BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gay marriage should be legal within the United States.

First of all, I'd like to point out I explicitly place the burden of proof on the Negative opponent. Seeing as he had the choice to accept this debate or reject it, he accepted the responsibility of providing the burden of proof. In other words, he had the responsibility of holding "Gay marriage should not be legal in the United States. " The wise reader may have noticed, however, that my opponent failed to uphold this at all. In fact, he didn't even provide an argument at all. I'm accepting that perhaps he was confused as to whether arguments would be presented in the first round, but that is no excuse. Not presenting a case in the opportunity I provided wastes not only Round 1 Pat 2, but also my part of Round 2, because I have no arguments to refute. I hope my opponent will be able to adequately make up for his mistake in the remainder of the debate, and that he utilizes the next part of this round to lay out a worthy argument. Remembering that the burden of proof rests upon Hello-Orange, I simply have no argument to refute and my end of the debate is upheld. The default position is that it should be legal, not vice-versa, and that the Con has the responsibility of showing why gay marriage should be illegal. I can't enunciate enough as to how this responsibility was not met. The opponent may argue that it is abusive that I put upon him the burden, but referring to this [1] debate of his, we see that he is completely capable of providing arguments that deal with this subject and also upholding the same requirements. I await my opponent's case and response, and sincerely hope that the rest of this debate can be utilized to it's full potential and that something an be learned here today. Thank you. Sources 1 - [. http://www.debate.org...]
Gay marriage should be legal within the United States.

First, since I was challenged directly to this debate; I feel the need to point out that it is the Pro that should have the burden of proof in this round. however since my opponent has openly spoken out against that in his fourth rule, then we simply hae reciprocal burdens. I must prove that Homosexual marrige should be illegal, and my opponent must prove that is should be legal. Whomever does a better job in convincing the voter on their stance will the winner. If my opponent is opposed to this then they may simply say so in their next speech.
Gay marriage should be legal within the United States.

RULES) 1) No semantic arguments. We are debating over the issue, not over the wording that I put the issue into. 2) Use common sense. We should use common sense, and not twist the ideologies of each person's argument merely to win the argument. 3) No insults. This is a clean debate. It should not devolve into a flame war. 4) The Neg has the responsibility of providing an argument as to why gay marriage should not be legal within the US. This is so that it is focused on the pro refuting the arguments presented by Con, and not the opposite. I sincerely hope my opponent accepts this debate. Thanks.
It takes more faith to be an Atheist than a Christian

Often people have the question: is there proof that God exists? Yet isn't it true that the same people who don't believe in God, already believe in something which nobody can see? Well, all of us believe in something we have never physically seen. I am talking about belief in the origin of mankind and the world around us. We weren't there to see what happened in the distant past. From a very young age we are conditioned as children to believe in a story made-up about 150 years ago by a man who was qualified in theology. Of course the man is Charles Darwin and he introduced the theory Evolution. We now have the benefit of 150 years of scientific investigation and progress since then. And what proof has been found? What is the evidence? It is asserted that human ancestors evolved from apes and became primitive grunting hunter-gatherers. And are the bone fragments of 'Lucy' the evidence for such a "human prehistory"? Where are the transitional fossils and the missing link, they should have been found by now, right? If you look into it, you may find that all the best candidates for the missing link are dubious bone fragments. So when will they find a convincing fossil of a creature in a transitional evolutionary form? If one isn't found soon, shouldn't people change their beliefs? Isn't there convincing tangible evidence for evolution? Has someone really observed it in the lab? In the field? Are you sure? How do you know? Sir Richard Dawkins has not been able to give a clear example of a mutation that led to an increase of information in the genome, and nor has an example been forthcoming from any scientist. Some convoluted explanations have been forthcoming, yet surely these are hardly proof. In any case, unless time travel becomes possible, we can only make observations and measurements here and now in the present, and from such observations we can extrapolate or theorise about what happened in the past. But there is no way to confirm it, as we cannot do an experiment on the past. Hence we can say that we all have faith-based belief about history. If we want to know what happened in the past, it would surely be grossly negligent to ignore eyewitness accounts recorded by those who were actually there and saw what happened. And from history, we do have eyewitness accounts about Jesus of Nazareth, which corroborate his resurrection from death. Secular historians at least agree that he was a real man from a real time in real history. And these same eyewitness accounts also provide his family history, which can be traced with earlier records back to King David, and ultimately back to the first man Adam, created by God. So at which point in the 77 generations from Adam to Jesus does the record fail? Let us consider. Which of these two beliefs would require more faith? 1. Atheistic evolution, which we know for sure was made-up by a man. OR 2. The resurrection of Jesus, as testified by eyewitnesses and foretold in prophesies. Note: For the purpose of this debate, let's define "faith" as trust or confidence in someone or something. (I got this definition from Google).
Make the most useless superhero and their useless nemesis

Timothy Time born as Timothy Winchester is a man Obsessed with Time, He became so fixated with the concept of Immortality and grew impatient of wasting time, His ultimate fear was of the Concept of Death being as Death is when your time is out. He experimented and spent countless nights messing with DNA. However One night while in a Machine, His Machine which Naturally took small pieces of his DNA instead of all of his DNA at once, Received an Electrical Shock when a Breaker switch flipped. This Took all of Timothys DNA all at once and Redistrubted it into his Body thus giving him his Ability, He then went on to change his last name to Time. His Super Power is the ability to Travel thru time itself. His very Weakness is ironically his own Super Power. Being as Timothy is still a Mortal, He is limited to 80 years of a life expectancy. The amount of time he travels back or forward in time, He loses. Such as, If he traveled 5 years into the past or future, He would lose 5 years of his life. He loses as much time as he travels forward or backwards in time. His Villian Henry Page A Man born as a Narcissistic Tendencies. He grew up in New York, A place where time flows fast. He hated how people never stopped to appreciate life and were so busy living fast pace lives. He became a Scientist and messed around with the concept of Freezing Time, Eventually he was able to stop time for 1 sec. However the Government took the device, Fearing what enemy hands could do with it. After he threatened to Destroy the Government with a device he had if they didn't return his Time stopper, The Government had him thrown into a Mental Asylum. He spent years in there, While he was in there. He read Timothy Time's book "Lost in Time", The Book was a Autobiography explaining Timothy's life and then his Transformation into Timothy Time with his Super Powers. Henry Page did not like Timothy one bit, He hated the thought that Timothy wasted the time he had left by going thru time to help people. He Eventually escaped the Mental Institution and Created a Device to Alter the Fabric of Time so he could stop Timothy Time. Thus He named himself Doctor Waiting Line. His Super Ability via his Device allows him to go thru time itself, This gives him the ability to create another worm hole in the Fabric of time. Doing this would make Timothy go thru the Worm hole in time and throwing him off more years in the past or future than he originally intended, Thus taking more years off Timothys life. Such as, If Timothy intended to go 2 years in the past or Present and he accidentally flew thru into Doctor Waiting Line's Worm Hole while he was Time Traveling, The Worm Hole could throw him 5 or 10 or even more years in the Past or Future. His only Weakness is Time Lapse Videos, Being as Time lapse videos are sped up to be fast pace.
Make the most useless superhero and their useless nemesis

Thank you Con for joining this debate. My superhero is Maced Ort aka The Environmentalist Maced Ort is a fat, out of shaped, lobbyist for the Environmentalist movement is a sad man in his mid 40's. A man that no matter how hard he does in his job he will get overshadowed by the corporate lobbyist. As he went to a convenience store for some cookies to give him energy to make the walk to his house, which is right down the block. A tree on fire struck by lightning pushed by a wind slammed onto him. This might spill the end for our poor lobbyist but he survived. Infused with the hope for saving mother Earth he emerged from the burning tree bark, reborned as The Environmentalist. He now wears beads on his beard and manbun, and rides off in his hippie van to save the world after he is done working. The Environmentalist superpower is that he can suck up 16.9 oz of Carbon emission, Green house gasses, smog, second hand smoke and spew it to his enemy... takes a while to kill though. The Environmentalist can talk to trees. He can raise the temperature of an enemy to 0.14 degrees Fahrenheit in 10 years can be repeated He is immune to toxins He can purify water The environmentalist weakness: He needs to eat a cookie every 30 mins upgraded to 15 mins in exercising His power is based on how many natural material is on the Earth Factorys White, Christian, conservatives Is near sighted Has to monitor his blood sugar every 14 mins Diesel trucks Can't eat meat or animal products Hurtful words Crab Lupine aka The CEO (Of Sent Hour Company) Crab Lupine is a The CEO Of Sent Hour Company the worlds largest oil, lumbar, gas, and electricity company. He lobbied millions of Dollars to the Rica Amen to get them to believe Climate change,resources depleting, Global Warming, rain forest dying are just fake news installed by the Media. He knows he is the most richest man in the world, but there is one person that could stop his lust for power, and he is in his hippie van, eating a bag of cookies The Environmentalist. He is angered by the fact that he is stopping him, so of course he made the most logical choice, he built a suit to fight off The Environmentalist while staying in radiation to develop his superpower. Superpower: He has an excess of money to lobby His suit increases his agility, strength, and dexterity to 50% (So 0+50%=50%) His knuckles on his suit have built in brass knuckles He can predict the future but only has 3 seconds to remember it He has the power of moneyknesis able to control and manipulate money with his mind He has the power to sue anyone if they hurt him takes about 12 months to here the hearing Weakness: Informed people Hippies Fake news Renewable energy Due to the radiation has breast cancer (Very slow killing) Has Thermophobia My villain hates my Superhero because he is stopping him from being able to control the world because of his environmentalism.
Make the most useless superhero and their useless nemesis

I feel like we should get creative. In this debate we will make the most useless superhero and their useless nemesis. Round 1 will be acceptence Round 2 will be making the Superhero and Nemesis based on this: Superhero: Name and Alias Backstory Superpower Weakness Villian: Name and Alias Backstory Superpower Why they hate our Useless SuperHero. Weakness Round 3 we will be arguing that our opponents Superhero and their Nemesis is better than our Superhero and their Nemesis Voters will be judging on: Who made the most amusing/witty/funny characters (Conduct) Spelling and Grammar is normal Who made the most useless superhero and their Nemesis (Who made more convincing Arguments) Creativity (Sources)
Answer me this flat earth religitards

I concur that the Earth being flat is a staunch belief of religious communities, Not a true fact per se by our modern rigour of scientific study and our body of knowledge. I would go so far as to say that the majority of religious teachings are true in their own realm of understanding, But however, Do not hold sway over the physical world we have come to understand through modern science. Going off on a tangent here, But a belief in the Earth being flat cannot pass for scientific knowledge, As it is a matter of personal choice in what one wants to hold true in their worldview. In this case, We must then discriminate between what the modern world considers as knowledge. On one hand, We can practice and build upon scientific knowledge that pushes the boundaries of its own realm of understanding of the physical world, Providing us with new theories and frameworks that guide modern scientific progress. On the other hand, We have come to let "religious knowledge" as a term pervade our modern vernacular. Religious teachings and beliefs are sacred and based upon the central tenets that are key to preaching for peace and balance in any religion. However, We must not allow these beliefs, Even if they are beneficial to our global society, To pass off as hard facts and knowledge. Moreover, Religious teachings do not give us the same worldview with which we can claim to be knowledgeable of the workings of our physical world. Instead, Religious teachings can only provide us with intangible views that shape our social and moral fabric, And never our physical understanding of the world. Hence, We observe two wholly different applications of traditions that help us as humans to achieve stability and understanding in our lives, But should never cross the line to claim any right to being termed as "knowledge" or "sacred", In the case of religious teachings and scientific facts respectively. Thus, I can say that a belief in the Earth being flat is just that, A belief. A belief which cannot be refuted by hard facts, But rather, Engaged by the opposing belief that the Earth is indeed an asymmetrical sphere spiralling through the fabric of space. Therefore, Science cannot support either belief, As it is inconsequential in a matter of beliefs, A clash in which only personal deductive reasoning can support.
Answer me this flat earth religitards

As a current atheist, I will attempt to provide insight into the mind of a "religitard", Which I assume is a portmanteau of "religious" and "retard". I digress. Let us examine the birth of the religious text considered to be the first complete bible of sorts, The Codex Vaticanus. If I were a "religitard", Living in the 2nd century BCE around the time of the introduction of the Codex Vaticanus or other pre-existing texts to Rome, I would either be a peasant or an aristocrat. Since women in this time period were denied a formal role in the recorded history of Roman society, I shall, Henceforth, Roleplay a Roman male aristocrat that was provided religious education around the inception of the first holy manuscript. Back to the question, How could the sun ever rise? As my only formal education is in religious accounts and the knowledge I possess on hand is that of the vast expanses of flat land the Roman legion marches upon, I can only conclude that based on the current body of knowledge in the world, The Earth is indeed flat. Therefore, The sun rises in the east from beneath the surface of this flat Earth. Perhaps through a magical hole of sorts in the ground, As based on my observations of the sun, It is no more than a few kilometres across in diameter. I have also lost all colour vision from staring at the sun. Hence, The sun rises perfectly well in my flat Earth world. Science and empirical knowledge will not be conceived for another 1600 years or so but I have full faith in my flat Earth knowledge at present.
Abortion should remain legal in the US

Hello all! In this debate I will be arguing the following statement:"Abortion should remain legal in the United States."This means, the Con, upon accepting this debate, agrees to argue the following:"Abortion should not remain legal in the United States." ~~~~~~~~~~~~Itinerary:Round 1: Acceptance and definitionsRound 2: IntroductionsRound 3: RebuttalsRound 4: Rebuttals and Conclusions. ~~~~~~~~~~~~I believe my thesis statement is self-explanatory, however, should there be any questions as to the semantics, feel free to ask in the comments or in a message.This also goes for any specific rules that a contending "Con" may wish to see in this debate.I'm leaving this debate open to anyone, so please remain committed to this debate, and read carefully before accepting!
It is Probable That God Exists.

My resolution: It is not probable that God exists. Rules-Please no trolling or semantics. Definitions-it- an impersonal verb that expresses a condition or action without reference to an agent. is- present 3d singular of be. probable- supported by evidence strong enough to establish presumption but not proof. that- the person, thing, or idea indicated, mentioned, or understood from the situation. God- The omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent supernatural creator and overseer of humans and the universe. exists- to have real being whether material or spiritual. Round Structure-1. Acceptance2. Main Arguments3. Rebuttals4. Rebuttals to Rebuttals5. Conclusion/Resolution Reached The BOP will be shared.
It is Probable That God Exists.

Accepted. As Pro, I will affirm the resolution by arguing that it is probable that God exist, meaning that it is more likely than not that God exist. I would also like to note that I will not be arguing for a particular God, like for example the Christian, Jewish, or Islamic God. Rather, I will be arguing for the existence of a maximally great being with great properties such as omniscience, omnipotence, etc. With that being said, I'm looking forward to a nice and fruitful debate. I now turn it over to Con for his arguments.
The unformal languange school seems not to be required anymore

I laughed much back there when i wrote those posted and glad that you also laughed hahaha :p Ok, i can answer your question about the methods of learning other languages. So, pay attention :p 1. First, you gotta ask yourself which languages you wanna learn. Example like Italian, Japanese, Russian, etc. Find the easiest language that you first came up with. The grammar, the vocab, the pronunciation. There's a lot languages that easy in the vocab but difficult to pronounce and vice versa. 2. Second, you probably got this line a lot "try your best and don't give up". Try to learn languages from the little one but very often. People failed because they're learn the big one first but in just one shot. 3. Third, listen. Listen every conversations in radio, movies, television, news. It can improve your listening skills. 4. Fourth, watch televisions and video. Do as the third step. 5. Fifth, write. Write down everything you hear or read if that was a new vocabulary to you. 6. Sixth, say and repeat it as often as possible. 7. Seventh, find a partner, which probably can answer your question why we should learn at course. I had tried every single one of them, autodidact and courses. For me, courses give you a lot of information about languages than autodidact. Teachers can tell you face to face. They can absolutely correct directly when your pronounce or your grammar was wrong. They can give you a lot information about those languages your learning about, etc. Plus, you can meet other people and practicing your speaking skills. So yeah, that's my opinion.
The unformal languange school seems not to be required anymore

Lot of laugh. :p. Just sorry with my bad english. oke . Thank you for your advice about Oxford Dictionary. I'll try it. soon. :) btw, here, i don't ask to not learn other language, but which become topic here is THE METHOD OF LEARNING OTHER LANGUAGE. So, that is why i give an alternative way to learn other language from internet, google translate. You also can read again my topic here is "the language courses isn't required anymore" . I mean, to learn other language, we can learn autodidact. nah, this is which become the topic. Why? Learning language at courses, (offline), officially, we need teacher, room, location, text books, and many more. And i also think that if we study better by autodidact, right? It just more effective that at courses. What do you think? Thank you.
The unformal languange school seems not to be required anymore

First of all, thank you to come up with this topic. It's really good topic. As person who in the position of cons, i disagree with your argument. Why? First, you said that "We have google translate to change our LANGUAGE to other". The correct one is LANGUAGE ^^. Google translate are not useful as dictionary to translate other languages. Have you been used Oxford dictionary or Cambridge Dictionary or other dictionary that really make sense when it came up to translate? If you never read that, try to translate something to English with those dictionary. The second when you said "there are scientist will find a device to translate via sound. And i also think, that someday, we don't need to learn about other LANGUAGE regularly". Well, i assume your grammar would be a little bit good if you used dictionary, not google translate :P . FYI, there had been a "device" that could translate via sound. Search it and there are tons of it. Why people wanna learn other languages? Here are the facts: 1.You become smarter. Of course, no doubt about it. When you learn languages directly, you brain start to working hard and memorize all of your languages that have been learned. And, if you want to get hotter chick, you have to learn bilingual and can speak frequently rather than used sound translator device. Not cool at all :p 2.You stave off Alzheimer and dementia. According to several studies, it can stave off Alzheimer and dementia. If you learn statistic, for monolingual adults, the mean age for the first sign of dementia is 71,4 when adults with bilingual have 75,5 mean age for the first sign. 3.Your memory improves. It's related to the first fact that you become smarter. 4.Your decision making skills improve. Yep, when you often use your brain to memorize languages, it sharpened your brain and it affects your decision making skills. That's all for me right now.
The unformal languange school seems not to be required anymore

nowaday, technology seems master the world at many subject, include education. I just think that right now we can do anything with internet, include to communicate with foreign. We have google translate to change our languange to other. I just assume that with the development of technology, maybe, there are scientist will find a device to tanslate via sound. And i also think, that someday, we don't need to learn about other languange regularly. I mean that courses isn't required anymore. So i challenge you to against me whether i am wrong.
Donald trump is great

Trump is a business man, not a politician. He should stick to running golf courses and casinos, not one of the most powerful countries in the world. He does not have the competence to run a country. It"s all "fake news" this and "Hillary"s emails" that, never anything that he"s actually supposed to be talking about or what he"s going to do next to "make America great again". He can"t follow up on the arguments he makes.