BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Pink Floyd is better then Led Zeppelin

I accept the terms, the BoP will be shared.I can divide my reasoning into key points.1. More creative songsThe creativity of there songs comes from there personal experience, wells say, take The Wall, not only was it about being a non-conformist, but also about a mental break-down that lead song writer Roger Waters experienced in the early 70's.2. Best album artThe majority of people would agree that Pink Floyd was not only a very influential band but also created some of the best album covers in history.Like Wish You Were Here or The Wall, And then you have Led Zeppelin, features the side a building, in the album Physical Graphiti, or Houses of the Holy. s://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com...; alt="" /> s://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com...; alt="" /> ====================================================================================3. SucessThey have 16 gold albums, 13 platinum ones, and 10 multi-platinum ones. Two of their albums The Wall and The Dark Side of The Moon are two of the bestselling albums ever. The Wall is 3rd, and Dark Side is 11th. They both have received a Diamond award for selling over 10 million copies. They've had numerous #1 albums, and a #1 single. Pink Floyd has three albums in the Top 100 bestselling ever Dark Side, The Wall, and Wish You Were Here. They are the 9th bestselling artist ever selling over 52.6 million records. Dark Side was on the Billboard Top 200 Albums Chart for a record 736 weeks. It also has the record for most consecutive weeks, with over 500. In fact they changed the rules because of it when it finally dropped off the charts in 1988, 14 years after it went on. Actually Dark Side is still on the Billboard Pop Catalog Albums Chart for the 1,162nd consecutive week, and The Wall just dropped off this week after over 520 consecutive weeks on it.Had they conntinued making albums after 1994 they would have had an estimated 400 million albums sold. Pink Floyd's album The Wall was also made into a movie, With the combination of albums and the fact that Floyd was admitited to the Rock Hall of fame before Zeppelin proves that pink floys is by far better. Sorry for the weak points i'm on a tim constraint.
The big bang theory

Since this the last time I will get to talk before the voting starts I will end this heated debate with a bang. So the reason why the single dense point exploded is because the point spun so fast in a friction empty environment. The point went so fast that it eventually exploded. So that would mean that all the planets should be spinning in the same direction. Right? Well sorry to burst your bubble but 2 planets spin backwards: Uranus and Venus. And some moons not only spin backwards they orbit their planet backwards. This is solid proof of the Big Bang theory being wrong.
The big bang theory

In your first paragraph you don't actually mention how the changing masses of large celestial bodies causes the redshift, which is what you implied earlier. I will use the definition of the Doppler Effect here, since the Red-shift is an example of it (the Doppler effect of light). "an increase (or decrease) in the frequency of sound, light, or other waves as the source and observer move towards (or away from) each other. The effect causes the sudden change in pitch noticeable in a passing siren, as well as the red shift seen by astronomers." The source of the waves (the galaxies and stars) has to be moving away from us in order for the red-shift to occur. On the second paragraph, you state that the theory breaks a law of science, the conservation of energy. The big bang theory never states where the singularity came from. This doesn't mean it came from no where, it means we don't know. The big bang theory would only break this law if it stated that energy was created. However, the theory NEVER states that energy was created. It does not make any implications to such at all. The singularity existed, but we do not know where it came from. This does not mean it came from nothing. All it means is that we are ignorant of its origins.
The big bang theory

I will elaborate on my point of mass expanding. If the masses of large celestial bodies were smaller and now are increasing we would be looking at past data instead of current data. So this data will look more red shifted because of the distance between us and the thing we are looking at. Also I will point out another reason why the Big Bang theory is false. The first part of the theory breaks a law of science. In the beginning stage in the debate you pointed out that we do not know where the singularity, in which the Big Bang was caused by, came from. My answer to that is that there wasn't one. You stated that the singularity had all the energy in the universe. But this singularity cannot be created because of the law of conservation of energy. So the singularity cannot be made and the whole theory just breaks apart.
The big bang theory

Firstly on your point about Cosmic Microwave Radiation, I'd like to post a link: http://www.astro.ucla.edu... I hope it works. Secondly, correct, we are looking back in time when we look at the galaxies, thus we are looking at past data and past frequencies, not current frequencies. However, to my knowledge, we have no current way to looking at the current frequencies (because of distance). The past is all we have, but they still paint a very clear picture. The Doppler effect states that when something is both moving and gives off waves, the waves in front of it will compress and therefore have a higher frequency. The waves behind it however will expand and have a lower frequency. Because all these galaxies were shown to have red-shifted light, it showed that, via the Doppler effect, that the galaxies were moving away from us. Also, I'm not sure I follow your point on the mass of everything expanding being the cause for the red shift. Would you mind elaborating on that?
The big bang theory

First of all I will like to return to the point you made about the Cosmic Microwave Background. How do you know that your so called "glow" was created by the heat from the Big Bang and not heat from starlight? You also mentioned the red shift. I believe that the red shift is being caused by the mass of everything is expanding. See scientists measure how far galaxies are away from us by using frequencies of light given off by the atoms of the galaxies. The farther away the galaxy is the more "reddish" the light will become. At least that's true for the Big Bang theory. But when an atom gets bigger it goes to a higher frequency, towards the blue frequency. Since speed is not infinite there is a time lapse from when light from space comes to earth. So we are basically looking back in time. We are looking at the image of galaxies before the time lapse and not what is currently happening. So the data will look more red shifted because you are looking at past data and past frequencies, not current frequencies.
The big bang theory

Firstly, you state that it is just a theory. This is a misunderstanding of the word "theory". In science, it does not mean a simple idea, in science, a theory is a well substantiated explanation of some aspect of the universe, something with evidence backing it up. The Big Bang Theory states that the universe started off in a singularity and was immensely dense, hot and held all the energy in the universe. It is important to note that while this amount of energy was extremely vast, it was not infinite. We do not currently know where the singularity came from, though that in itself is not evidence against the Big Bang, since we still have large amounts of evidence for it. For example, the red shift. The red shift is evidence of galaxies moving further away from each other. This showed that the universe was expanding. Due to this knowledge, we can infer that once the universe was a lot smaller than it was today. Using complex mathematics, physicists worked out that the universe was once so small that it was in a singularity. They also worked out that the rapid expansion of the universe from that singularity was the big bang. Very early in its history, the whole Universe was very hot. As it expanded, this heat left behind a sort of "glow" that fills the entire Universe. The Big Bang theory not only predicts that this glow should exist, but that it should be visible as microwaves - part of the Electromagnetic Spectrum. This is the Cosmic Microwave Background which has been accurately measured by orbiting detectors, and is very good evidence that the Big Bang theory is correct.
The big bang theory

My claim is that the big bang theory is not real and is just a theory nothing else. The big bang theory states that the universe originated when a single dense point of infinite energy exploded and created what we see in the sky today. But may I ask where that point came from? And how it has infinite energy? You see when you look at the Big Bang theory from the outside it looks like a good answer to one of histories greatest question. But when you look a little deeper most of the theory is either unknown or made up.
Progressive tax doesn't work

Alright. I forgot to define "work". By work I meant that flat tax is simply all-around a better solution compared to progressive tax. I hope you won't go down to semantics because of this. Anyway, I'll start with my opening statements. 1) Flat tax is more fair. With flat tax people earning more already pay more. Why is it that the hard-working and ambitious have to pay for those who do not do it themselves. We already financially support those who simply cannot work (disabled welfare, pension) and provide tax-free minimum wage in some cases. So in essence progressive tax means distributing money from the wealthy to the less wealthy and that makes no sense. Everyone has an equal chance for success in the world of free trade market. 2) Progressive tax diminishes the incentive to work hard. In other words it removes individual ambition to achieve great things. In the post-industrial society we live in today we need specialists and engineers. Why would anyone bother studying 5 more years at a university only to get your salary cut in half. Even the few people who would carry on working in these areas of expertise would not be doing it to their full potential. As greedy as the human nature is people will only cap out their creative and physical abilities when they get rewarded for it (in most cases, anyway). With progressive tax people would simply stop having the same enthusiasm as before and they would settle with a less paying job. In some extreme cases, by the way, it is possible that a person would give up on a raise because they would make less net income. As a conclusion of the first 2 subjects I will hypothetically ask "Why do others get to work less, but get roughly the same as me?" 3) It hurts the economy. Firms and people will simply leave the country for elsewhere where the taxes are not that rough. This will not only shift money out of the country but also cause overall job loss. Another thing is tax evasion. This is an actual problem with progressive taxes, corporations practising tax evasion could have huge effects on the economy. Whilst progressive tax might feel Robin Hoodly noble, it does not work in the long run. In other words as long as countries with flat tax exist progressive tax will because the businesses will simply move there. Sustainable progressive tax does not exist and if it did it would be called socialism. I will get to that next. 4) We live in a capitalistic world. Taking resources from one and giving it to others to make it more "equal" is a socialistic principle. However, socialism and capitalism cannot coexist and the reason for that is that people thrive on competition (one of capitalism's main attributes, by the way). The reason why I didn't use any actual facts is because I already mentioned that this debate is not related to any specific country. My statements are pretty much widespread knowldege. If you want me to back up any of my claims with evidence then let me know.
The PS4 is superior to the XBOX ONE

Thank you for the reply Con. Unfortunately, you said you will post your other arguments in the next round, but it is against DDO rules to past any new arguments in the last round. So all me and you can do this round is provide rebutalls.Price: Con makes a valid point that the Xbox One is cheaper than the Ps4 by 50 dollars US. However, it is possible for you to buy a PS4 for a cheaper price. On Ebay, a PS4 sells as cheap as 340 dollars. Also, depending on your local dealers, many of them hold sales to have the price reduced. Here are the prices for EBAY So, it is possible to buy a Ps4 for a cheaper price.Con still has not refuted my arguments about size.
The PS4 is superior to the XBOX ONE

Hardware: My opponent states that the PS4 has superior hardware to the Xbox One, which is true, but really doesn't affect the gaming experience. For a wide majority of gamers that use consoles, most likely sit at least 6-10 feet away from the screen, people WILL NOT be able to tell a difference, The extra hardware in the PS4 doesn't really do much. The only way that someone would be able to tell a difference is by taking screenshots and nitpicking pixels, and looking very closely at it. No one will do that if they are playing any game what so ever. Price: Now my second point is price. While at first, the Xbox One had a terrible start, but Microsoft have learned from their mistakes and lowered the prices, dramatically lowered their prices. Currently, a standard PS4 will cost you $400, the Xbox One however, cost $350. During this year's Christmas time, the price was basically $300, ($350 with $50 gift card) much much cheaper. If the gaming experience is gonna be the same, why not save some dough while your at it? Features: The PS4 shares a couple of the features with the Xbox One, but as I'll present in my next argument, the Xbox One has far more features and will make the console more superior. See you in the next round.
The PS4 is superior to the XBOX ONE

Why the Playstation 4 is superiorGraphics For the most part, both the performance of both systems are nearly identical, but the the PS4 does have a slight edge. Both of these systems an 8-core x86-64 AMD Jaguar processor with 8GB of RAM, an AMD Radeon GPU and a 500GB hard drive. PS4 has the edge in terms of resolution. For example, games such as Far Cry 4, Dragon Age: Inquisition, and Shadow of Mordor all run at full 1080p at 30 frames per second on PS4, while Xbox One gamers have to settle for 900p for those titles. So even though the edge is minor, some gamers will notice the difference, and 900p is certainly not what you should expect from a Next-Gen system.SizeSize is also a big factor, as you may want to carry your system around to different T.V's as an example. As you can see, the PS4 is certainly the smaller system, while the Xbox One is very bulky, and is even more bulkier than its Xbox 360.Sharing FeaturesThe PS4 has the ability to upload and share gameplay online. There are also many features in the such as live streaming, which can be useful to people who make youtube videos of gameplay.Ill save some arguments for the next roundOn to you Con!
globalization...good or bad (yes=good ; no=bad)

Unfortunately I have 10 minutes and 500 characters, so I don't have much time for sources.Yes, globalization is a good thing. 1. Integrating ideas, resources, and cultures is fundamentally good as it inspires new ideas and brings out the best in people. 2. Cultures evolve, anyway, so there isn't any fear of losing cultural identity.3. Free trade is and has always been a boon to local economies, and is conducive to innovation, lower-cost goods, economic growth, and more efficient economies.
It is wrong to debate about God

Sorry for not defining wrong, but we'll use your definition. That's when I really meant anyway. I have a few points, so I'll use headings to make it clearer for the audience and my opponent. Rational Arguments Won't Convert You I would like to point out the philosophy of Soren Kiekregaard here. He maintains that religion is a matter of 'passion not reason'. Even if you try to prove God using rational arguments, this has nothing to do with believing in God (if God could be conclusively proved, everyone would 'believe' in Him). One must make a leap of faith, without knowing for sure that you are doing what is right. Rational Argurments Will Shake Your Belief Rational arguments can actaully shake your faith in the Almighty. Simple questions such as 'Why does God allow suffering?' can deeply disturb Christians who can't find the answers. The truth of the matter is, the Bible and other religious text don't hold the nanswer to every question. And sometimes the answers of different people aren't acceptable to you. And only the true belivers can walk through the pearly gates - so disturbing somebody's faith is (possibly not intentionally) ia a very morally wrong thing to do. It is Disrespectful It is highly disrespectful for people to dissect God. God is beyond any of our comprehension, so mere humans cannot even come CLOSE to understanding Him. But people still try to, and then create completely false versions of God. For example, it is horrid to attack somebody else's interests (such as insulting Harry Potter). The same thing applies with God. If you don't believe, fine - but don't start flaming God because you can. Ending Comments Thanks for joining this debate! Also some extra things: - Please don't use the Bible for this debate (we are arguing over whether we should debate God, not whether He exists) - There is no need for sources. - And a max of six points (I don't want a ramble here) Right back at you.
It is wrong to debate about God

I'll agree with the definition of God which my opponent used. How specifically God is defined will not necessarily affect my case. However my opponent did neglect to define a key term, 'wrong'. I will define it as what is not in accordance with what is morally right. My argument will be that the act of argumentation can never be intrinsically right or wrong in and of itself. Being in accordance with the non-aggression principle and not initiation force or aggression against anyone, arguing over the existence or non-existence of any deity does not by itself harm another and therefore cannot be wrong or punishable. This sums up my basic stance and seeing as I have defined all that I think needs to be defined, I will toss the debate back to my opponent.
It is wrong to debate about God

Hey! This is my first debate here, so don't slash me up if I don't fully understand this website. There will be four rounds. In the first round, my opponent and I will make our stance, briefy outline our arguments and define any definitions. I have given you up to 8000 characters, but please remember this is a debate, not a rant. My argument is that it is both wrong and insulting to debate about God. If you believe in God, you believe in him, and if you don't , you don't. It is wrong, as if you DON'T believe in God, rational arguments won't bring you over, not really. Religion is something of the heart and soul, not your mind. By God, I am referring to the Christian God, and omnipotent, omnipresent and ever-loving deity who sent his son Jesus Christ to die on the cross to pay for our sins. I'm an Anglican, so I have no knowledge of the religious customs of different Christian sects, such as Greek Orthodox. I think that's all, so I'll end here. Good luck!
PC Gaming vs Console Gaming

Well those are all good arguments BUT they are repetitions from a debate you had with another person just with a few minor tweaks here and there. Ah well who cares I'll still carry on. 01 Games are optimized for controllers. Some gamers swear by the keyboard and mouse, but it's clear that video games were meant to be played with a controller. There's a reason why the most influential video game product " the Nintendo Entertainment System " was a console with a controller. If the keyboard and mouse were really superior, wouldn't one of the eight generations of consoles have come with those instead of gamepads? 02 Consoles are built for relaxation. Want to play games on your TV from your couch? That's what consoles are for. Sure, you can hook a PC up to a TV, but don't pretend like that process is particularly streamlined. Even PCs with HDMI ports need to get relocated from the desk to the living room, and that's a hassle you'll never have to deal with when it comes to consoles. 03 Console gaming equals easy online multiplayer. All consoles are built with painless ways to connect with friends and get gaming within minutes. You don't have to worry about server connections or matchmaking " you just jump online and play. 04 Automatic updates! If your game needs a patch, or if your console's operating system needs a fix, the updates are downloaded automatically. How's that for convenience? Compare this to PCs, where you have to download and install patches and drivers manually. 05 Two words: console exclusives. Want to play the latest Mario game? You'd better have a Nintendo console. The same goes for Uncharted on Sony's PlayStation consoles and almost every installment of the Halo franchise on Microsoft's Xbox consoles. If you're PC-only, you're pretty much out of luck. You can only emulate so many console classics, and they'll probably be buggy as hell.
PC Gaming vs Console Gaming

Greetings carriead. This debate will be a debate between PC and Consoles, as it pretains to gaming. The Resolution will be: PC Gaming is superior to Console Gaming as it pretains to Gaming in general. When I say, "As it pretains to Gaming in general" all I mean is that we aren't going to be discussing anything else except gaming. Obviously a PC can perform a plethora of other functions, but this debate shall be concerned primarily with the gaming aspect. Structure:Round 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Opening argumentsRound 3: RebuttalsRound 4: More rebuttalsRound 5: Conclusions
Samsung Is better then Apple

I see this isn't really much of an argument. But I actually do agree about the comparison of gs3 and iPhone 5.It wasn't an argument. It was a refutation. PRO does not respond so I assume he drops his points. But to Really compare 2 phones, 1 would have to give the honest fact. But almost every newer Samsung Android that comes out Is cOmpared to the 4s but the fan boys will still give the 4s the edge knowing clearly the Samsung Android is better. I believe that Apple lovers are just to Brainwashed to realize the iPhone is not the best phone out there.Again, PRO fails to expand his view on this comparison. Comparing the two companies is not just it's two leading products. As mentioned, Apple is worth more, and is much more profitable than Samsung. PRO still has not responded to this nor has he explained why being more profitable means a worse company.
Samsung Is better then Apple

I see this isn't really much of an argument. But I actually do agree about the comparison of gs3 and iPhone 5. But to Really compare 2 phones, 1 would have to give the honest fact. But almost every newer Samsung Android that comes out Is cOmpared to the 4s but the fan boys will still give the 4s the edge knowing clearly the Samsung Android is better. I believe that Apple lovers are just to Brainwashed to realize the iPhone is not the best phone out there.