BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
String theory

One of the most amazing philosophers of all time is Karl Popper. He came up with the idea of falsificationism. This is a philosophy that applies to science. It states that if an idea is not falsifiable, it is not scientific. This does not mean that the theory is false. That is a misconception. The idea is that if an hypothesis or a theory were false, there would be a way to show it. (E.g. nothing travels faster than the speed of light) This is (to the best of our knowledge) a true statement. However, it is possible to picture a scenario in which this could be proven wrong. If something were measured to travel faster than the speed of light, then the theory would be falsified. Now we come to string "theory." In string theory there are no testable hypotheses. There are no math equations to verify its plausibility. There are no predictions. There are no scenarios that would falsify it. It is pure philosophy, and crappy philosophy at that. If anyone feels otherwise, I invite them to state their arguments in favour of string theory. I look forward to the challenge.
Gay marriage should be legalized

I appreciate your quick acceptance of my debate. My arguments for the legalization of gay marriage all pretty much all stem from our freedoms as Americans. 1. Equality I believe that it is very prejudiced to allow one group of people to marry and not allow another group. As years have gone by, we as a society have begun to open up our eyes to providing equality to all. In 1865, the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution was adopted, freeing all of the slaves. The Fourteenth Amendment was adopted in 1868 and ensured that all people born or naturalized in the United States were full citizens and that no State shall make or enforce any law which abridges the rights of any citizen. The Fifteenth Amendment ensured that all men had the right to vote. The Nineteenth Amendment ensured all citizens had the right to vote, no matter race, color, or sex. We continue to pass laws making sure that the government doesn’t favor and hold one group to a higher standard than any other person. (A) Marriage has many financial, medical, employment, and housing benefits (B) and denying these to homosexuals gives them a fairly large handicap. Why are homosexuals being punished for something that wasn’t even their choice? 2. Choice or Genetic? Many people still believe that being gay, bisexual, transgender, etc. is a choice, despite the many articles and studies showing the contrary. Homosexuality has been proven in all mammal species (1). Do other mammals choose to be gay? Between 10-13% of men have had homosexual relations at least once in their life. (2)(3)(4) I know this may verge on ad populum, but why would 10% of men admit to having homosexual relations if it was a choice? Gays are constantly being harassed and bullied, sometimes to the point of suicide. Did the 31% of gay children who have been threatened or injured at school just choose to be bullied? (5) I will end this argument on a more humorous note with this forum post I found. It pretty well shows how silly some of the common arguments are against gay marriage. http://www.blameitonthevoices.com... A. The Constitution of the USAB. http://www.nolo.com... (0) - http://www.danaanpress.com... (1) - http://www.guardian.co.uk... (2) - http://www.springerlink.com... (3) http://www.aftenposten.no... (4) http://www.nmha.org...
The Earth is flat

Again, I'll move immediately into the arguments made by the opponent. Perception FiltersMy opponent attempts to use a concept from Dr. Who as evidence that the Earth is flat. The obvious is with using evidence from a fictitious show aside, this in no way indicates that there is a "perception filter" in place that is making us unaware of the Earth's natural shape. In the link provided, a part of the perception filter is that people cannot see something because they ultimately do not wish to see it. This clearly isn't the case with the shape of the Earth, as many people throughout history have desired very badly to know the form of the Earth. Beyond that, there is no evidence that "perception filters" exist in reality. The only thing similar to this would be optical illusions, which is my opponent's next point. Optical IllusionsApe claims that optical illusions have the ability to trick our senses. He goes on to say that our senses could be fooling us into believing the Earth is round. While it is true that our senses are very much fallible, the claim that the roundness of the Earth "could be an optical illusion" is not a claim that should be entertained without evidence. I'd like to remind the audience that Pro is making a statement that very much goes against current academic thought, meaning his contention must have a great deal of evidence to support it in order for us to take it seriously. This need for evidence is often referred to as the Burden of Proof, a burden the opponent does not meet. For him to effectively contend that we are under the influence of an optical illusion, he would need to offer some evidence of this. Alas, he has not given us anything except a picture of two cubes. This is not adequate. ConclusionThe opponent made direct argument as to why the Earth is flat, namely the Biblical argument. I have demonstrated that science has revealed the Earth is round and I have given multiple ways in which science has done this. I even went so far as to explain why, in this case, scientific evidence trumps Biblical claims, in terms of which should be believed as true. The opponent has said that we cannot be sure that the Earth is round, since our senses are imperfect. While this is true, this must also mean we cannot know if the Earth is flat, defeating his entire claim. Instead, we assume our senses to be mostly accurate and come to the most reasonable conclusion -- that being that the Earth is indeed spherical and not flat, as the opponent claims.
The Earth is flat

"Flat-Earth Creationism Flat-Earth creationism states that the Earth is flat, immobile and the center of the universe. It is covered by a solid, dome-like sky, most likely referring to the second day of creation, when "God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament ... And God called the firmament Heaven" (Genesis 1:7-1:8). The stars, sun and moon are embedded in this rigid dome." [1] "The metaphor in the anecdote represents a popular notion of the theory that Earth is actually flat and is supported on the back of a World Turtle," [2] Wikipedia. As you can clearly see the world is flat. http://people.howstuffworks.com... https://en.wikipedia.org...
Kalam cosmological argument

Quantum PhysicsThe phenomenon of quantum tunnelling is based on the fact something can be everywhere at once until it is observed and collapses into a single point, however this requires there to to be something - the same principle applies for virtual particles, there existence is based of something. In addition to this quantum physics came about as a result of the existence of the universe, there are no laws in absolute nothingness."How many example of universe creation do we have except our own?" We assume a scenario until it is proved untrue in this situation the Universe is assumed to have been caused as is the case for all things with existence and we assume this scenario as it is the most logical possibility.
Kalam cosmological argument

Interesting argument. You've given reason to believe that the universal isn't eternal (which I don't believe it is) but how do you know that the cause of the universe wasn't uncaused? The cause could've been from something uncaused. How many example of universe creation do we have except our own? We've never observed that the beginning of the universe required a cause. Quantum physics explains how things appear from nothing like virtual particles and quantum tunneling. You can't be certain that an uncaused cause, such as these phenomena, couldn't have been responsible.
Kalam cosmological argument

The Universe has a beginning of its existenceI will start with the second premise and return to the first after addressing this issue.Firstly, I would like to ask, what could be inferred by a universe with no beginnings? the most obvious answer is either one of two cases, either it does not exist or it's existence is infinite and thus no need for creation. Now let us assume the universe is in fact infinite, then we need to next define what the universe is.Universe:1) All matter and energy, including the earth, the galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space, regarded as a whole. This definition states that the universe is the sum of the matter, space and energy which exists. If the universe is infinite then by extension, space and matter are infinite because the universe exists due to there being space and matter. So now space and matter have no cause and equally as time is intricately intertwined with these two ___ then time would have no cause and more specifically no origin. If time has no origin then us as humans would not feel the effects of time as it is infinite and so there is no differentiating between the past present and future if everything is infinite. Reductio Ad absurdum thus the universe is not infinite.Everything that has a beginning of existence has a cause of existenceEverything which we know has existed has also had a cause so this needs to be proved untrue for the case of the universeThe universe has a cause of its existence.from premise two, there are two possibilities which are:1. the universe has a cause to its existence. and 2. the universe has existed but has no causepossibility 2 leads us into thinking the universe either created itself, or that it is infinite (which I have already showed to not be possible). Now I will provide insight into why the universe couldn't of created itself. IF the universe created itself then it would mean that it would of existed before it even created itself and so it could not of created itself and thus possibility one must be trueand hence the universe has a cause of existence.Sources: http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Corporal punishment should be implemented in a school setting

You have in a way tried to change my resolution to something I am not interested in debating. I was looking to debate against someone who has the belief that it is good to use corporal punishment and you I am sorry to say have just demonstrated not to be that person. I am going to forfeit further rounds and I hope you will do the same seeing as you never had the intention of debating my resolution. I also would like to say that the reason for my rules is in no way a statement against christians and their holy book, I have however had opponents in my debates who say that my argument is false and the reason for that is because god said so or because it's in the bible my idea is correct. I do not believe in a god and I am not interested in debating religious beliefs. I also wish to make sure that my opponent will provide me with actual studies and not made up ones that is why I ask for sources. Thank you for your time and perhaps we will debate another topic someday.
Demonetization

Money is a thing that we as human beings cannot live without. Money enables access to goods and services that sustain and improve human life. Without money, we would go back to bartering values of goods to pay for services and as soon as you start defining items in terms of the value this then becomes a currency/"money". In an ideal world, we would be able to live without money however as everything in history has either had a monetary value/personal value this can then be interpreted to money. The human race doesn't truly push for the idea that we're all equal and we should all support each other. Human nature and the way we interpret our survivability means having more items than someone else which is a natural greed. I can't see a way in which we could live without some form of "money" or currency so my question would be if we can't use money/goods in which way can we define items/pay for services? Considering that no one will truly do anything for free with our current psychology.
hair dye in school

My opponent made the point that one has full rights over one's body; if that were true, however, then any action done to oneself, even if self-destructive, should be allowed. Society must deny people some rights if it would benefit society in general; everyone is a part of society. Banning hair dying in schools would benefit society slightly by reducing students' lead intake without harming it in any way, as it is not taking away a strong form of expression or something of that sort. Banning hair dying in schools cannot hamper aspiring hair stylists from achieving their goals, as it is a skill that is easily learned and learning it could therefore be done after graduation.
hair dye in school

your hair is apart of your body. and no one can take control of your own body. there for i know hair dye can be distracting but it shows who you are. and well latest i don't use real hair dye. I use fake so it comes out. and i had a meeting with my principal and she said it was "distracting". but i will not take that as an answer because everything is a distraction. even school is a distraction. and also she said that the school AKA her are trying to set us up for success in the future. like for your job. and that if you dyed your hair in a random color they would never take you for the job. but it would help if i started now because i wanna be a hair stylist when i get older. and its really your principals fault that your hair is not dyed
hair dye in school

Short round length. :[ When one makes decisions over school policies, one must take into account all of the interests of a school that are relevant to said policy. Schools would like their students to be healthy and also to feel like they're part of a larger community. Allowing hair dying would go against both of these interests. Hair dying can affect students' health, as hair dyes often contain heavy metals like lead. As such, allowing it in schools would harm developing children. Hair dying also reduces school morale by making everyone stand out, reducing uniformity. Banning hair dying does not hamper a student's ability to express himself. Hair dying, as a medium of art, is limited in expressiveness compared to, say, drawing.
hair dye in school

I believe that kids like me should be aloud to dye there hair. a girl dyes there hair for like.. personality, freedom, creativity,. it shows there personality by if there favorite color is purple then the might dye there hair purple. are any color. also it is your choice for your hair not anyone Else's but your hair. Also it shows creativity. If your like me you love school. And I like dressing up and I show creativity with my hair. Color, stile, shape, length, and I it should be aloud in schools. just brushing your hair is creativity.
Australian's place too much emphasis on sport

I will firstly present a summary of our debate so far and then will be providing strong rebuttal, which will without a doubt, place the my opponent on his toes. In the first round I clearly outlined that we support sport entirely as it has many beneficial outcomes, however we are arguing that Australians, meaning the citizens all place too much emphasis on sport. As stated earlier an example of this is the Melbourne Cup, or as it is often called, the race that stops a nation. Since when did a horserace stop an entire nation? During this race, almost everyone stops everything or anything they are doing, no matter how important, all just to watch one horserace. In Melbourne they even go so far as to declare a Public Holiday on the day of the Melbourne Cup. Now that's over the top. Another way in which Australians place too much emphasis on sport is through television and it's over excessive coverage of sport. I already stated that channels such as 7 and 9 are major culprits, as well as One HD, which is sport 24/7. During the winter sporting season, Aussie Rules Football is broadcasted every single night of the week, whether it is in the form of a game or in the form of an analysis of prior games or of games still to come. This is a constant recirculation of sport, week after week after week. Just think to yourselves for a moment, will it ever stop? No. We also have our so called sporting heroes and legends such as Chris Judd and Buddy Franklin for example, who receive more recognition than the people who actually deserve credit, whether they are lifesavers or someone who has just done something important in this world. This is absolutely ridiculous and furthermore outlines that Australians, place too much emphasis on sport. I would now like to present my strong rebuttal which will no doubt bring my opponent to his knees. My opponent has accused me of stating that the Melbourne Cup race literally stops the nation however I never, in reality stated that this race stops the entire nation. I would ask him to quote me on this but as i already know the answer, he cannot. he cannot quote my exact words when this one race stops the entire nation dead on their feet. It doesn't take a genius to know this. In addition, I would like to outline that thus far my opponent has given no main arguments against the topic in question, he has rebutted only one of my arguments, he has given no statistics nor proof of any kind, no personal experience was portrayed and on top of that he is taking the topic in question as my statement of which it is not. He should, in reality, be debating for his side against the topic not that the topic itself is wrong. Until my opponent gives some evidence or any arguments I believe the voters should just take what he has been saying thus far as complete dribble. After listening to my arguments and the lack of arguments thus far from my opponent you can now see clearly that Australians truly do place too much emphasis on sport, as our thorough and detailed points have no doubt persuaded you to support my side of the argument. "Let's contort the emphasis of sport!"
Australian's place too much emphasis on sport

I accept. Before I begin, I'd just like to correct the grammar in my opponent's title - "Australians place too...." (not Australian's). Now, instead of countering my opponent's opening arguments, I wish to ask - Australia puts too much emphasis on sport, compared to which other countries? He notes that the Melbourne Cup is advertised as "the race that stops a nation". But cannot the same be said about the USA and the Superbowl? Or any nation that has reached the final of the football world cup? It seems to me that Australia places no more emphasis on sporting events than any other country. Thank you.
Australian's place too much emphasis on sport

Hi, my name is Mitchell Robinson and I will be speaking for the affirmative side. I will be analyzing and defining the topic of today's debate and providing some examples of Australia's excessive love affair with sport. In the second round of this debate will be addressing the media's excessive coverage of sport and the branding of sport players. In the third round, will then summarise my position on today's topic and provide rebuttal. We all know that today's topic is that "Australian's place too much emphasis on sport", however, I would ask you all to consider what the crux, the core, of this debate is all about. The key phrase is "too much emphasis", so my whole argument will be based on proving to you that Australia does indeed place too much emphasis on sport. At this stage, I want to clarify and emphasise that I fully supports sport in all its many incarnations and not for one minute am I suggesting that sport is in any way, shape or form, bad for you. In fact, I'm totally supportive of sport and the many good things that come from our involvement in and enjoyment of it. To illustrate the problem that Australia has with excessive devotion to sport and sporting events, one only has to look to the Melbourne Cup. Only in Australia could a horse race be so brazen to boldly proclaim itself as the "Race that Stops a Nation". If one were to look at America with their Kentucky Darby and the United Kingdom with its English Darby, both races with even more international esteem than our Melbourne Cup, we would see that neither race stops their nation. My position in this debate can be better understood if we use the analogy of a see saw. Visualizing this analogy, one can picture sport on one end and all the other opportunities in life such as music, theatre, the arts and other cultural activities on the other end. In Australia, this see saw is dysfunctional, because of the gross weight on the sports side. There is a lack of balance because of our excessive emphasis on sport. We need to understand this opportunity cost for Australia and shift our emphasis to a more balanced approach, reaping the benefits of both sport and cultural activities. To summarize, I want to be clear about my position in this debate: we are not against sport, we are speaking today about the fact that Australians place too much emphasis on sport. My opponent team will wax lyrical on about how healthy sport is, how it stimulates the mind and the body, we concur with all these benefits of sport, however, what we have an issue with is Australia's excessive obsession with sport, which has clearly progressed beyond justification. "Let's contort the emphasis on sport."
Wii vs PS3

I like to end on a simple note, but first one must keep in mind that your seeking an average time of play between a console that has sold 50 million units and one that has sold 90 million units, in which the average time will of course be lower. Additionally the Wii has a very strong family audience that would only use it in short bursts as a family gathering tool that could not be accessed at all times. In which I end with the Wii having the best software, best innovation, and the least gimmick, especially in relation to the failure of 3D on consoles that Nintendo has known since the Virtual Boy (Note: Handheld's and console's are two separate concepts in this sentence) and the lunacy of mimicry. Even the failing concept (by games, not sales of the hardware itself) of the Kinect was at least original in the home console.
Wii vs PS3

Just do your best, this is only my second debate so I could probably use the same disclaimer of "Noob" as well. Now en garde! My opponent presents the critical statistics of the Wii from 2005 to 2011, but leaves out a crucial fact: As of Nov 25, 2011 the Wii has released 1220 games while the PS3 is only at 755 releases as of April 10, 2012. This was from the explosion in sales for the Wii that caused every publisher to start releasing games to try and penetrate that market. My opponent shows biased reviews as one can see by Just Dance having a the low average score of 49 on Metacritic [1], yet this title sold massively and is at 6.76m units worldwide [2]. Only on the Nintendo Wii does a game sell at CoD levels and yet receive mediocre reviews, though if my opponent wishes me to believe in some sort of illicit actions by Activision to purchase reviews, I say: at least Nintendo did not have to buy reviews ZeldaTP 95 [3] Donkey KongCR 87 [4] Kirby's Epic Yarn 86 [5]. [1] http://www.metacritic.com... [2] http://www.vgchartz.com... [3] http://www.metacritic.com... [4] http://www.metacritic.com... [5] http://www.metacritic.com...