BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Aliens are real

1. Yes, aliens don't need to interact with humans but think of the past. When Native Americans were massacred by Americans, Americans could've not massacred them, but they were savages. Yes, if given enough time advanced civilizations will pop up. You are using the information fallacy, that's like saying there is a teapot between Earth and Mars. It's impossible to find it out. 2. Yes if there is a fucktillion planets, there probably were planets existing billions of years before Earth. Then they probably there were planets existing before Earth creating super advanced civilizations. 3. These are called Von_Neumann_universal_constructor. These machines are like nanobots but they send data and self-replicate. 4. It's in human nature for us to conquer and since humans are the most advance species that is most likely applicable.
Defense is as important as offense in basketball

You say that offense is twice as important as defense, but you do not give a logical justification for it. You argue that it is better to have a great offense and poor defense than poor offense and great defense because it is more important to score points than to save points. You do not give a proper justification for this statement. The aim of the game is to win by scoring more points than your opponents. This will happen only if you score and your opponent does not. The former is related to offense and the latter, to defense. Tieing the game at 100 all is not putting you in a better position than tieing at 50 all. Both offense and defense are equally important. NOTE: here I consider offense and defense to be objective quantities. If a legendary offense can score every 3 pointer they take a legendary defense can stop every 3 pointer they defend.
Defense is as important as offense in basketball

In my opinion, this one would be better; Offense is twice as important than defense. You may ask why? Well it is pretty simple. You could have a team with poor offense and beastly defense. What would that be good for? Saving many points against you, but what about the points to win? You can't win with poor defense. However if you have a team with a very solid offense, and a very poor defense, then you would have the upper hand. Why? Isn't basketball about winning? With the details above, you would have the upper hand because you would score more points than the opponent. In the meantime you loose alot of points too, but isn't it better to score more points, than to save more points?
brain size indicates blacks are less intelligent than whites

we are at a stalemate on the brain size vis a vis energy points. neanderthals weren't as war faring as humans. this could have led to their demise. intelligence isn't the only indicator of success. your crude methods to compare brain size and IQ is amusing, i guess. but it doesn't work that way. there are correlations between the two and it doesn't have to measure exactly as you are saying.
brain size indicates blacks are less intelligent than whites

Again, my response is valid there-. 1. Almost half of people on the debates for evolution say it doesn't exist. 2. A large brain is a luxury that no other species has wasted energy on. It paid off in the end, at least for Homo sapiens if not for every single other member of that genus, but if needs be, humans would lose a bit of brain for a while so that they can keep their calories up. Thinking up clever ways to catch a few extra morsels would not make up for the constant additional drain. Additional arguments- 1. Neanderthals actually proportionally speaking had bigger brains than modern humans, and significantly bigger brains than original homo sapiens. Clearly the extra 10% didn't help- they died off, which suggests that despite a 10% superiority we were smarter and more resourceful. 2. If the extra brain size is what helps, why is it not proportionate? Surely if "Blacks 1,267 cm3. Whites 1347 cm3. East Asians 1364 cm3." then the 23 cm3 between Whites and Asians is the same IQ difference as a 23 cm3 distance between whites and blacks. 1347-1267= 80. 1364-1347=23. 23/80 of the IQ distance between Blacks and Whites should be equivalent to the IQ distance between Whites and Asians. Asian IQ minus White IQ = 6 White IQ minus Black IQ = 15 23/80 x 15 = 4.3125 4.3125 is not equal to 6- in fact it's quite far off. Therefore, brain size does not determine the intelligence of different races, as 23 cm3 one way is not equivalent to 23 cm3 the other. Following this logic, blacks most certainly are not less intelligent than Whites, at least not for genetic reasons.
brain size indicates blacks are less intelligent than whites

IQ might not be the best predictor of intelligence, but it is an indicator. and it indicates they are less intelligent. given my main thesis of the resolution was brain size means blacks are less intelligent, id have hoped for a better response: "You'd be surprised how many people don't believe in macro-evolution. Be warned. And in any case, that sounds counter-intuitive, as a brain is a massive consumer of energy, taking up 20% of our total energy. To increase the cranium further because there was less food sounds wrong with that in mind." less food means humans have to be smart to get it. evolution causes brain size and intelligence then to increase.
Is it good for US that soviet union collapsed

They were hardly the first enemies of the United States. After Britain, Spain, Mexico, Germany, Italy and Japan, they were quite the latecomers to the anti-US club. The first three countries on that list posed a direct threat to the existence of the United States of America, while the last three killed large numbers of Americans in conflict with them, Germany on more than one occasion. Yes there was a rivalry, but the USSR did not really pose an economic threat to the USA. The USA had a much better infrastructure, a very good standard of living and a huge network of colonies overseas. The USSR had an infrastructure that was mediocre at best in western Russia, and abysmal as one went further east; a poor standard of living and an empire that was only really where its land power extended to. It had a good technological base, with excellent higher education facilities that bred some of the world's finest minds, as well as large public works investment to build space programmes, power plants and weapons factories. But when the chips were down, the only thing that really made the USSR equal to the USA in terms of political stature was its nuclear arsenal. It was still vastly profitable in the 1980s for the USSR to exist, since the US was still undermining it right up until 1989, and financing corrupt despotisms and paramilitary groups both before and after. Your allegations that Gorbachev was bribed are relatively inane. Gorbachev had no interest in the fall of the Soviet Union, only in the reform of it. The idea of communism had somewhat stagnated among the western intellectual community and the left in general, so he invited the Russian intelligentsia in the Glasnost programme to discuss reform into a social democracy. This resulted in Perestroika, which was an attempt to transform the USSR into a social democracy, with limited markets. However, these attempts were exploited by foreign corporations and intelligence services to push themselves into Russia and create a state of chaos. The ensuing chaos destroyed the Soviet Union and caused the rise of the new Russian aristocracy of fuel and land barons in a fragmented and anarchic state under the weak, pro-US leadership of Yeltsin. There is very little evidence to suggest that Gorbachev, who has remained a critic of Russian domestic and foreign policy to this day, accepted bribes of the magnitude that you suggest.
Is it good for US that soviet union collapsed

USSR were the first enemies of the United States. These two powers were rivals throughout including medicine, weapons and new technologies. And in this rivalry is always led by the Soviet Union: they are the first to open space, all new military technology was with them, at that time they were kept in constant fear of the U.S. So I think that at that time the most desirable to the United States was the collapse of the Soviet Union. It is well known that the first president of USSR we're paid by USA make it possible collapse the USSR also did you know that Gorbachev during his tenure as president of the Soviet Union where given a bribe of $ 200,000. And he took it. And then admitted to a secret meeting with President Roh Tae-woo, he received $ 200,000 in checks payable to bearer for the recognition of South Korea.
Is it good for US that soviet union collapsed

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I am not an expert or a scholar or an activist. I am more of an eye-witness. There are some great historical events where it"s difficult to tell whether their net effect was positive or not. The immediate cause of the Soviet collapse was economic, as the Soviet Union lost the arms race and international competition with the West. The United States was able to profit from its imperialist exploitation of other countries, while socialism could only lose economically in that competition. The fall of the USSR led to the establishment of numerous successful liberal democracies, including Poland, the the Czech Republic, the Baltic States, and others. Some of these were established before the USSR fully collapsed. In conclusion I would like to say that US is really lucky that the Soviet Union collapsed becouse it now became most powerfull country in the earth , before it was Soviet Union, and now US can do what they want hidden under democracy to invent into Syria and Iraq for their natural recourses.
Agnosticism is a great way to look at life.

I hope we can learn something through the coming four rounds. I have always been torn between Religion. My father is an Atheist, whilst my mother is Catholic; She believes in God strongly, even though my dad has debated with her and stumped her many times, along with the rest of her family. I listen to the reasoning and have argued with my parents over religion many o' times. There is evidence to both sides, and many ideas can be accepted and discarded. I have always been fascinated, and interested in religion. Researching it is a common hobby of mine, it is all so amazing, some of the ideas put into it. So not too long ago, I realized that Agnosticism is a great way to look at religion and life for that matter. It t is a belief that discards these ideas almost entirely. Agnostic theists identify themselves both as agnostics and as followers of particular religions, viewing agnosticism as a framework for thinking about the nature of belief and their relation to revealed truths. The definition of Agnosticism is: "the position of believing that knowledge of the existence or non-existence of god is impossible. " This is an entirely legit way of thinking. There is not enough evidence to make a decision on whether God exists or not, it is simply unknowable. Many ignorant people seem to believe that Agnosticism is the idea of believing in nothing at all; I am unsure if many think that, possibly just my local area. Nonetheless, I hope for a good debate. This is open to all, preferably those who can make a intellectual argument, I wish to see who disagrees and why. After every round, the next debater will have an entire day to respond; I do wish my opponent would get back to me quicker than that, however. Source[for definition]: . http://www.skepdic.com...
God

1. I apologize if you're offended, but your grammar truly has been terrible. It has made your cases very hard to read. Let's look at this sentence, or his "new" arguments... "Where'd your parents come from than sherlock homes?) a) Forgets to capitalize the S and the H in Sherlock Holmes b) Spells Holmes incorrectly C) He put "Than" in the place of "Then" d) The joke is bad e) My grandparents. Refuted. Horrible arguments made by pro.
PC is better than Console

I will accept this challenge. In my opinion playing a game on a console is way better than playing on a pc because the controller is way easy to use then the wsad keys and your console is harder to get a virus if you use the internet on it but yes i agree with you on pc because some games are only allowed on the pc and half of the games i like are on steam and online.Thank you and i will type another opinion when you type another one.
PC is better than Console

Three day response time, please do not accept if you do not plan on responding within the allotted time. Best of luck to anyone who accepts. With the broad topic, I am referring to: cost/performance/graphical power. Not a single particular section but rather the general overall power, ability to have components changed and capability of the machine. -Chaos Note: before I start my side of the debate: You are welcome to represent any console from any time period, or just consoles in general, which ever you would prefer.
PC is better than Console

The story is important but that's not what this debate is about. It's PC vs Console, not story mode. If you can reply with why console is better, it would be much appreciated. There isn't much for me to counter with since there is nothing you really countered/added to your side of the debate. Story mode is not the topic so I'll just hand off this round to you and I hope that you will support your side of the debate (why console is better than PC).
PC is better than Console

Sometimes the matter of getting a higher priced computer or a higher performance processor is the best thing if your a big gamer but for me when I play a game I like if the story or if the video is great like call of duty black ops for the wii the game was never ever ment to be played on there at all but like black ops 3 on the ps4 or xbox one they have a great image and story and it's way easier to use a controler than the wsad keys.
PC is better than Console

-Note: We will disregard wifi/connection issues that would cause PC or console to under preform -PC/laptops have been around for a long time, not to say consoles have not, but there has been a vast improvement in the capability of these machines. In the early days, computers would take up an entire room and would be able to do basic tasks. Since the first computer in 1946, they have become more personal and much more powerful. By the time 1981 rolled around, these machines that would take up an entire room, was now capable of being brought around with you on your travels. Computers now are have a vast capability of storing countless amounts of information, running games that would impress anyone, availability to create mods for games or just create your own game. -Cost, this can be pushed either way, you can choose to spend $400-$600 on a console which is a rather set sticker price. On PC/laptops you have the ability to spend $300 to the upwards of $10,000. Obviously the more you spend the better performance you will receive. Because of this price range there is a lot of flexibility in parts, size and capability of the machine you are looking into making. In all fairness, you never expect to spend the amount that you want on a pc, it normally go over, while on console it's a set price and not changing. -Performance, for console it's normally going to be a 'what you see is what you get' kind of situation. For PC, you have a vast majority of choices that will enhance your performance, and you also have the possibility to change the graphics card. On console you do not have as easy of a upgrading parts. You can build a PC from scratch while the console just comes at a sticker price and what the performance is would be rather standard and unavailable to change. -Graphical Process Power, along the same lines as performance, what you see is what you get for console. PC has a wide variety of choices to choose from and possess the capabilities for upgrades. If there are any other topics you wish to touch on, please feel free too, I shall respond next round Best of luck! -Chaos
Progressive Income Tax

Thank you. Let's begin with a history of the progressive income tax. The first progressive income tax known was implemented in Great Britain in the 14th century. The first American progressive income tax was created by the Revenue Act of 1862, signed by Abraham Lincoln to raise money during the height of the Civil War.[1] Essentially, the progressive income tax kills the drive to succeed. When the rich are taxed much higher than the poor and middle class, it discourages growth. Why would I desire to be rich when the government will take close to half of my earnings? Fact: The top 1% of Americans contribute 37.4% of our tax revenue.[2] I ask: Is this not enough? Would we have the rich pay half of all taxes? While were at it, why not take that wealth and spread it around? The road to hell, or should I say, socialism, is paved with good intentions. A better, "fairer" course of action would be to institute a flat tax, charging all Americans the same rate, being both reasonable and efficient by eliminating all loopholes. You pay 15%. No tax credits or anything. It's that simple. Why should we complicate our tax codes further? [1]http://en.wikipedia.org... [2]http://www.nationalreview.com...
Fast food chains are primarily responsible for obesity caused by eating there.

Since my opponent forfeited his round I will take this opportunity to respond to one of his arguments I mistakenly left out. He pointed out BK doesnt have healthy items, I dont deny this. So then, if youre susceptible to gaining weight, dont go to BK. If the choice is made to eat there, then like I've said, the chain isnt responsible. They arent forcing that decision. Round summary/Voting issues 1. Fast food chains are noncoercive 2. Weight gain can be controlled even if unhealthy food is eaten 3. My opponent dropped all my round three arguments. Thanks to everyone who followed this. I urge a con vote.
Fast food chains are primarily responsible for obesity caused by eating there.

1. My opponent claims that salads are more caloric and salty than a hamburger. While true, he is only telling you one side of the story. Salads also outweigh a hamburger on fiber, protein, Vitamin A, Vitamin C, Calcium, and Iron. (1) Furthermore he fails to realize that hamburgers will be eaten with other items. Most hamburgers at fast food places are small. It will not fill you up. You will likely need to buy fries as well, which add to the sodium. Sine we're talking about obese people in the resolution, obese people will likely need two burgers (or one of the VERY fat-heavy sandwiches [1]) plus some fries to get full at which point it outweighs the salad on fat, sodium, cholesterol, and calories. Salads on the other hand are often the only thing people need. While they are indeed high on sodium, it is outweighed by its other nutritional benefits. 2. My opponent claims fast food is cheaper than buying the ingredients which mandates its consumption in our economy. This is where my opponent's logic is flawed most. He lists prices of packages of foods. The key here though is the word "packages". This means the food comes in "multiples". Yeah, a package of hamburger meat is more expensive than a cheeseburger at McDonald's, but at McDonald's you only get one hamburger. In a package you get around 5. Most buns come in packages of 8. Cheese comes in packages of ten or more. This shows that you are actually saving money by not eating fast food (2), which again proves my point that eating it is noncoercive and therefore is the responsibility of the customer for what happens to them. He points out that people cant just get on a treadmill or go to the gym. However, in my point I listed multiple ways to burn calories including going for a jog and walking a dog. While I'm here I might as well add riding a bike and doing push ups. I understand not everybody has a treadmill, but it is a very good option for people who do have one. If people eat enough fast food to where it would cause weight gain, these things are an effective deterrant. If these light exercises are not enough,, then the person is obviously eating way too much fast food anyway which as previously stated is not the company's responsibility. 1. http://nutrition.mcdonalds.com... 2. http://www.greendivamom.com...
Fast food chains are primarily responsible for obesity caused by eating there.

I would first like to start off adding to the definition of fast food from Merriam-Webster. What he failed to tell us is that there is a second definition which states "designed for ready availability, use, or consumption and with little consideration given to quality or significance" [1] With this definition in mind it makes the fast food chains much more responsible for the obesity due to the fact that they do not care about the quality. I would like to point out to my opponent that McDonalds does not offer "healthy alternatives." The healthy alternatives my opponent listed for McDonalds were salads. The salads in McDonalds are more caloric than a plain hamburger. The majority of the salads have 800-1000 mg of salt, and the salad dressing has 300-700 mg of salt.[2] That means a salad with dressing has 1200-1700 mg of salt. The most a healthy adult can have is 2,300. One teaspoon of salt has 2,325 mg of salt [3] meaning after having a "healthy alternative" at McDonalds you would have to cut salt out of your diet for the other two meals which is almost impossible in this country. At the beginning of his first argument my opponent said, "I will refer to fast food as the way most people see it. McDonalds, BK, Wendy's, etc." BUT; when talking about restaurants with healthy alternatives he leaves out Burger King, and I know why. When doing my first "mistake" argument I tried to show Burger King's healthy alternatives. The only problem was I couldn't find any. Of the two salad options I found both were loaded with sodium, and came with salad dressing that had more sodium than it had calories.[4] Fast Food is primarily responsible for the obesity of the population especially now. In this recession many people can't make ends meet and need to buy cheap food. Fast food restaurants have value meals. At fast food you can buy whole meals for $1-$3 [5][6][7] When at home making yourself a cheeseburger is much more expensive. It is $2.99 for just the cheese. $1.67 for the buns. $5.19 for the patties, [8]and you have to pay for the electricity and/or gas needed for the lights on in your house and to power the stove. So really fast food is the better option for many people. People just can't get on a treadmill in order to burn calories. It takes 60 minutes to burn 500 calories on a treadmill. Not many people can afford to buy a treadmill or have a gym membership. A treadmill is $1,099 [9] and a gym membership has an initiation fee and monthly payments [10] [1]http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2]http://nutrition.mcdonalds.com... [3]http://www.mayoclinic.com... [4]http://www.bk.com... [5]http://www.bk.com... [6] http://www.mcdonalds.com... [7]http://www.mcdonalds.com... [8] http://www.peapod.com... [9]http://www.walmart.com... [10]http://gothamist.com...