BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
(Pro) Atheistic evolution vs Christian creationism (con)

Christopher Hitchens in his debate with Tony Blair said, " I believe in the numinous." I will never doubt the spirituality of Hitchens. He was a unique man. He was obsessed with all the bad stuff in the world. His numinous was pointing out the hypocrisy of religion. His humorous condemnation of religion was\is enlightening to watch. Yes, an atheist can live a spiritual life. Since you HAD faith in God, why not show empathy towards religious folk. I used to be an atheist and have great empathy for atheists. I'm not interested in drawing lines in the sand. I just wish there was more understanding. You said, "God is supposed to be the ultimate moral authority." Love your neighbor as yourself is the ultimate moral authority, Leviticus 19:17,18. "That which is done out of love is beyond good and evil."-------- Friedrich Nietzsche But the consequences of love will always be open to interpretation. I noticed you haven't accepted my friend request. :( Anyways, hopefully I showed you another side of religious folk.
Create a Poem about the Illuminati

I shall number each verse. 1.Naughty rhymes with illuminati 2.Maybe the naughty are in the illuminati. 3.They melt steel beams but not with jet fuel 4.They can't do that, wake up sheeple 5. You never notice them coming. 6. They take all the children. 8. And they just took verse seven. 9. You didn't notice that did you? 10. You look back to see the letter gone, 11. There's no rhyme! Everything descending into chaos. 12. That's exactly what they want, for you to lose rhythm. 13. Obamacare is NWO, Barack is driven. 14. How does that relate to what I just said? 15. It doesn't! Now get the frieak back to bed! `17;`17;`17;`17;`17;`17;`17;/\`17;`17;`17;`17;`17;`04;`16; `17;`17;`17;`17;`17;`17;/ \`17;`17;`17;`04;`08;`08;`04; `17;`17;`17;`17;`17;/ (o) \`17;`17;`17;`17;`17;`00;`08;`04; `17;`17;`17;`17;/ \`17;`17;`17;`17;`17;`17;`00;`08;`04; `17;`17;`17;/__ \ `17;`04;`04;`04;`04;`04;`00;`00; `17;`17;`17;`17;`04;`04;`04;`08;`08;`00;`00;`00;`00; `17;`17;`17;`08;`00;`04;`04;`04;`08;`17;`00;`00; YOU HAVE BEEN SPOOKED BY THE SPOOKINATI `17;`17;`17;`12;`17;`04;`04;`04;`16;`12;`00;`00;`00; `04;`17;`16;`17;`17;`17;`04;`04;`17;`08;`17;`00;`00; SHARE THIS TO 666 PEOPLE TO BE UNSPOOKED `00;`08;`12;`17;`17;`17;`04;`17;`00;`08;`00;`17;`00; `17;`17;`17;`17;`17;`17;`17;`04;`04;`16;`12;`04;`04; `17;`17;`17;`17;`17;`17;`17;`00;`08;`08;`08;`00;`08;`17;`04; `17;`17;`17;`17;`17;`17;`16;`12;`00;`04;`00;`04;`00;`16;`04; `17;`17;`17;`17;`17;`17;`16;`00;`17;`17;`17;`17;`17;`17;`16;`12; `17;`17;`17;`17;`17;`17;`08;`17;`17;`17;`17;`17;`17;`17;`17;`08; `17;`17;`17;`17;`17;`16;`12;`17;`17;`17;`17;`17;`17;`17;`17;`17;`08; `17;`17;`17;`17;`17;`08;`17;`17;`17;`17;`17;`17;`17;`17;`17;`17;`16; PLS DUNT H8, APPPRITI8
Create a Poem about the Illuminati

The only type of poetry I enjoy is humorous poetry, or poetry about the Illuminati. Preferably both. So if you accept this, create a poem about the Illuminati, and voters will vote based on which one they like more. This is purely for fun! Lingering Little Bits I see Little bits Lingering around Under the monuments Mingling with the old ruins Interesting clues and artifacts Noticeable to the keenest observer And spread throughout history, forever Telling tales of a society no one understands Implying a deeper secret that controls all the earth (Note: In the original format this poem is centered, and appears as a triangle, with the first letter of each line bolded)
You Choose the Topic...

Since Pro has forfeited round 2, I will start this debate off. First off a few clarifications. Recent Arizona immigration law: I assume you mean the Arizona bill #1070 Shall: 1.plan to, intend to, or expect to: I shall go later. 2.will have to, is determined to, or definitely will: You shall do it. He shall do it. 3.(in laws, directives, etc.) must; is or are obliged to: The meetings of the council shall be public. 4.(used interrogatively in questions, often in invitations): Shall we go? Do you mean that the government is going to enact a similar bill on the federal level or that it is imperative/urgent that they do so? In this round I will speak on the first part that the government is going to enact a similar law sometime on the federal level in the foreseeable future and if you meant the second one than tell me and I'll discuss it in the third round. Seeing as you are making the claim I would have have liked to hear your argument first. OH Well. The US Federal government would not be able to pass a bill of this nature into law for a plethora of reasons. 1. With a trend of more legal Latino Immigrants entering the country they will become a larger part of the voting block which means they will have a greater influence in later elections and on later government policies. They would oppose a bill such as this federally because it would promote discriminatory behavior and will be perceived as such. 2. Many people who socially lean to the liberal side of the political spectrum who believe this is discriminatory would also not support candidates who would vote for this law which would also reduce the likelihood of having this bill passed. 3. Based on the reaction of some of our trading partners with this new law in Arizona it would be safe to say that the reaction of many countries to this policy would range from boycotts of US products, protests, discontent and warnings about travel to the USA to some States cutting many agreements and placing trade embargoes against the us. This perceived reaction would create another reason for the US not to implement a similar law. 4. This law will not be passed while the Obama administration is still in office because Obama got much of his support from the Latino population and by signing such a bill would alienate them. The congress is in such disarray that there would be no way for them to come to an agreement on any immigration bill, especially not one like Arizona's. 5. It probably won't be happening in the near future because of our distractions of multiple disasters (Oil Spills, Massive Floods) and of other agendas such as clean energy, financial reform, health care and foreign relations. So it seems that unless a large change in opinion occurs, I see little possibility for a law on immigration such as the one in Arizona to happen on the federal level. I look forward to the response. http://www.azleg.gov... http://www.dictionary.reference.com... http://www.llanj.org... http://www.census.gov... (5th comparison Table)
You Choose the Topic...

Hello. I am pro for the below resolves. The Neg in Round 1 will simply CHOOSE the argument and the actual debating will start in ROUND 2. Resolutions: (1) The recent immigration law in Arizona shall be made Federal. (2) US Fed. Gov't should make it illegal for bartenders to serve alcohol to already intoxicated consumers. Note: Any arguments made in round 1 (which there shouldn't be) will be considered null and void.
Bengal tiger vs Asiatic lion

This debate was issued several times on this site, and most of the time the opposing side didn't have any arguments so they let the time expire before any verdict was made, so if you are not willing to answer thoroughly, then do not except the challenge. I stand by what previous others have stated regarding the lion. The lions advantages out weighs the tigers and the lions advantages are: Pro: - Stronger at striking - Has a protective mane - Is more experienced at fighting - Is more skilled, has better stamina and endurance - Stronger bite, bigger skull, - A foot taller, twice bigger in appearance - Is heavier on average - Hunts bigger animals on average an at max - faces more heavier an tougher competition Con: -The tiger is thinner, weaker, more lithe an not as solid an compact -The tigers competition wild dogs, oust an often kills him - Hardly ever fights other the mating rights an small territorial disputes - Does not have a protecting factor like the lion which protects the throat an belly - Has longer fangs that can snap in a fight easier - Has weak paw clouting strikes that is merely superficial - Is killed by bears more often than vice versa
Bengal tiger vs Asiatic lion

So, no matter what, the lions win. You said that i had to do something in the last round, so I will. Tigers are apex predators, which means that they have no natural predators as adults. Apex predators are very important to the habitats in which they live, as they keep prey species from growing into huge populations. Tigers primarily consume large herbivores, such as deer and pigs. When tigers are not around to keep the deer and pig populations in check, the herbivores will reach very high densities. When this happens, many of them starve or turn to human sources of food. Tigers are disappearing in the wild because their habitat is being destroyed at an alarming rate. Tigers require primary forest habitat to survive, but humans have cut down much of their historic habitat to build towns and villages. Additionally, poachers, who seek to sell their parts for folk medicines, kill many tigers. A disadvantage for white tigers are that at night, the white tiger can freeze to death. Tigers help keep ecosystems balanced, which is an advantage; however, they occasionally eat humans or livestock, which is a disadvantage. While these disadvantages are serious, such occurrences are rare. When tigers are provided with enough habitat and natural prey, they do not cause many problems for humans. On the balance, tigers are important and beneficial components of the natural world that deserve the protection they are afforded.
Bengal tiger vs Asiatic lion

Is that why you decided to accept a challenge debate on lions and tigers because you wanted to tell people you have a life, and not post a single shred of anything on the actual debate? Do you even know how a debate works? Okay, good for you. Anyways, the lion wins: http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk... wikipedia, an the new version of the smithsonian has been exposed to be non-factual. The End.
Man of Steel was AWSOME

"Frozen is the 3rd highest grossing movie of 2013, so of course it surpassed man of steel. It's also the 19th highest grossing movie of all time. And those where three of Disney's most successful movies. But, if we are going to be comparing movies due to there grossing, Man of steel is 56th most highest grossing movies of all time in the US. Man of Steel beat the incredibles, Super 8, and the Lego movie, AND the Matrix. " That movie was not worthy of surpassing The Matrix as it did. Just saying. But you do have a point, I suppose. "Man of Steel was supposed to be dramatic and loud. It's not a comedy. " I never said it was supposed to be a comedy. But consider the Avengers. It wasn't a comedy, but it had plenty of funny moments in it. The same cannot be said about Man of Steel. "And again, Krypton's have always looked like Humans. It's been that way since Superman was invented. So I'm just assuming you're now attacking every Superman franchise and not just this movie? " Then I suppose I am; Superman's never been that great anyway. "I wouldn't say the best character was his dad. And he was killed off for a good reason. He was scared for Clark. Again, a touching moment in the movie. " He was the best character in my opinion. The best actor in the movie too, I think. "Good as in I liked it. And you didn't. " I can agree with this statement. "It portrayed a different side of Superman. A side we had yet to see. One that showed that we are ALL human. That life is not perfect. It's not always turn back time and fix things so every body lives happily ever after. Because not every thing has a happy ending. Even the end of the movie didn't end well for the Man of Steel. Clark now has to live with the guilt of killing the last of has own kind! " It's usually a sign of lazy writers if the movie has to get darker to get better.
Man of Steel was AWSOME

Frozen is the 3rd highest grossing movie of 2013, so of course it surpassed man of steel. It's also the 19th highest grossing movie of all time. And those where three of Disney's most successful movies. But, if we are going to be comparing movies due to there grossing, Man of steel is 56th most highest grossing movies of all time in the US. Man of Steel beat the incredibles, Super 8, and the Lego movie, AND the Matrix. Man of Steel was supposed to be dramatic and loud. It's not a comedy. And again, Krypton's have always looked like Humans. It's been that way since Superman was invented. So I'm just assuming you're now attacking every Superman franchise and not just this movie? I wouldn't say the best character was his dad. And he was killed off for a good reason. He was scared for Clark. Again, a touching moment in the movie. Man of steel Was a good movie. Good as in I liked it. And you didn't. It portrayed a different side of Superman. A side we had yet to see. One that showed that we are ALL human. That life is not perfect. It's not always turn back time and fix things so every body lives happily ever after. Because not every thing has a happy ending. Even the end of the movie didn't end well for the Man of Steel. Clark now has to live with the guilt of killing the last of has own kind! In conclusion, Man of Steel is a movie that may not have made it out of the 50's in highest grossing rankings. It may not have gotten the best reviews, but Man of Steel is a movie that will be remembered for generations and generations to come. I feel Man of Steel is a misunderstood movie. if you take time and think about what it means, Man of Steel has so many metaphors and parallels to real life. It shows NOBODY is invincible. Not even Man of Steel. http://www.imdb.com... http://boxofficemojo.com...
Man of Steel was AWSOME

"First if all, what made it unpleasant? I would like for you to elaborate on that." As I stated before, it's too loud, too dramatic, and not funny enough. " I saw it an imax so maybe this will be biased a bit. But I still loved it." Also as stated before, awesome is a relative term. You think the movie's good, but I don't. "Third of all, about the whole aliens looking like humans thing... A.) how do you know aliens don't look like humans? And B.) that's just part of the superman franchise. That has been around since superman was invented." It's extremely unlikely that aliens would look like us. Not if evolution's a blind process, anyway (assuming that macroevolution exists, that is). "Fourth of all, Zack Snyder was re-inventing super man. He wanted to show a side of superman we haven't seen before. A more human side of him. There some really metaphorical and touching moments in that movie." The best character in the movie (Superman's human dad) was killed off midshow. "And fifth of all... To loud? C'mon man you got two friggin super humans fighting to the the death... you got to expect some noise." I've seen the Dark Knight Rises, Batman Begins, both new Spiderman movies as well as all three older Spiderman films, the Avengers, both Thor movies, both Captain America movies, the first two Iron Man films, one or two of the older X-Men, the newer Wolverine movie, the older Hulk movie, and the 2005 Superman movie. I had no problem with the loudness of these movies, and all these were action-packed superhero movies. Conclusion: the movie was too loud. Also, you didn't answer what I said about Man of Steel being surpassed in sales by Finding Nemo, Toy Story 3, and Frozen.
Man of Steel was AWSOME

First if all, what made it unpleasant? I would like for you to elaborate on that. Second of all, I saw it in theatres as well. I saw it an imax so maybe this will be biased a bit. But I still loved it. Third of all, about the whole aliens looking like humans thing... A.) how do you know aliens don't look like humans? And B.) that's just part of the superman franchise. That has been around since superman was invented. Fourth of all, Zack Snyder was re-inventing super man. He wanted to show a side of superman we haven't seen before. A more human side of him. There some really metaphorical and touching moments in that movie. And fifth of all... To loud? C'mon man you got two friggin super humans fighting to the the death... you got to expect some noise. You're turn.
Man of Steel was AWSOME

Contention 1: "Awesome" is a relative term. What you think is awesome I might not. Then again, if you think it's awesome, then you're right, and if I think it's not awesome, then I'm right...so how could either of us win? Anyhow... Contention 2. The movie made less than a billion dollars. The same cannot be said about truly awesome movies, such as: 1. The Dark Knight Rises 2. Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides 3. Marvel's "The Avengers" 4. Avatar (though I haven't seen this one yet) 5. Jurassic Park 6. Star Wars Episode 1: The Phantom Menace Heck, Finding Nemo made more money than that movie did. In fact, in regards to the top grossing films, it didn't even make the top 50! Have I made my point yet? Contention 3. Man of Steel was an unpleasant movie to watch. Believe me; I saw it in theaters. First of all, it is improbable that aliens would look EXACTLY like humans. Second, the movie was too loud. Third, it's another lame reboot of a series that's already had enough movies, like the Spiderman Trilogy of the 2000s decade. Granted, they spent a lot of money on the movie, but that didn't make the movie great. Fourth, the movie was too dramatic, and it had little humor. I await hearing what Pro has to say. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org...
standardized testing

I believe that standardized testing should be taken out of schools. Some kids have a hard time with testing and I think this is unfair because they try hard to study but they just cant get it and everything. They could be really good with in class work and homework and stuff but have a hard time testing on it. The tests that are timed have a a lot of pressure on someone who is bad at testing they feel pressured to going fast and rushing which may cause them to lose some points on there test. If they were gonna keep the testing in the schools let kids if they qualify for it to have more time on these tests and make sure that they do better. To qualify for extra time you gotta prove that you have a problem with the testing like that and need more time. Also I think that the reason they keep the standardized testing around is to get moneys for the schools. I know to that they can use them to decide what classes you can take or what schools you can get into. There are other ways that you would be able to decide that. That's why I think they should take it out of the schools.
If a creator and an anti-creator do exist then we should not follow the teachings of the bible.

Hehehe, this will be exciting to say the least. Sorry I have taken so long to reply, but other debates are getting in the way. Let us begin with separate observations. 1. God decides what is good, god decides what is bad. My opponent has stated that Satan can do no good, this is fine. 2. Satan has created many religions of bad, this as evidenced by the fact that so many of them exist. 3. If it is presumed as Satan's goal to lead as many people away from god as he can (as he is the anti-creator) the best way to do this would be to create a religion that was liked by the greatest number of people. 4. Thus Satan creates a book called the old testament with what would seem like morally acceptable ideals. He says that the book is from god, and through the book preaches the idea of absolute good and evil. He through the book dictates all that is good, little do the people know that everything they are learning to do is actually evil. 5. Years later Satan sends himself to earth as a man named Jesus who claims to be the son of god. He performs what look like miracles to the people (in the true god's eyes these would probably be considered to be abominations) in order to convince the people of his divinity. This simply furthers his goal in leading more people away from whichever religion happens to be the true religion. 6. Shortly after this time period Satan sends inspiration to a multitude of men that we now know as the apostles, through them he compiles the new testament avoiding flaws which he noticed in the old testament. After all, Satan is not perfect, as my opponent so aptly pointed out. =) And a second logical progression. 1. My opponent agrees with the premise that an anti-creator would hold all of the religions excluding the creator's religion. 2. Therefor it is obvious that the anti-creator controls many more religions than the creator controls. 3. Religions have many texts however most of them preach about messiahs or divine representations of their deities walking on earth. Thus it is apparent that the anti-creator sends himself to earth more often than the creator has. 4. Therefor if one is to choose a religion it has a greater chance of being from the anti-creator than being from the creator. Enjoy your next round. =)
Time is a non-existent concept

Well this changes the scales drastically. I honestly cannot grasp what you might mean when you say that people treat time like an object of the universe. I don't think I've ever seen an example of that. You are in fact correct in that time is merely an idea and it is in fact created by Man. To address the globalization of time, the concept of time is itself based upon many factors, one of which is the position of the Sun, which is a variable completely dependent upon your location on the Earth. In order to present any sort of logical opposition to your argument, one would have to address this through mass perspective. I simply mean that time is as concrete or non-existent as a person perceives it to be, this is also the case with any other concept. One could argue indefinitely on the realism of time, instead I would argue that time is the globally accepted measurement of length starting with the rising and ending with the setting of the Sun. All other increments of time are based on this concept, from weeks, moths, years, decades...ect..ect. I concede to my opponent, his point of time not being a tangible object is simply a fact and cannot be opposed. The only argument that could be posed against this would be done using the theory of relativity which in fact is only a theory. I wouldn't have made opposition in this case had I known what was meant as opposed to what was said in the creation of this debate. Thanks for the debate.
Time is a non-existent concept

Thank you for the opportunity to debate this subject. I love ideology and the application of challenge when it comes to ideas that are generally accepted by society. First I would like to agree with you that time is in fact an idea made by man. Your point is solid however, the fact that time is an idea and intangible doesn't exclude it from meeting the criteria to be considered an existent concept. con"cept noun \G2;k"n-G6;sept\ : an idea of what something is or how it works http://www.merriam-webster.com... Having defined "Concept", it is established the it is in fact an idea, and therefore intangible by definition, meaning that the "Concept of Time" cannot be interacted with by definition. So to say that time is a non-existent concept because you cannot interact with it, would be incorrect. The concept (Idea) of time is very real in that it is not only accepted and used as solid ideology by every culture and society in the World today, but time is also an established principle used in conjunction with other concepts to define and explain our physical law, ...which is also a concept and intangible. http://en.wikipedia.org... "Many fundamental physical laws are mathematical consequences of various symmetries of space, "Time", or other aspects of nature". In summary I'd like to make it clear that my argument is void of my opinion and contains only facts supported by either evidence or logical deduction. I appreciate my opponents argument and look forward to a rebuttal.