BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gay Marriage

If you take religion out of the question, I don't see how gay marriage is a bad thing? They only want the same rights as everyone else. Although I can point out the differences if you want, you can't argue with Polygamy, Incest, Beastiality and Pedophilia. Those are completely different cases which I would have different arguments for. For instance, it's different from pedophilia because there are no minors involved. That's what makes pedophilia wrong. Gay couples can raise children and they pay their taxes like everyone else. I don't see how their marriages would affect other people. I've never heard anyone complaining that somebody else's marriage was hurting their own. That just doesn't make sense. Looking forward to this debate!
Videos For People is a great Youtube channel

Too many junk and weirdos? Really? I thought that, after a full day of browsing what he has to offer, you'd come up with more than THAT. There is no junk, sir, nor are there any weirdos. The channel is an American masterpiece, a hidden gem, the best comedy of all time. It's scintillating satire, a portfolio of freakish hilarity. It's also highly original. The perspective we see in his videos is unique and fresh, each video has something new to offer. Go ahead, sir. Contradict me.
Videos For People is a great Youtube channel

I accept, and I ask that you put some deep commitment into this. You might not find it too interesting, but I figured we may as well knock it out of the way if we're gonna do 100 debates. Videos for People is a very obscure YouTube channel with very little mention, and it's hard to find with a basic search. I'll provide a link to his channel, which will serve as a reference for the judges to this debate. https://www.youtube.com... It's filled with genius comedy and it has a very unique style to it. It's an absolute hidden gem with no peers. It's weird, but it's normal, too. See what you think, then come back here and we'll get into it.
disbelief is the fall of an angel

belief=be lie, as i dont know is true know=true hell is to much heaven, can be like waking up from a good dream belief is unknown, knowledge is known a potato dosnt know itself and so have no knowledge to paint a picture to believe math is insanity, until i find know the answer disbelief=belief to the contrary, the no position, based on a yes to a different god the redo the equation as i see it. disbelief=belief against presented belief truth or true
disbelief is the fall of an angel

Alrighty, True, angels do fall when they hate the truth, but that would mean they would now have to love a lie. If there is no hell, then there cannot be heaven. If there is only heaven and no hell, then there is no negative consequence for the angels' actions, therefore, the angel cannot fall. So, is it really heaven if there is nothing lesser than its perfection? Belief and knowledge work together. Having no belief would mean that you are only a potato god, because a potato has no belief in itself. To have a belief you would have to have knowledge. If there was no knowledge, then there would not be an existence; and if there is no existence, then there is no Lamborghini that you would get from the result of belief and knowledge. Truth and belief are not opposites of each other. Truth and lies are opposites. You can either believe in Truth or a lie. Belief is what you would do with Truth or lies. It has no polar position against Truth. Disbelief = not belief in presented belief = belief in another Truth (or lie).
disbelief is the fall of an angel

ok my move disbelief is hate, belief is love.. an angels falls when love turns to hate, while believer in unicorn heaven love their gods to and to them there is no story of hell at all belief is the opposite of knowledge, knowledge is truth truth is a lie in a religious world, because i just got a new key to my house belief is the opposite of truth. you can believe that i didnt just get a new key to my house disbelief=belief to the contrary=no position based on a belief, or yes position to another imaginary claim=negative emotional attachment to information spirit=mind+emotion E=energy=positive negative and balance
disbelief is the fall of an angel

Disbelief = Belief in another + hate for the first/original Belief = Love + Faithfulness Truth = The first/the Original Lie = Anything except the first/original (Truth) Pride = Selfishness -Truth x evil = Only me is (self-proclaimed) truth (lie). Fallen = decrease in height or rank Angel = holy + spiritual + creature Simply put, belief is Love for what you perceive as truth; even if it is truth or a lie. Disbelief is the fall of Angels if you are speaking in a certain context. How specific are you with disbelief? Disbelief is what, and what is the substitute for the disbelief? #yourmove
disbelief is the fall of an angel

Pride is the fall of an angel. Pride turns into elevating yourself over the higher authority. Pride = Hate for others + Selfishness. Unicorn heaven or not, disbelief or not, angel or not, Pride is the the ultimate destruction. Proverbs 16:18: "Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall." NIV Question: is there really a goal for this debate? O_o
I have a better singing voice than you.

Pro's second round - Pro will post a video of his singing and no text, other videos or pictures. Con's second round - Con will post one single full stop and nothing else: no other text, no videos or pictures. Rules 1. If either player posts something he or she isn't allowed to post (see the structure), he or she forfeits the entire debate. 2. Links come under the category 'text'.
Aliens Exist (Joke Debate)

Ssshhh, the ilerminaty is reading this debate :P However, there is more proof that aliens exist, such as this picture https://lh6.googleusercontent.com... This video also shows that humans have conversed with aliens and have in fact found their weakness. This video was covered up by the CIA for many years and so was the previous video and images I posted. https://youtu.be... Here is another video of an alien again covered up by the CIA https://youtu.be... Here is a video of an alien getting hit by a train again covered up by the CIA https://youtu.be...
Aliens Exist (Joke Debate)

Wrong, the ilerminaty obviously fabricated that. Why else do you see a triangle 0:21 of the video. My opponent is ilerminaty confirmed Sources: 1.http://www.sjgames.com... 2. https://www.facebook.com... 3.http://www.sjgames.com... 4.https://en.wikipedia.org... 5. dfrgteds 6.https://en.wikipedia.org... 7.https://en.wikipedia.org... 3. http://whatculture.com...
Aliens Exist (Joke Debate)

I will be taking Pro in this debate as I believe it is a fact that aliens exist. As exist is defined as "to have actual being, be" (http://dictionary.reference.com...) and alien is defined as "a create from outer space" (http://dictionary.reference.com...) and fact is defined as "something that actually exists; reality; truth" (http://dictionary.reference.com...) and defined is defined as "to state or set forth the meaning of (word, phrase etc.)" (http://dictionary.reference.com...) and is cat is defined as "a small domesticated carnivore... ... Bred in a number of varieties" (http://dictionary.reference.com...). First round is acceptance then the remaining three are rebuttals. Good luck :D
Aliens Exist (Joke Debate)

Well yes the loominarty does in fact exist and so does the ilerminaty (but don't tell anyone about that, only tell them the loominarty exists :P). Here is a video to reinforce the belief that loominarty exists. This video was made to brainwash American citizens. Watch carefully at 6:43. https://m.youtube.com... Here is a doctor to explain this notion, this doctor is not fictitious at all. https://m.youtube.com... I will also state that I am an alien, hence my profile picture :P Here is another image of an alien: https://lh4.googleusercontent.com... Even aliens have overrun the advertising industry: https://m.youtube.com... https://m.youtube.com... https://m.youtube.com... Especially this one: https://m.youtube.com... Here is another very real picture of an alien which is very famous in television: https://lh3.googleusercontent.com... This guy is definitely an alien: https://lh3.googleusercontent.com... https://lh6.googleusercontent.com... https://lh3.googleusercontent.com... Aliens also like to watch a show called Ancient Humans: https://lh5.googleusercontent.com... Here is a YouTube video again made by the loominarty: https://youtu.be... Here is loominarty confirmed music, except its disguised as "illuminati" that preposterous name is obviously made up by the loominarty to hide their real name. https://youtu.be... This is the ilerminaty: https://lh6.googleusercontent.com... Oh, and the cryptozoological creature named The Flying Russian Spaghetti Monster of Zimbabwe but only ever found in Venezuela does in fact exist, its linked to aliens and was last spotted in France but has never been seen in Venezuela but at the same time it had been seen in Venezuela. An alien also asked this Y/A question: https://answers.yahoo.com... The ilerminaty is a conspiracy theory within a conspiracy theory, the US Government made the conspiracy but realized that they had to go into a second level of conspiracy theory and then a third level but not a forth one because the forth one is limbo. Barack Obama's wife continually annoyed Barack when he was making the conspiracy theory so he had to have a conspiracy theory architect to provide ear plugs for him. - Conspiracy Theory Inception :D
Aliens Exist (Joke Debate)

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!WRONG!!!!! ALL OF THOSE ARE FRAUDS OF THE L00MYNARTY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1231232123245743653457834523 DOESN'T IT SEEM SUSPICIOUS THAT ALL OF THEM ALIENS L00K LIKE HUMANS!!!!!!!!! THAts because THOSE ARENT ALIENS!!! THERE JUST ILLUMINATIES DISGUISED AS ALIENS!!!!!!!!!!!!! sources: 1. Bill Gates 2. I was told dis by members of the l00mynarty.
One cannot be both Jewish and Atheist

Usually I say I'm an Atheist Jew and someone starts kvetching about how that's not possible. I'd like to thank you for waiting to see my side. My argument is as follows: I am Jewish. In the most technical of terms, my mother is Jewish, but I'm also culturally Jewish. I celebrate Passover and Hannukah. I go to services. I kvetch. I personally think you'd have to be meshugeh to think that I'm a goy (and yes, the yiddish was there to make a point). I'm even on a few jewish boards. Yet I am also atheist. I think that the idea of God is ludicrous. I don't pray to god, that's just a waste of breath, I pray to my own self, so maybe I can make myself a better person. But I don't think that the idea of a God is feasible. It just looks to me like wishful thinking. So does that mean that I can't be both? Well, you can decide, but considering the fact that you took the debae, you're probably wrong. Have a nice day!
One cannot be both Jewish and Atheist

I am an Atheist Jew (or perhaps a Jewish Atheist). A few people have understood how that is possible, but the average person will start gritching about how it isn't possible, which is not the case. I always try to explain, and somewhere around one out of every five people I explain it to will get it. I'm curious to see if I can convince any of you, and I am confident that we can make a great debate out of it. I will allow my opponent to begin.
There are significant biological differences between the perceived human races

Ok. I will discuss with you. Your proposition is somewhat ambiguous but nonetheless cannot be regarded as inaccurate. What is a "perceived human race" though and more importantly, Who is doing the perceiving? I think it fair to say that unless you have a clone or identical twin, Then we all have significant biological differences, Irrespective of what you might consider to be a "perceived human race". If you have a sister then you clearly have significant biological differences. If you have a brother, You might have different coloured hair or eyes or be taller or shorter etc. These are all significant biological differences. Biological differences result from a variation in inherited genetic information and not just because you might think that someone looks or sounds different or originates from a different region of the world.
There are significant biological differences between the perceived human races

In this debate we'll be arguing if there are significant and relevant biological differences between perceived human races. My position, Pro, Is that there are and society in general is affected by them, Be it positively, Negatively or neutrally. Con should try and refute my points while trying to make a counter-point, But I'll take the burden of proof. First round is acceptance, Therefore no arguments shall be made there. Disclaimer: I am not arguing we should treat people differently, Or for eugenics, Or anything other than the point described in the topic of the debate. I ask my opponent to not just use ad hominems, Calling me racist, A bigot and the like. I also ask he doesn't resort to playing semantics, And to prevent that I'll try and get some major definitions out of the way. Definitions: race /rās/the fact or condition of belonging to a racial division or group; the qualities or characteristics associated with this. significant /siɡ'nifikənt/sufficiently great or important to be worthy of attention; noteworthy.
Evolution should be taught in all schools, contrary to creation.

I will be arguing the point that evolution and related scientific theories and/or facts (age of the earth and universe for example) should be taught in schools, contrary to creation which should be excluded completely. Round 1 - Rules and acceptance (Do not post an argument in this round) Round 2 - Opening argument Round 3 - Rebuttals / arguments Round 4 - Rebuttals / arguments Round 5 - Conclusion and/or rebuttals.
Evolution should be taught in all schools, contrary to creation.

Quite frankly, I am sick and tired of my opponent just randomly shunning historical facts, so I'll make this short. If you want to see all of the other arguments made in this round, scroll back up. http://christianity.stackexchange.com... I have already given this link talking about independent, often non-christian historians who lived during the time of Christ depicting miracles, or "sorcery" to cite one word used to describe it. Because my opponent CHOOSES to not believe in Christ, he disregards these sources. But again, if we choose not to believe numerous first-hand accounts of events, why believe in anything before the camera was invented? I've provided more first-hand accounts of Christ performing miracles than my opponent has studied of any other event - he just chooses to believe what he accepts is possible without this kind of scrutiny. And this goes right along with my argument that we should not pick and choose what we teach students in schools - if there's historical data, we should teach it. Therefore both evolution and creationism should both be taught, especially because the two ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE, a point which my opponent fails to see For the George Washington argument, you apparently didn't look very hard. http://www.ushistory.org... There, a reputable source which has won numerous awards for providing reliable history. Again, if you want to view more arguments which were either misinterpreted or forgotten, scroll up.
Evolution should be taught in all schools, contrary to creation.

Okay, I'm going to make this short, because my opponent's blatant ignorance is infuriating. As I pointed out, the historian accounts of Christ are sources we use to account for MUCH of history. He's basically saying history textbooks before the invention of the camera have no merit. And here's where he says "those are qualified sources" because he's quite frankly a moron who refused to accept anything his mind refused to comprehend. And he didn't understand the holocaust argument either. A THIRD of adults don't' believe in the holocaust. Therefore, because people believe there is not valid evidence, according to him, we should never learn about it. And this is where he says that because the holocaust has evidence, we should learn about it. What about Washington crossing the Delaware? The sources we have of that also say they saw green men in the forest. So I suppose we should become the history channel and start teaching how Aliens altered the history of earth? My opponent clearly has this idea that he's this deep thinker who sees past all the creationist "ignorance", and yet he refuses to acknowledge legitimate historical sources which also account for other historical events we learn about. Radiometric dating: So I gave not only evidence, but legitimate reason as to why radiometric dating cannot be trusted as accurate. My opponent gave no response to either besides saying that because my sources believe in creationism, they didn't know what they were talking about. Honestly, his inability be rational in this debate is appalling. Aside from all of this, I win this debate because by saying we should not teach Creationism, my opponent is creating an atmosphere of discrimination. I'm not saying that "x religion should be a core class", I'm just saying students should have the opportunity to learn about the religions of the world. Not only does trying to eliminate these from school create discrimination, it creates ignorance. My opponent has demonstrated this by assuming anything associated with Christianity automatically loses its credibility.
Evolution should be taught in all schools, contrary to creation.

My opponent makes several fatal flaws in this debate. Firstly, the pro states that evolution should be taught "contrary" to creationism. A big complaint by atheists about religion is that people try to shove it down other people's throats. Teaching children that there is no God for certain is just intolerant as teaching them that there is a God for certain. The con contends that both should be taught. Secondly, my opponent has this EXTREMELY incorrect view that the only form of creationism is Christianity. This is just totally ignorant. The fact that my opponent doesn't even seem AWARE that other religions exist is evidence that students should be introduced to both evolution and creationism. Ignorance of other cultures is what causes much conflict, just like this debate. Thirdly, my opponent assumes that evolution and creationism are mutually exclusive. This is incorrect as well. True Darwinian evolution does not say that creationism is wrong. Evolution is how creatures evolve over time, not how they began. In fact, the idea of using evolution to explain the origin of life breaks a basic scientific principle: life cannot come from nothing. Of course, my opponent has the highly arrogant view that because he chooses not to believe in any sort of God, then science has no place in scientific explanations. The pro side is so dead-set against religion that they can rationalize anything to denounce it, even science, which is hypothetically the basis for their doubts about religion. My opponent's inability to accept anything he is told he can't understand also leads him to make a plethora of assumptions. Firstly, the bible doesn't state the world is 6,000 years old ANYWHERE. This is a number PEOPLE have ESTIMATED based on the bible, not something it states or even implies. Even if it did, this is a debate about teaching creationism, not shoving Christianity into people's faces. Further more, my opponent just accepting the age of the earth he is told shows this as well. He chooses to believe the Earth is billions of years old despite most forms of geological dating being proven unreliable and/or inaccurate. I think you can now see that my opponent has no real quandary with teaching creationism at all. He is clearly just wary of Christianity being the norm and has chosen to debate that.
Evolution should be taught in all schools, contrary to creation.

I strongly believe that evolution and every scientific fact or theory that has large amounts of evidence backing it up (the age of the earth for example) should be taught worldwide in schools. I also strongly believe that the creation theory should be excluded. Let me start with my "anti-creation" arguments. Creation states a large number of what creationists call "facts", but what I call myths. According to creationists; the earth is 6000 years old, evolution is a lie and God made everything, and various other silly superstitions. The earth is 6000 years old? As Richard Dawkins, a famous "celebrity" atheist said, "The difference between 6,000 years and 4.6 billion years it"s equivalent to believing the distance from New York to San Francisco is 7.8 yards. That"s the scale of the disagreement. ". As you can see, it's completely ridiculous. You only have to look at a tree to find that not only it survived the flood for a year, but apparently was here before God created the earth! And Noah's flood? Kill everything because God was too incompetent to create humans that wouldn't fight each other? 8 unskilled people building the biggest wooden boat of all time that could comfortably accommodate thousands of prey and predators alike? Should we really be teaching these easily de-bunked myths that contradict simple science? . http://en.wikipedia.org... Now for evolution. Evolution is a well established theory with mountains of hard evidence backing it up. DNA being similar, fossils, you can actually see bacteria evolving due to their short life span. Or lizards for example, which scientists have found to evolve in 50 years on an island. As you can see in the link posted below, scientists have stated that our DNA has a 2% difference in chimpanzees. Surely God isn't just placing these evidences for evolution to make it more difficult for creationists to back him up? . http://evolutionarymodel.com... . http://www.nytimes.com... Evolution explains and answers questions rationally about where we came from, and where all animals came from. While creation answers nothing, it is an ignorant shrug of the shoulders that solves nothing and raises greater questions than it tries to answer. It would be silly to feed lies to children about the earth, while there are competent answers to these questions that creationists seem to constantly remain ignorant of.
Certain Federal Offenders Should Receive Alternative Sentencing

It appears my opponent has conceded. As my opponent was unwilling or unable to refute the stat of 25% recidivism for federal inmates, it is evident the status quo works. 25% is better than ANY study Pro stated a change in the system would yield. You must vote Con. The Dallas study that is Pro’s model has success in its initial batch of subjects, but that is irrelevant. Even if we used Pro’s worst statistic of 49% recidivism, if we randomly chose one-third of the inmates at random, the recidivism rate would be expected to be 16.2% (8.3% if Con’s stat is used). If we individually selected them on based on their chance to succeed, it would logically be a better rate. This is what Dallas did. This is evidenced by its expansion of 80 higher risk clients, which had a failure rate of 18.8%, which is worse than a random batch of federal inmates, and even worse when compared to Texas’ statewide recidivism rates. Therefore, the Dallas system is flawed and should not be implemented at the federal level. Even if there are savings to the prisons by implementing this plan, since the recidivism rate would be higher, there will be more risk to the community and higher costs to law enforcement and the judicial system as a result; this is counter-productive to the purpose of the criminal justice system, as stated by Pro. Therefore, the status quo is the best course of action, as it yields the best protection to the community from released prisoners.