BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Flat Earth

So, I'll break this off into two sections. Section 1 will be regarding the argument that you can see things further than what you supposedly should be able to, and the Section 2 will be regarding the stars and how they are apparently standing still. 1. You state that boats going over the horizon can be zoomed back into view. This is true, however, that is because we are above the sea level. When we are above the sea level -- the level to which the boat is on -- we are able to see it much further. You can test this at home. Find a stress ball or something of the sort, then stick a thumb tac in it. You will find that if you hold the ball at eye level you will lose sight of the tac very quickly as you begin to rotate it away from you. However, hold the ball 6 inches below eye level and you will be able to see the tac for much longer. This is true with the earth as we are rarely trying to see ships on the horizon with our eyes at sea level. Furthermore, your eye stops seeing at a certain distance which is far closer than when a ship would fall under the horizon, and if you're patient enough with a high enough zoom, you will also see it fall below the horizon with a telescope or binoculars or whatever instrument you are using to zoom in on the boat. 2. This is an incredibly asinine argument. The stars and constellations do move. I urge you to take a long exposure shot of the night sky on a clear night. You will clearly see that they leave streaks across the sky, thus proving that they are moving. If that is not enough proof for you, then watch the sky for about 180 years and you will see that certain stars do indeed move and change places in the sky. A faint star named Barnard's Star moves the fastest through our skies. Still, for it to change its position only by an amount equal to the width of the moon, it would take about 180 years. The motion of stars is quite small at a few or a few tens of kilometers per second. However, they are situated several light years away from us so they appear to sit still. Let's say a star is about 10 light years away from us and is traveling at 10 kilometers per second. In 100 years, the star would have moved about 30 billion kilometers. The distance of the star from us in comparison is around 90 trillion kilometers. So its motion in 100 years is so small compared to its distance that we see the star in relatively the same spot in the sky. However, if one waits for a few hundred thousand years, then one can definitely see the constellations change. I'd like to ask you what benefit would anyone gain from deceiving 7.6 billion people into thinking that the earth is spherical, and how did they convince so many people of this?
Flat Earth

That's fine, but have you ever looked into it? The supposed curvature of the Earth is only ever seen on a Go-Pro lens, no real pictures. Any boat that disappears over the horizon can easily be zoomed back into full view. The curve should be no problem to prove a globe, but there isn't one to be found. The calculation for curvature, due to the figure of the Earth being approximately 25,000 miles in circumference, is 8" per mile, squared. Lighthouses, boats and buildings, have been seen in full view over distances of which the curve of the Earth should not allow. The Earth is easily observed as being motionless, as your senses will tell you. The stars and constellations, are in the same place and pattern, year after year, century after century, meaning that the Earth is not moving and that the stars are revolving around us. If our Galaxy is hurtling through space at over 2.5 million miles per hour, then how is it that the stars all stay in the same place?
death penalty

Nice ,we're different, I believe death penalty should be completely abolished good luck to you too. Please look at these images , these are the procedure of death penalty guillotine : https://www.google.com...: Firing squad: https://www.google.com...: Hanging: https://www.google.com...: Eye for an eye is reacting to evil by doing evil ,there's no good at this we should conquer evil by kindness, we should not add another wickedness for we stand for justice and the right thing, and the right things isn't evil, we shouldn't accept two lesser evil for this doesn't lessen wickedness into this world. we should show love for the imperfect citizen, nationalism and humanity inside prison and show power to deal with the risk without the use of violence for we aren't a fool. If our friends are killed and raped, we can be saddened, we can be angered but this should'nt dictate our decision because our emotion is not always right, it can be wrong We should be slow to anger, we should'nt let anger control our justice system,we should look at the outcome and be open to the things or people that are affected. If we know killing is wrong we should'nt do it, if we know we're hurting somebody, don't do it. Criminal won't learn anything in death penalty and only cowards will fear death penalty Murder (illegal killing) will be lessen but not the killing and violence for the government participates in it using capital punishment. The continuation of death penalty means another death of an innocent for the government accepted the risk of it while using a flawed system. Hanging is cheap but morality can't be determined by cheapness, money should not be ruling our decision. Lethal injection is never humane, killing is never humane but it can be less and more cruel yet it is always cruel. Killing an inmate is injustice, killing is never justice, killing for someone else (victim) is not acceptable , being cruel is not okay, killing someone is not fine. It's not because of what the criminal had done but who we are, all who kill is a killer, now that the government kills they are a killer just like the people they are punishing. They kill somebody who kills somebody, the government is not innocent because they don't do what innocent and humane people does, they do what the criminal does. We can deter without death penalty ,if jail isn't working then lock the inmate from head to fingers from there the inmate cannot move and rehabilitate them severely to make them compatible in society so the issue here is death penalty's morality and you have to justify killing.
Gay rights

I'm not sure I can make it any plainer. The semantics of your opening in fact did not imply you were strictly challenging someone who was against gay rights. That is, you did not include the word *should*. I realize you meant to, but language is important, and as it is, your statement of fact--"a fellow human has the same rights as any of us'--is incorrect and clashes with the intent. I shouldn't be held to your mistake. We could view this as a separate voter if you'd like--people can vote/weigh on both your intent and the plain language argument. But I'm not bound by what you'd like to debate against. I don't see any response to my second contention--that even the ideal might not be 'strict equality'. We should extend this as un-responded to.
Gay rights

Neither of my posts are in any way contradictory to one another. My first post was intended to challenge someone who believed that gay people should not have all the same rights as straight people. I admittedly made the mistake of not clarifying this in the first post, but I proceeded to do so in the second. There is no denying that there is inequality on the subject of homosexuality seeing as it is one of the most controversial topics today. I feel you may have misinterpreted my take on the matter. I know that gay rights is a major controversy, I was hoping to inquire someone who opposed the idea that homosexuals should have all the same rights as heterosexuals.
Gay rights

So to reiterate the first argument, technically your first post specified a state of being. Drawing from your more recent post, it seems you contradict the prior. So the first specifies a challenge to anyone who'd argue inequality in the status quo while your second argues there *is* inequality in the status quo. Do you agree you're arguing contradictions? Unfortunately, the topic doesn't bind me to arguing against specific formulations of rights--I don't have to argue against gay marriage. All I have to argue is that there could exist a just state where rights aren't strictly equal. So, no, a lack of strict equality does not imply injustice. Natural barriers might often lead to less than strict equality while not rising to the level of an injustice. For example, Herero marriage features a particular child support norm that would not clearly translate. Hence if same sex and opposite sex marriages developed different norms reflecting the particulars of each institution, we would be incorrect to presume a state of injustice. In arguing for strict equality, the onus goes to you to prove that no difference could ever be acceptable.
Gay rights

I suppose it's my fault that I didn't consider semantics to be of severe importance. However, I see you clearly understood my view on the topic. I'm glad you share that opinion, yet I am confused as to why you think that the lack of equality doesn't pertain to injustice. I refer to laws against homosexuality. At the moment heterosexuals are (and always have been) legally allowed to marry members of the opposite sex. In some parts of the world, individuals are not allowed to marry a member of the same sex. Does this not indicate a state of inequality? Yet in the other parts of the world where the union of members of the same sex is permitted, would that not indicate equality?
Gay rights

Hello Invalid, I'll be arguing semantics. Firstly, I "disagree that a fellow human being has the same rights as any of us". That is, I'll argue that in the status quo, we don't have equal rights. Note, this is not an endorsement that this should be the case, rather that it *is* the case. Secondly, if you instead meant that you challenge anyone who disagrees a fellow human being *should* have the same rights, I'll argue that we should have enhanced gay rights. Read: we should legalize same sex civil union/marriage where appropriate. But that this should not be seen as an endorsement of equal rights. In analogy, women/men don't have equal rights to abortion but this isn't a sign of de facto discrimination. Lack of 'equality' doesn't necessarily imply a state of injustice. So, in a more ideal world, we'd have enhanced 'gay rights', but not necessarily 'equal'.
Gay rights

Ah, it's too bad your internet phased out. So, I think we agree this debate comes down to two arguments. 1st. Semantics. Essentially, you're arguing intent here. This is fine and legitimate, but it's incorrect to state that "[I] understood what [you] had actually meant." Instead, it would be more accurate to say I understood what you potentially meant. Yes, you correct your mistake in your second post, but this places me at a disadvantage--I needn't have wasted time replying to a potential argument. I offered a compromise in R3--that this should be a separate voter and weighted differently. I don't see where you address this specifically, except perhaps that you attempt to minimize it directly. I'd think this slightly abusive considering you forfeited R4 and I've extended the argument. But, perhaps we'll let the voters use this to tip the scale if, indeed, they view the debate that close. 2nd. Plain language 'Some places in the world see the union of same sexes as an abomination, and therefore make it illegal. They are not permitting these people to have the same rights to marriage as any straight person would. How can you not see that as an injustice?" Please don't straw-man my position. Specifically, I stated "I'll argue that we should have enhanced gay rights. Read: we should legalize same sex civil union/marriage where appropriate. But that this should not be seen as an endorsement of equal rights." It's patently dishonest to suggest I said anything otherwise. You've not responded to what you yourself have labeled the more important argument. I clarified the position in R2, and you wasted time with the 1st argument in R3 and then forfeited R4. My position is quite clearly that LGBTQIs deserve justice. "Even after making this clear, you continue to point out a simple grammatical error I made in the first post. This only leads me to believe that you accepted the challenge so you could pull off a win by straying from the topic because I didn't initially make that topic clear enough." This is dishonest. I know you didn't responded in R4, but you could have at least done me the courtesy of having read my response. That is, I spent 10 words on what you'd like the round to come down on, even as I've agreed this isn't an important argument. I then spent 50 words on the more important argument. To rehash, your clarified position is that gays deserve "equality". I gave you the burden of justifying 'strict' equality where I argue that justice can be achieved with slight differences, and I referenced child support arrangement norms differing by relationship type. You haven't once responded to this argument. Abandon the smoke and mirrors, it isn't going to work out. I gave you the specific burden in R4 that you needed to give "a very good reason why strict equality is the only acceptable standard." You haven't done so. Con should win this round. I've extended the mutually agreed important argument across each round. LGBTQIs deserve enhanced rights. They deserved near equality, but 'strict' equality might not apply, and this isn't problematic. Justice can be achieved without strict equality. Voters, thank you for your attention.
Gay rights

I apologize for the forfeit of the last round as my internet wasn't working, and I admittedly forgot on the last couple days. As I stated before, I did make a mistake by not clarifying in my first post the topic by which I wanted to adhere to. You then pointed out my fault in your first post, but also stated that you understood what I had actually meant. In my second post, I noted my mistake and corrected it. I briefly explained current world views on the topic of gay marriage. Some places in the world see the union of same sexes as an abomination, and therefore make it illegal. They are not permitting these people to have the same rights to marriage as any straight person would. How can you not see that as an injustice? Even after making this clear, you continue to point out a simple grammatical error I made in the first post. This only leads me to believe that you accepted the challenge so you could pull off a win by straying from the topic because I didn't initially make that topic clear enough.
The process of Gift Giving is a waste of time.

Thanks, Pro, for the quick reply. First off, I'd like to clarify the definition of "Waste of Time," which you use in a literal sense to denote an inefficiently time-consuming way of doing something. Also of note is the thesis only argues that the "Process of Gift Giving" of giving is a waste, which does not include the process of shopping and/or planning. This immediately refutes your third point, which only addresses the process of acquiring gifts.For your first and second point you debate the practical efficiency of giving, assuming the case of x and y, you claim that if x bought y a gift, and that y bought y a gift, y's gift for y would be a "better" gift than x's gift for y. You fail to define "better," but it can be assumed that you mean better-suited or more relevant, i.e. y would like or enjoy it more. This would be true if the only weight a gift carries is that of its physical contents. According to studies cited by USAToday, people don't usually give out o selfish, rational, or practical reasons, but either out of strong emotion for the other person or the condition of generosity, which which case giving triggers the release of oxytocin and makes the giver feel good inside [1]. So while x's gift may be practically useless, as in the case presented your original argument statement, x's gift carries emotional significance for both x and y which outweighs, in most cases in which y is not a detached cynic on DDO, the practicality of y's own selfish gift.I have refuted all of your arguments and presented counter-points which surpass them. Due to the scientifically documented emotional significance that personal gifts, regardless of their actual practicality, carry, a seemingly pointless exchange of items is not actually a waste of time, as the time spent is not without beneficial return.
The process of Gift Giving is a waste of time.

The resolution is that Gift Giving is a waste of time, so here we go. For the record, I'll define gift giving as the exchange of items between two or more people. Who knows yourself best? First, Gift giving is a waste of time because if you bought the gift yourself, chances are that you'll get a better gift that you actually want rather than if someone else got it for you. Con may respond with the argUment that gift giving is an exercise to find out how well person x knows person y, but does this make gift giving any better? How well do I know you? Even if Gift Giving is a test of how well one person knows another, it is still a waste of time. You could simply ask someone what they thought you wanted, and then by doing that, not only is it much quicker, but it also saves the risk of them buying something you don't like, which would be a waste of time too because then earning the money used would be wasted, and you'd have to spend time selling X thing you don't want, so you'd be back to square one with a lot of time wasted, all thanks to gift giving. The hassle to get someone a gift. Another hassle in the process of gift giving is finding someone else a gift and wasting all that time trying to think of what they'd like. This whole hassle is removed by simply buying your own things. There, I have presented my arguments which come to the conclusion that gift giving is a waste of time. My main argument being that you could save so much time by simply getting the gift yourself.
The process of Gift Giving is a waste of time.

Thanks for starting this debate. Pro's thesis isn't really clear, but I'll accept the title, "Gift giving is a waste of time" as what I will argue against. Pro doesn't specify under what circumstances he supports his thesis, thus we have to assume that "Gift giving, under all circumstances, in every case, is a waste of time." So upon presentation of only one situation of the giving of a gift NOT being a waste of time, the thesis is disproved. Let's suppose you have a significant other. And one day, on the anniversary of your relationship, your significant other hands you a rose, as a symbol of his/her undying love for you. You take it and slap him/her across the face with it, because, "Gift giving is a waste of time." OK, maybe that is a poor example. The point is that the process of gift giving has a deeper significance than just of actual process of exchanging purchased merchandise. And the expression of those deeper meanings are not wastes of time.
The process of Gift Giving is a waste of time.

The other day, my friend bought me a gift. I opened it and laughed, as the product itself was useless to me. He bought me an electric tooth brush. I don't know what I'll do with that as my teeth do not happen to be electric.So that's what inspired this debate. I now think that Gift giving is a waste of time, really. To Clarify, semantics and trolling will result in a 7-point loss and the burden of proof is shared. I thank you.
Violin is the Hardest Instrument to Play and Learn

I'll admit that I don't have any experience with the violin, but I've found that the Theremin is much harder than either of the other instruments I can play (piano and guitar). For one, the notes are not caused by physically manipulating the sound-producing parts but my moving your hands through the air in relation to two axes. The fact that the musician cannot see the matrix on which the notes are played makes it very hard to get the hang of melodies. Furthermore, the hands are engaged in unrelated activities while playing. One hand plays the notes, which correspond to different distances from the vertical axis, while the other controls the volume, corresponding to distances from the horizontal axis. The hardest part, for me, is coordination. The hands move along different axes, which makes it tricky to move them simultaneously and fluidly. Trickier still is the fact that, unlike other instruments, a rest cannot be "played" on a Theremin by simply not playing the instrument; the way to silence it is to place your hand within a couple inches of the horizontal axis.
Violin is the Hardest Instrument to Play and Learn

Well, first off, the violin is an instrument where you have to find the correct note on the fingerboard, without any frets or indication of where the notes are. You have to get the notes in tune also, and that is not as easy as some other instruments. Most music for the violin is played extremely fast, with many notes being played within one beat. You have to shift your finger positions to play notes in high registers. And that's a whole different story with tuning. The right hand controls the bow, which needs to be played correctly and perpendicular to the length of the violin to make sound. The sound has to be warm, full, and clear, most of the time. There are various types of bow styles, including: legato, stacatto, spicatto, richochet, and many others. There is also vibrato, which is vibrating the notes you play to give them a good sound. I myself took time to get used to it. While you take time perfecting each hand's job, you have to play both simutaneously, and put the correct note down for each bow stroke. Violin players have to have good ears, to have good style and sense of music. A person playing guitar and a person playing violin is whole different story. The guitar is just chords, while violin is melodic notes. As a player who has won many scholarships at competitions, a player of five years, and currently at level 9, I can tell you violin is not an easy task. It requires talent, skill, and effort.
Violin is the Hardest Instrument to Play and Learn

To summarize, I think the theremin is the hardest instrument because it does the least for the musician. With no physical medium to manipulate, it requires a steady, precise hand and a great deal of instinct to hit the right notes, to literally pull them out of thin air. The fact that each note is played simply by holding one's hand at a particular distance from the vertical antenna means that a thereminist without a great deal of finesse will produce very cold-sounding notes. I understand that the violin also requires finesse, but I think it's harder to achieve on the theremin due to the latter's less intuitive playing style. The fact that the theremin is a relatively recent invention also means that there is a lot more that has yet to be developed in terms of style, meaning the there are fewer tried-and-true techniques in the thereminist's repertoire. Despite this, the theremin is capable of producing absolutely gorgeous melodies, provided the thereminist has enough skill. And I believe that this skill is harder to come by on the theremin than on the violin. Thanks, too, to my opponent for proposing this question. I've really enjoyed debating this.