can produce the same psychoactive effects on the brain as Marijuana, it would have to have chemicals similar to Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol. Known chemicals that produce the same effects as Marijuana are found in drugs like K2, commonly referred to as it's street name "Spice" which clearly says "NOT FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION" which only leads me to believe that these chemicals are not found in the very edible food, bananas.
Dota 2 is objectively a better game for the player than League of Legends.

If you go onto a forum about anything (In this case League of Legends) And start questioning why it is inferior compared to something else, you have to remember you are surrounded by the people your question is attacking and they will defend what they believe because you are potentially calling them all out. I guarantee if I were to go onto a Dota 2 forum and begin asking why they think Dota 2 is better than League, I will get shut down and flamed just like you. Neither side will be accepting of your opinions when you put yourself in that situation. However, maybe I am looking at this wrong. Maybe you are trying to say that the community who plays the game overall is less accepting in League than in Dota 2. If that is the case, then I will say this. I have little to no experience with Dota 2 and it's community, so I can't say I know what it's like. However, I can assume that the fan base from League of Legends is similar to that of Dota 2 because of how similar the games are. What I know from the League community is that there are very evil, ruthless, vindictive players, but there are also players who gift you after a game just because they want to make you happy.
longer school days

Response to this part of his argument: In a study done in Massachusetts called Expanded learning time initiative a school added 2 hours on to there day and the schools average test scores went up exponentially. That was done with elementary school kids. I am not suggesting that your method cannot work. It's logical that if you spend more time learning a topic or studying something you will learn more. No one can disprove that and that isn't my burden. I just have to prove should we have longer school hours. Sure maybe this works but what i am saying is school is long enough and i presented alternatives like block scheduling or simply not participating in extra activities so you have more time to study. Another alternative that a lot of kids starting in high school use and i use is simply to learn topics on youtube or online. There are teachers and lecturers that have videos online of them teaching a subject. However the main reason is simply that school is long enough. High school ends around 2:30 for me and 4:30 in some other areas. What i mean is in some locations school starts later so they end later. If this were to be implemented on a national scale like my opponent proposes then they would get out of school around 6:30 PM. This goes back to my point that if this were to be used at all it would be best at the local level rather then national however i am not for this method either way because i don't believe we need to extend school at all. Thus we shouldn't have longer school days. Now my opponent brings up a really good argument that i will address " If it was done for middle school and even high school instead of pushing for more reading and math development it could add a longer seminar that would drastically remove long homework nights" Response: This is true but again another thing is some kids work in high school. IF school were to be pushed back kids would have to work later and they would actually have homework late at night. Now this doesn't apply to everyone of course but it does to at least juniors and seniors and some sophomores. Not to mention activates like football practice and band practice would be pushed back. In the end i think simply extending period between classes, using block scheduling i needed, and ensuring you are not in to much extra activities as well as watching videos online is more then enough. I also believe that instead of adding hours to school you simply need to take out extra school activities that can be done after school like track or band and make classes longer. A lot of schools have 85 minute classes or 60 minute classes without adding extra school hours.
longer school days

the school days will be extend be an hour or two to not in the morning but towards the evening so that more can be accomplished and we would take days off at the end of the school year by making them up in year it would shorten our year for longer vacation breaks. In a study done in Massachusetts called Expanded learning time initiative a school added 2 hours on to there day and the schools average test scores went up exponentially. That was done with elementary school kids. If it was done for middle school and even high school instead of pushing for more reading and math development it could add a longer seminar that would drastically remove long homework nights.
DDO Tier Tournament 2 (Round 1): Homosexuality Is Immoral!

First of all their is nothing wrong with my spelling evrybody else spells bad I spell good because im a good speller and write now theirs nothing wrong with my spelling!!!!!!!!!!! But with all seriousness, I apologize to my opponent. At the last second I felt like dropping out of the tournament. However, I didn't want to just forfeit and leave you hanging. Therefore, I decided to post in every round, if only to troll. Also, I'm experimenting with a less blatant style of trolling, which involves fewer misspellings than usual and full denial of the trolling. How did I do? Anyhow, the victory goes to my opponent. Cast your votes for him.
DDO Tier Tournament 2 (Round 1): Homosexuality Is Immoral!

First of all my opponet says that luv is not a good reason too get marred but why do the vast major of people get marred its because they luv each over and gay people are the sam. My opponet says that anything unatural is immoral butt in that case are cars immoral because walking is the nature thing to do and eating Doritos is immoral because Doritos are not nature. You didnt quote Koran but your religion is the only real reason that you are opposed to homosexuality. Also, prove that Im trolling you have no proof this is a horrid person attack! If yup want proof that homosexuality is nature well it is proven that gay men have woman brains! http://news.nationalgeographic.com... See I provided sources so I am right and you are wrong and homosexuality is not a choice so do not criminate against them for doing what is nature. I await my opponent's response.
DDO Tier Tournament 2 (Round 1): Homosexuality Is Immoral!

First of all gay people luv each over and you have no right to tell them that they canot get marred just because yor ancient book says so you are being a homofobe and yor beliefs do not belong in the Untied States were everyone is free and equel. Secund of all homosexuality is not a choice do you think they choose embraces a lifestyle that makes them bulled by evil homofobes like you Muslins and you Cristians it's natural and you need to stop being a bigets. Therd of all strait people get marred all the time why are you tellings gay people that they canot get marred do you think their inferior but they are people to and its called marriage equelity so you should stop standing in the way of their equelity. Checkmate you bigets!!!!
DDO Tier Tournament 2 (Round 1): Homosexuality Is Immoral!

Here I go!11. "First of all their is nothing wrong with my spelling evrybody else spells bad I spell good because im a good speller and write now theirs nothing wrong with my spelling!!!!!!!!!!!"Well you spell perfectly when you want to anyways. Though over all my spelling is pretty horrendous, I don't quite know why...12. "But with all seriousness, I apologize to my opponent. At the last second I felt like dropping out of the tournament. However, I didn't want to just forfeit and leave you hanging. Therefore, I decided to post in every round, if only to troll. Also, I'm experimenting with a less blatant style of trolling, which involves fewer misspellings than usual and full denial of the trolling. How did I do?"I appreciate you not forfeiting as that would have really hurt. Your trolling actually made me laugh a few times and was entertaining. 13. "Anyhow, the victory goes to my opponent. Cast your votes for him.In any case if the judges feel that I deserve to win they should simply acknowledge this and my name can be added as the winner in the forums. Crescendo's Elo is higher than I am and I do not want to ruin it so if the judges could, please do not vote or only one judge can vote so Crescendo's Elo is not harmed. Ajab
The God of Abrahamic religions is not real. (Christianity, Judaism, Islam)

No, There is no scientific evidence to prove the existence of a supernatural all knowing creator. The bible is full of hypocrisy and so is the Torah and Quran. Believing that somehow a group of wandering middle eastern sheep herders who were born before the any age of science or reason, somehow had knowledge about the creation of the universe or the meaning of human existence is ludicrous. Or not realize that existence of their God is almost impossible because of all the paradoxes their texts create. Like God is space less and timeless but he is everywhere. Our universe only existence in the realms of space and time, so if you exist outside of those realms you couldn't exist in this universe. But if he does exist than that means he does take up space and is subject to time. How could God be loving, full of mercy, or full of forgiveness if hell exists? Eternal damnation to a realm full of hell fire doesn't sound merciful or forgiving? What kind of being loves their children so much that they would have them tortured for all of eternity? Not to mention what you go to hell for. Being gay? Homosexuality isn't natural but a talking snake is? Or being an Atheist? Because there was reasonable doubt and I chose to believe in Science which provides actual evidence instead of some Holy book that requires faith instead of facts. I go to hell? I have other points but I will only need them if someone is willing to challenge me.
there is no such thing as too young to love

ok Touche' there but if you read those they say that they were friends until the got older. More mature to understand what love is. When they were younger they were really good friend who sort of knew what being together was that is why they made those promises. They eventually did fall in love but the youngest one I saw was high school when they actually said that they were in love. That could be time enough to mature and realize what love is. Thank you for this debate it has been fun & weird.
there is no such thing as too young to love

I am going to name one couple that were together at age ten and they got married. www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/28/marriage-pacts_n_5730724.html Aug 28, 2014 - We told each other that if we weren't married by 30, then we'd get back ... Became a couple soon after that, and have now been together 12 years. ... I loved her since the moment I met her on a school bus when I was 10 years old. ... They stayed friends and eventually got married
there is no such thing as too young to love

First off I want to say thank you all though this is the weirdest debate I have been apart of. Second name one couple that people know who have been together since age 10.... Little kids dating and saying I love you is just little kid talk. They have no idea what love is until they care about someone so much and then have them completely destroy them. Love is fun but also pain. You must be mature to completely understand love. Kids just don't know what love is.
Fender makes the best guitars

Pro is defending that Fender makes the best guitars because of their superior: hardware, honorable and respectable history (ex. various guitar idols who have used Fenders), and innovative design. Con is claiming that Fender does not make the best guitars because some of kind of guitar manufacturer is better in these qualities: hardware, honorable and respectable history (ex. various guitar idols who have used their guitars), and innovative design.