BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
world war 3

It's true that we haven't had a major punch up for 70 odd years and with a possible united states of Europe (also know as the Eu) could do what happened when Germany formed in the late 1800s which shifted the powers in Europe which caused ww1, with British exit from the united states of Europe (praise tea and kek) means that we should see status quo remain and this could keep peace in Europe for the next 50 to 60 years as long as the rest of Europe doesn't invade Great Britain we should be fine. And we don't get a Islamic state in turkey or any part of Europe we should be fine as we won't have to suffer even more terrorism then we already have. Plz note i don't want to turn this in a debate about Islam or the Eu, not for now... Thank you have a nice day
Con exists.

Con’s example actually proves me right. The gap Con describes isn’t actually empty. It’s filled with the very fabric of space-time. The gap is a distance of space-time; it could be considered an amount of space-time. Space-time exists, therefore the gap exists. For the gap not to exist, the two locations would have to be the same, exactly the same. For Con’s argument to work, we must consider the gap to be filled with an absence, a true nothingness, something that absolutely isn’t. But the very act of imagining this absence that isn’t requires it to exist, if only in our mind, though we may find it incomprehensible. Cthulhu exists in our mind, as does Azathoth and Hastur. Yet the very description of these entities renders them impossible for us to understand. We do not have to understand a concept to have an idea of it, or to know of the concept. For instance, I do not understand life. But life exists inside of my head as a concept. If we are to consider whether or not Con exists, we must first have some idea of Con, even if we don’t truly understand Con. Otherwise such a discussion would be meaningless. But to have some idea of something means that it exists. Therefore, Con exists.
Con exists.

There is no con, this is not an argument.you are arguing with an absence of 'proness' in other words a lack of the essence which is pro, in terms of complete and utter absence, whereby any sense of pro is diminished the moment we enter what we perceive to be 'con' but in fact ends up being non existent the moment we try to delve into it.Imagine this: You are in outer space and look out of your spacecraft's window and see a star. The star is pro, you are a voyager seeking belief, in between you and the star is nothingness, empty space if you will, this is con. It is nothing, it is the absence of whatever pro is, in the sense of complete and utter absence, not mere neutrality.
Con exists.

"Pro is proposing that as a concept con exists, but con is not a concept, con is merely an anti-concept to pro, an absence of support for the concept you could say."But we can imagine this anticoncept. If I say 'X is good' Con would be 'X is not good'. Both pro and con exist as concepts; this is how we can argue pro and argue con. If we cannot perceive con, then how could we argue that con is true? And frequently one does argue that con is true. By arguing one's nonexistence, then one clearly has a concept of what one is, otherwise one would be unable to say whether or not it existed.The absence of support for a concept is itself a concept--this is how we can comprehend the lack of support for a concept. If we could not perceive Con, I would be unable to argue with Con. Yet clearly I can argue with Con, otherwise I would not be having this debate.
Con exists.

Con does not exist, neither as a figment of imagination, nor as a member of this computer-based argument. The reason being that con never was imagined, nor was con a member. Con merely is nothing.Pro exists for pro is proposing the idea that con exists.However, con's argument is merely not existing... Thus rendering pro's arguments true but inapplicable to con.Pro is proposing an idea, pro can be analogised to matter.Con to antimatter, it exists merely as an absence of pro, it destroys pro by merely causing non-existence.Pro is proposing that as a concept con exists, but con is not a concept, con is merely an anti-concept to pro, an absence of support for the concept you could say.Pro is almost like energy, and con the urge to rest. Con only seems to exist because pro exists and there happens to thus be an apparent opportunity to oppose in ways which con appears to take but con itself is non existent, merely acting as an anti-pro for the purposes of balancing logic and nature, con is an anti-existence of pro.
Con exists.

(I’ll be using my own definitions here; if Con has any problems with them I request that he provide alternatives.)Con asks me to prove he exists. I would like to begin by noting Descartes, and the statement, "I think therefore I am." Of course, this doesn't prove Con exists. It only proves the viewer exists.Nevertheless, Descartes provides a starting point. Even if we take solipsism to be true, the act of imagining something means it exists. The term ‘exist’ does not only refer to something that physically exists. If the reader is indeed the only thing in existence (and the reader must exist), then I, Con, this site, and the computer the reader is viewing this on all exist in the viewer’s imagination. Regardless of whether or not we have any real-world counterparts, we exist, in some form. Remember, Con hasn’t specified in what form he exists. Whether he has a physical body, is an alternate personality of some sort, or a figment of imagination is quite irrelevant.Now, Con may not be a sophont, or even a true sapient being, regardless of whether or not he has a body, is currently sharing it with someone else, or is simply a pure figment of imagination. But Con must exist, at least in some form. If I write Con into a story, and Con only exists in that story, Con still exists—but only in ink, graphite, or electronic data. Con wouldn’t be a sophont. Con couldn’t react to stimulus unless I made him. Con wouldn’t even have a form of matter. But Con would exist in the form of information.Indeed, it is impossible to give an example of something that does <em>not</em> exist in the form of information. The very act of giving the example presumes one can imagine the entity.To summarize: Regardless of whether or not something has physical existence, if someone is perceiving it, then it must exist as information. The viewer is perceiving Con. Therefore, Con exists as information at the very least. Three logically follows from one and two. Two is assumed to be the case, since otherwise the viewer could not see this debate. One is, I admit, something along the lines of semantics, but I don’t think it’s very much of a stretch, and Con never defined the term ‘exist’ anyway.
Physician Assisted Death

The debate topic is "Physician Assisted Death," not "Physician Assisted Suicide." I am entirely in favor of the ladder. The broadness of the debate is just that, broad. You are trying to bring it down to one thing while ignoring the rest of the possibilities under the definition of the actual debate topic. It's blatant and doesn't work. You can die more ways than suicide. Change the debate topic in a future debate if you want to specifically debate suicide, but this is not that debate.
Physician Assisted Death

the word "murder" implies a very evil intent to bring the most severe harm imaginable upon another person. But with physician assisted suicide there is NO evil intent and NO desire to bring harm upon another person. And "murder" means the killing of another person. But there is no other person killing in physician assisted suicide. The patient is the one killing themselves, making it their decision to end their life. I don't see a victim of murder pointing at the murderer and saying" you can kill me now". The physician is just there to help the patient by giving them a choice and it is there decision to partake in that choice or not.
Physician Assisted Death

When I say murder, I confront broadness of the topic at hand. I make no claim that anyone is going around murdering people, I am stating that, with the broad nature of the debate topic, the implementation of any such tittle would allow murder. The criteria set in your rebuttal is different than the criteria set in the debate topic. Any point you make differing from the topic is null and void do to it's differing from your own topic.
Physician Assisted Death

By saying murder you are making it seem like the physician is going around killing these patients, which is not the case. These patients have to meet the following criteria 18 years of age or older " Capable of making and communicating health care decisions for him/herself " Diagnosed with a terminal illness with only 6 months to live The attending physician decides if the criteria have been met, but further requirements are then necessary. Some of those include: " Two oral requests by the patient, at least 15 days apart " A written request by the patient signed by two witnesses " Confirmation of diagnosis and prognosis by the attending doctor and a consulting physician " The attending and consulting physician must determine whether the patient is capable of making health care decisions for him/herself " Patient must be informed of feasible alternatives " Attending physician must request the patient to notify their next-of-kin of the prescription request " Physicians must report all prescriptions for lethal medications to the Health Authority, Vital Records The physician may prescribe the medicine " cocktail" to the patient but, it is the patients choice if they want to end their life or not. The physician only gives them the chance to choose what they feel is best for themselves because it is their life, so let them decide what to do with it.
Physician Assisted Death

Why is it that only a few states have legalized Physician Assisted Suicide? There are so many good things that can come out of it. All of the pain that a patient is in can end if they want it to, especially if they are going to die anyways. A patient can die with dignity and not have to be remembered as the person who drooled, puked and pooped himself all the time. Instead they can be remembered how they want to remember. Health care costs for the patients can stop being paid and they can leave money behind for their loved ones especially if the patient was the main money supplier of the house. Vital organs can be saved and used on other patients that are truly in need of those organs. Families can be more happy because they were able to tell their loved one that they loved them before they died and would be happy because they get to know that their loved ones pain and suffering is ending. And most importantly doctors could move on to other patients who are need of the medical care instead of wasting their time on a patient who is going to die with in the next month anyways. So why in the world are we not legalizing this in every state? Whats the harm in it?
There is No good evidence for evolution

1. The big bang theory does not state that the universe came from nothing. Stephen Hawking may say that he believes that the universe came from nothing, but that does not show that this is what the big bang theory states. The big bang theory simply states that the universe is expanding from a single point which was its origin. The two sources which I provided in my initial argument support this. What that origin was is an entirely separate debate and is still a matter of contention among physicists. The man who developed the theory of the big bang, Belgian priest and astronomer Georges Lema"tre, certainly didn't argue that the universe arose from "nothing". My opponent's argument is clearly a straw man. [1] 2. They were created from the stellar thermonuclear fusion of hydrogen and helium. This is also called stellar nucleosynthesis, and is the source of the immense energy radiated by stars. [2] This process can be observed on earth in a limited manner during the detonation of thermonuclear bombs, also known as H-Bombs. [3] The ten most common elements which I presented earlier are those produced during the normal life of a star. The rest of the elements are produced during a supernova, where, to simplify things, the meeting of the outward pressure of the explosion and the inward pull of gravity produce enough pressure to momentarily allow the fusion of such heavy materials to take place. Other processes involved include proton capture, neutron capture, and photodisintegration. This accounts for the greater rarity of such materials. The source explains this process in greater detail. [4] 3. Patently false. I will link two images from deep space telescopes of stars in mid-formation. You can argue that these clouds will not eventually collapse due to gravity, or that they will not ignite and commence nuclear fusion once this has happening. But to do so you will have to refute every modern concept of gravitation and nuclear physics. [5] [6] 4. I have already conceded that there is no hard evidence for this particular form of evolution. In depth discussion on whether or not it is possible seems like a derailment of the original issue. 5. This is a complete non sequitur. Triploid watermelons cannot reproduce because they have an extra copy of each chromosome. This is how we get seedless watermelons. [7] The loss of the ability to breed does not necessitate a loss of genetic information, and a loss of genetic information does not disprove that gradual natural selection resulting in speciation. The idea that having more genetic information is a sign of advancement is simply incorrect, unless my opponent is willing to admit that the human race is inferior to pteridophytes, a group with an incidence of polyploidy at 95%. [8] 1. http://catholiceducation.org... 2. http://www.ohio.edu... 3. http://www.britannica.com... 4. http://www.stanford.edu... 5.http://www.spitzer.caltech.edu... 6. http://ts3.mm.bing.net... 7. http://cuke.hort.ncsu.edu... 8. http://books.google.com...
There is No good evidence for evolution

1. You have provided NO good evidence that the big bang came from nothing nor have you given any evidence for another theory of what caused the big bang. Stephen Hawking does in fact claim that the big bang came from nothing. "Speaking to a sold out crowd at the Berkeley Physics Oppenheimer Lecture, Stephen Hawking said that he now believes the universe spontaneously popped into existence from nothing."(1) 2. If the "big bang" produced hydrogen and some helium how did the other 105 elements "evolve"? 3. Nobody has ever seen a star form. 4. Nobody has ever seen life begin from inanimate matter nor is there any evidence that it can happen. Surveys of textbooks find that the Miller"Urey study is the major (or only) research cited to prove abiogenesis. It is now recognized that this set of experiments has done more to show that abiogenesis on Earth is not possible than to indicate how it could be possible. (we can discuss these experiments in more detail if you wish but it will not help your argument.) 5. Animals of the same kind becoming unable to breed is a LOSS of genetic information not a gain. Thus my opponent has provided absolutely NO good evidence for evolution. I maintain that there is NO good evidence for evolution. If evolution were true there should be ample evidence to support it. It is a simple fact that there is NO good evidence to support the theory of evolution.
There is No good evidence for evolution

I take it that "good evidence" in this context refers to a study which has withstood the rigors of peer review? If so, then I shall begin. 1. Cosmic evolution: the origin of time, space, and matter from nothing in the "big bang" The "nothing" point is a straw man, as the big bang does not claim that the singularity was "nothing". Evidence for the big bang includes the cosmic microwave background and redshift. [1] [2] 2. Chemical evolution: all elements "evolved" from hydrogen. This is supported by the fact that the most common elements in the cosmos are H, He, O, Ne, N, C, S, Mg, Fe, and S. [3] These are also, save hydrogen, the elements formed through stellar thermonuclear fusion. [4] Considering the nature of said fusion, it follows that stars are converting hydrogen into heavier elements. As to whether all matter was once hydrogen until the beginning of stellar fusion, this is a straw man. The big bang produced helium alongside hydrogen. [5] 3. Stellar evolution: stars and planets formed from gas clouds. This is a readily observable phenomenon; we can literally watch nebulae undergo this process at many different stages at any given moment. Accretion is also inevitable given the known laws of physics. [6] 4. Organic evolution: life begins from inanimate matter. Unlike cosmic, solar, planetary, or biotic evolution, this was a relatively brief and localized event. This makes it nigh impossible to test how precisely it happened; the only evidence that can be provided are studies concerning how it possibly could have occurred. These are numerous, the most famous being the Miller"Urey experiment. [7] [8] 5. Macro-evolution: animals and plants change from one type into another Ring species are evidence for this. When a population migrates away from the main body and adapts in small ways it is still able to mate with the original population. There are instances, however, of this expanding arm circling around some obstacle and meeting either the descendants of the original population at the point of origin or another divergent arm and being unable to mate with them. Examples include a gull which circles the Arctic, a songbird which circles the Himalayan Plateau, and a salamander which circles California"s Central Valley. This presents a problem for taxonomists because one of the defining features of a species is the ability to interbreed, which would make the two species at the extremities of the ring separate species. [9] 1. http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov... 2. http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov... 3. http://education.jlab.org... 4. http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov... 5. http://www.umich.edu... 6. http://www.britannica.com... 7. http://www.abenteuer-universum.de... 8. http://www.britannica.com... 9. http://darwiniana.org...
There is No good evidence for evolution

There is no good evidence to support the theory of evolution. The Six Meanings of Evolution 1. Cosmic evolution: the origin of time, space, and matter from nothing in the "big bang" 2. Chemical evolution: all elements "evolved" from hydrogen. 3. Stellar evolution: stars and planets formed from gas clouds. 4. Organic evolution: life begins from inanimate matter. 5. Macro-evolution: animals and plants change from one type into another 6. Micro-evolution: variations form within the "kind" According to Creation Evangelist Kent Hovind, Only the last one, micro-evolution, has anything to do with real science. Hovind writes, "For all of human history we have observed variations within the kinds such as 400+ varieties of dogs coming from a dog-like ancestor such as a fox or a wolf. Dogs produce dogs and corn produces corn. There may be great variations within the basic kind but that is NOT evidence that dogs and corn are related! Every farmer on planet earth counts on micro-evolution happening as he develops crops or herds best suited for his area, but he also counts on macro-evolution NOT happening. Anything other than minor changes within the kind is not part of science. Evolution as defined as macro-evolution is a religion in every sense of the word. People are welcome to BELIEVE the first five types of evolution, but they are not part of science or common sense." what do you think? Let's see your best evidence for The first 5 definitions of evolution.
Series 1 Episode 5 : *RETAKE* Severe Gun Control is good for Society.

I agree with the fact on how lots of guns do my necessarily mean lots of shootings however, with the list that I have given with school shootings in U.S, in the future, restriction the use of firearms as a weapon choice, means less violence involving shootings. When I say further restricting uses, I mean that some gun related incidents (9 year old shooting instructor) can indeed be prevented if we restricted the uses! Such as, not giving a gun to a 9 year old for starters. http://www.washingtonpost.com... I. Washington DC's low murder rate of 80.6 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, and Arlington, VA's high murder rate of 1.6 per 100,000 is due to the lack of gun control. Which proves my point that stricter gun control can lead to less gun relayed murders. My opponent then brings up how guns are used more for self defense than murder. I would like to ask him, what kind of defense? My opponent then brings up how lower gun control reduces crime. How do you know that the crime number in the "right to carry states" were not constant, or almost same throughout the time? According to my source less gun means less suicide. Yes it is a personal choice, but restricting guns can lead to fewer suicide rates. Which I assume is a favorable outcome.
Series 1 Episode 5 : *RETAKE* Severe Gun Control is good for Society.

Apologies! I should have kept first round for acceptance! I. Multiple incidents regarding society There have been many incidents regarding gun shootings. Helpless and innocent lives have been snatched away due to another man's carelessness or anger. You could say that "people abuse people, not guns abuse people". Yes, overall it is the person harming another person, but if people's carelessness continues due to guns, isn't it logical to control guns? Yes, again you can bring up that cars also bring deaths, but the solution to that is rising the age limit, or going off of experience. You can also restrict the use of cars, but in the grand scheme of things, it is impractical. Cars are a need to society, but what need is there for guns? Taking the multiple shootings into consideration, guns weren't needed, but in car accidents, cars are more needed than guns. List of shooting incidents: http://en.wikipedia.org... II. Argument for constitutional rights "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." -Second amendment http://en.wikiquote.org... Yes, you cannot take away the right to bear arms, (In the U.S), but you can still restrict the use of arms. Keep in mind I am not in favor for banning guns, but CONTROLLING its uses. The people have the right to own arms, but it is restricted to the point that it is only used in specified shooting grounds. III. Access to guns raises suicide risk In 2010 in the U.S., 19,392 people committed suicide with guns, compared with 11,078 who were killed by others. States with low gun ownership have less suicide rates than once that do. This can affect children, and other people. People who are a little bit suicidal with a gun, makes it much more easier to kill themselves. Hopefully this is plain to see, and doesn't need much more reasoning. Rebuttals to Con.
Series 1 Episode 5 : *RETAKE* Severe Gun Control is good for Society.

Keep in mind I am NOT for the act of completely banning gun ownership, but simply drastically restricting its uses. Good luck Sir/Madame, and I look forward to an interesting debate! (Please do bring up definition of a gun. Water gun? BB gun? ) I am assuming you are referring to an actual hand gun (or bigger) , that can easily kill. NOT pellet guns, or water guns.
Fans of Football Teams in Eng. and Wales should be able to oust owners

GMT FTW! PRO has correctly stated that the exploit will always put off future owners [1]. But couldn't there be false fans, and glory hunters. Imagine at the end of this season 'Roman Abramovich is ousted - by Arsenal fans. There is honestly no more to say. A board would have ousted SISU exactly in the same way fans would, yet without gaining any kind of bad reputation for ousting owners. Thank you for debating with me and regardless of method, I hope one day for SISU to be " thing of the past.