BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Montreal Canadians are the best hockey team in NHL History

Most shutouts in a season: 22, by the 1928–29 Montreal Canadiens (all shutouts won by George Hainsworth) Most Stanley Cups: 23, by the Montreal Canadiens (the Canadiens have won the Stanley Cup 24 times, but their first win came in 1916, before the NHL existed) Most consecutive Stanley Cup wins: 5, by the Montreal Canadiens (1956–1960) Most consecutive Stanley Cup Finals appearances: 10, by the Montreal Canadiens (1951–1960) Most points in a season: 132, by 1976–77 Montreal Canadiens Fewest losses in a season: 8, by 1976–77 Montreal Canadiens 3135 wins out of 6120 games since the NHL was formed. In comparison, the other Original Six teams (the only ones who have played enough games to even come close) haven't broken 3000. There are stats to prove that the Habs are the best team in NHL history. Now would you care to make a legitimate rebuttal?
The Montreal Canadians are the best hockey team in NHL History

The statistics speak for themself. Les Habitants have won the most Stanley Cups of any team with 24 including a record 5-year run in the 1950s. Since it's inception in 1945, 61 Canadiens have been inducted into the Hockey Hall of fame, at an average of just under one every year. While they may not have made the playoffs this year, they do more often than not. While I concede that it is possible to argue with current statistics, the resolution was about NHL history, not one specific season. With a litany of incredible and iconic players, including a number of players who have innovated the game to what it is now (eg. Jacques Plante's mask). This, coupled with their outstanding history, makes the Montreal Canadiens the best hockey team in NHL history.
The usual arguments #1: Evolution has not been proven

You underestimate the extreme complexity of the structure of a protein and the needed structure of the proteins in order to create something that can be considered alive. And the need for it to happen by chance is axiomatic- in order for something to be not random, there must be some sort of intelligence behind it. Yes, evolution consists of mutations, but the mutations come by chance, and the selection is the chance that one mutation better fits the environment than the other random mutation. So the species that prevails, prevails by chance- no, it's not selected, there was a random mutation and that just so happened to give it an edge. That is what we call "chance". "Once you have proteins, you have life" No you don't. Your virus argument again doesn't work. No scientist says that viruses are alive, if they were alive, then you can talk about their evolution, but right now, they aren't. When you apply your evolution to these, you are creating a logical fallacy. No I didn't misunderstand the experiment, it's perfectly clear that when they put the flies in a different climate, it sterilized some of the flies, rendering them incapable of reproducing- NOT making them a different species. If you stuck me in 125 degree weather, you would likely have the same results (my inability to reproduce), but I am still a human being. The flies became sterile due to their change in climate, it means they are fragile and need specific heat, not that they are now different flies. My beetle argument still stands. I am not deciding the pattern in which the beetle was created, because it doesn't matter. You can twist it and rearrange it however you can, but there will be no way in which the beetle will survive until he has all those incredible mutations happen at one time. Again, you are calling God's design poor without knowing the purpose for which it was designed. If you live in the water and all of a sudden see a monkey, of course you'll think, "Wow, who would have created that? It can't swim well, it needs to go to the surface every minute or two, and is not hydrodynamic at all. Bad design. But once you poke your head out of the water and see how well the monkeys swing from the trees, how useful their long arms are to stretch and grab and manipulate are, then you see that the design is perfect, and what you thought was made quite poor was in fact a specialized creation. Conclusion: Life has never been seen to come from non-life (even with our INTELLIGENCE trying to create it). Micro evolution proves changes occur, but has a chasm the size of the Grand Canyon that it can't cross to explain for the other species. Neither the fly experiments or the HIV mutations support your argument. Thank you Dwint for creating the debate, I think we had a fun time, and I'd love to do this again with you. And to the voters, please read our arguments, you're who we're after and who we rely on for accurate analysis of the debate. If you're too lazy to read, please don't vote.
The usual arguments #1: Evolution has not been proven

1) Micro evolution proves macro evolution Micro evolution is proven and the proof can't be denied. The best example is the flu virus[1] Macro evolution is nothing more than micro evolution on a larger scale. Micro evolution proves change does occur and organism change over time. Macro evolution is fundamentally the same as micro evolution. The only difference is macro evolution takes more time to occur and results in bigger changes. One aspect people usually leave out when debating evolution is natural selection. Macro evolution could never occur without natural selection. So, in order to prove macro evolution, you have to prove 2 concepts: micro evolution and natural selection Since both micro evolution and natural selection are proven, macro evolution can be proven. Micro evolution needs natural selection to exist, so proof of micro evolution also proves natural selection. Here are a few examples that prove micro evolution as well as natural selection : the peppered moth, house sparrows and the italian wall lizard[2, 3, 4] So, we know as a fact change occurs and we know changes that allow organism to live longer and reproduce more will pass their genes to the next generation and in time totally change the characteristics of a species. 2) The time scale The most important aspect of macro evolution is the time it takes for it to happen. While micro evolution can change a virus in less than a year, macro evolution needs a lot of time to occur. Basically, if you have micro evolution, natural selection, genetic drift and thousands of years, you will get new species. Micro evolution is a lot faster than macro evolution, so in order for macro evolution to happen (a new species to appear) micro evolution also has to happen (characteristic of the first species change). Macro evolution is nothing more than micro evolution that needs more time to happen and has a more impressive result. 3) Examples Micro evolution occurs in viruses as well as humans. Macro evolution is the same. A new virus, evolved from another one but different from it, appeared through macro evolution. The HIV virus mutated from the SIV virus, that couldn't infect humans, just other primates. These viruses are related, so we are talking about evolution and they are also different "kinds" of viruses, so we are talking about macro evolution. [5, 6] [1]http://www.livescience.com... [2]http://www.mothscount.org... [3]http://evolution.berkeley.edu... [4]http://news.nationalgeographic.com... [5]http://en.wikipedia.org... [6]http://en.wikipedia.org...
The usual arguments #1: Evolution has not been proven

Hello! This is the first debate is a series called "The usual arguments" where I take the most common arguments against atheism and try to debunk them. In this debate, I will chose a common theist argument and show why it's wrong. I would like a serious debate with an opponent that believes evolution has not been proven. If you would like to accept, leave a comment. evolution - A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form.[1] proof - The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true;[2] We should debate macro-evolution, since that is commonly rejected by Christians. Structure: Round 1: acceptance Round 2: arguments Round 3: rebuttals Round 4: conclusion [1]http://www.thefreedictionary.com... [2]http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Legalize Gay Marriage Federally

I will be arguing that legalizing Gay Marriage federally is not beneficial to the United States of America. (Federally - by legislative action that applies to all states.) My opponent will be arguing that the federal legalization of Gay Marriage is beneficial to our nation. (Beneficial - anything that causes our nation to be improved morally, economically, fundamentally, and/or ethically. Beneficial is also anything that positively affects the United States of America). The first round will be for acceptance. I ask that my opponent forego all personally bias. This is a debate on the effects of the legalization of Gay Marriage on the State (of America), and not on the ethics of the matter itself.
You will not break the rules

I would also like to just state that in my opponents arguments he says I broke the rules but the only rules I have broken is his statement of rules that do not apply because they are contradicted by earlier rules. I would also like to call him out on his rudeness and saying Happy Hanukkah and not Merry Christmas which I take to be very sarcastic and offensive. Beside this I would once again like to state that Con broke ever rule. Rules Broken: Extend the broken rules I stated in R3, and add rules 17-19 and 26-28.
You will not break the rules

Happy early Hanukkah.I don't know if you got my memo, Pro, but the reason I broke so many rules in my previous round is because you've already lost, so it hardly matters what I do. I don't need to post three new rules, don't need to write any palindromes. I just need to wait until everyone votes for me. I only regret this debate is five long rounds.It's difficult for me to respond to your most recent statements, mainly because I can't figure out what the hell you're talking about. For example, "I would like to just state the for 1 Rules #1-16 were broking seeing you did put up 3 rules." I once did commission work online editing the grammar of foreign company's websites, but I cannot figure out what you are trying to tell me in this statement. I tried, I really did, so apologies for not responding to some of the stuff you said.One thing I can tell you said is that rule 7 doesn't mean what I think it means. You claim "may not" doesn't necessarily apply to all scenarios. However, if this was truly the case, then it isn't a rule at all, but a mere statement of fact. It's like me making a rule, "Pro might win this debate, but he might not." That's not a rule.Therefore, your "loophole" is obviously nothing but a desperate ploy to get out of a losing situation using semantics where it's impossible to do so. When used as a legal term (like in rules stating what is permitted and what is prohibited), the term "may not" means "must not in any situation (unless an exception is stated)". It does not mean "might not" because such a term is useless in law. (Can you imagine the Ten Commandments stating "Thou might not kill"?)Light couldn't get away with fake rules. What made you think you could? Vote Con. For reasons why (most of which weren't even addressed by my opponent), backtrack to round 2.
You will not break the rules

Once again you broke many rules seeing that nonetheless is not in my rules I see that you are wrong in this aspect as well... I would like to just state the for 1 Rules #1-16 were broking seeing you did put up 3 rules. I beside this I would also like to say that Con did indeed state that rule 14 was contradicted by rule 7 but did rule 7 did state may. This word may does indeed mean that you may have to but not all the time in some instances adherer to the rule. For example earlier in this rule he shows that Each player should have an opportunity to not break each rule, and an opportunity to discuss rule-breakage. Rules may not require players to do anything within specific time periods, nor may they require players to do anything outside of this debate. This means that there are in this rule loopholes and this loophole was found by Pro. Once again I would also like to state the biggest mistake created by pro was he not only didn't post any rules which disagrees with every rule there is (excluding rules 26, 27, 28 which can not count seeing they are not valid rules) beside this he also broke specifically rule #6 stating 6. Each player must produce 3 rules per round or they forfeit. Because of this rule he must forfeit and I win. Beside this just because I want to make specific a couple more of the broken rules and seeing he broke every single one I will elaborate on his lack adhering to rule #12. CON must include one palindrome, one simile and one pun in each round. This rule was completely blown off and this is just one of the many rules Con broke. Vote Pro for the win... Further Rules: 17) CON must respond in R3 (round 3). 18) CON must greet PRO an advanced Merry Christmas. 19) CON must apologize to PRO and the readers for his forfeit.
You will not break the rules

PRO broke pretty much all of my rules (and one of his own), so this debate is over.Violation of Rule 27: Each new rule PRO posts must be in the form of a written poem using the style and language of Emily Dickenson and be no less than fifteen verses!None of his rules are in the form of a fifteen-verse poem in the style or language of Emily Dickenson, as they must be as stated in rule 27. He makes the absurd claim that I broke rule 13 because the name "Emily Dickenson" isn't in the Merriam-Webster dictionary. If he really must resort to technicalities such as his to win, then fine. He, too, used a word not in the Merriam-Webster dictionary (beore I did nontheless): "http://www.merriam-webster.com...;. http://www.merriam-webster.com... is not a word as found in http://www.merriam-webster.com....Violation of Rule 26: PRO must not post any new rules requiring (or restricting) specific actions of either of us!All of his new rules require specific actions of me when I clearly stated in rule 26 that he wasn't allowed to do that. Rule 26 is in no way a violation of rule 2. My opponent is free to post new rules, just none that require (or limit) specific actions of us. Rules 1, 8, and 9 are all examples of some such rules.Violation of Rule 7: Rules cannot result in an auto-win. Breaking a rule cannot result in the victory of the rule-breaker. Each player should have an opportunity to not break each rule, and an opportunity to discuss rule-breakage. Rules may not require players to do anything within specific time periods, nor may they require players to do anything outside of this debate.Rule 14 is in violation of rule 7: "Rules may not require players to do anything within specific time periods, nor may they require players to do anything outside of this debate." Finding a youtube video would require me to do something outside of this debate.And since I'm on the subject of rule 7 (my favorite rule), rule 13 also violated this rule, in that we must look up words we use to make sure Merriem Webster has them accounted for. "Racecar" for example is a widely recognized palindrome and is found in many beloved dictionaries, including dictionary.com. But in order for me to be sure it was okay for me to post it, I would have needed to access the Merriem Webster online database. By forcing me to do this, my opponent has violated rule 7.Seeing as how my opponent is guilty of violating multiple rules in this debate, I urge the audience to vote CON. And don't forget to give me all seven points as stated in rule 8!
You will not break the rules

Rule #1 was broken when Con stated 26. PRO must not post any new rules requiring (or restricting) specific actions of either of us! This is a contradiction of rule #2 which states 2. Both players should still have the ability to post rules in their turn. In turn this rule can not be valid Rule #13 was broken in both rules #27 and #28 when he had spelling errors. If you click link http://www.merriam-webster.com... you will find that in rule #27 the word Emily and the word Dickenson are not in there. in rule #28 the word racecar is not in there so therefore he did not include both a palindrome and he also henceforth destroyed his validity on spelling These two rules must not apply if he further continued to break the rules. Further Rules: 14) CON must post a video of a funny cat per round. 15) CON must mention any of the US presidents who were present when the Philippines was under US jurisdiction per round. 16) CON must refer to PRO as Mr. Mister.
You will not break the rules

26. PRO must not post any new rules requiring (or restricting) specific actions of either of us!27. Each new rule PRO posts must be in the form of a written poem using the style and language of Emily Dickenson and be no less than fifteen verses!28. PRO must also include one palindrome (such as "racecar"), one simile (such as "this debate is like a cat playing a mouse"), and one pun (such as the Cyanide and Happiness cartoon below, though he can make up his own pun and just write it out) in each round!
You will not break the rules

I thank the person wanting to except my debate... 0. By accepting this debate, my opponent agrees to all the rules already posted. 1. Rules created hold power over all rules posted later, and no later rule can contradict an earlier rule. 2. Both players should still have the ability to post rules in their turn. 3. A violation of a rule that is not null and void will result in the rule-breaker losing this debate. If both players break a rule, the player that breaks a rule first loses. 4. With the exception of the Instigator's first round, a player may only do something besides make rules to discuss whether one has broken a rule, or whether a rule is null, unless a future rule requires otherwise. 5. Not counting these foundation rules, each player can only create 3 rules per turn. 6. Each player must produce 3 rules per round or they forfeit. 7. Rules cannot result in an auto-win. Breaking a rule cannot result in the victory of the rule-breaker. Each player should have an opportunity to not break each rule, and an opportunity to discuss rule-breakage. Rules may not require players to do anything within specific time periods, nor may they require players to do anything outside of this debate. 8. A voter must default all categories to the victor of the debate. 9. All rules are assumed to only apply to future actions and rules. 10. Each player must document his or her rules using the numbers 11-25 for PRO and 26-40 for CON. -------------------------- 11. CON must use an exclamation point instead of a period at the end of every sentence. 12. CON must include one palindrome, one simile and one pun in each round. 13. Both debaters must not use any words not in the dictionary, according to this website: http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Your are a pigment of my imagination

First of all, thank you for accepting the challenge. I see most of your argument revolves around "pigment". I thougth you would understand what I meant by "pigment".Maybe I should rephrase to" Prove to me that you are NOT a part of my mind. From a Solipsistic point of view, solipsism defined as "theory holding that the self can know nothing but its own modifications and that the self is the only existent thing"[1] I deny all materialistic existence therefore you cannot exist.You are just a part of my creative prosess. Proof: 1. My most certain knowledge is the content of my own mind and nothing other than my mind exists. 2. Anything outside my own specific mind is unjustified. 3. The external universe and other minds cannot be known and might not exist. The Greek presocratic sophist, Gorgias (c. 483–375 BC) quoted by the Roman skeptic Sextus Empiricus said 1.Nothing exists; 2.Even if something exists, nothing can be known about it; and 3.Even if something could be known about it, knowledge about it can't be communicated to others. This means that you must be a pigment of my imgaination, you are an unstable and complex part of my consciousness. [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Your are a pigment of my imagination

First let me start by saying that the burden of proof is on you. You are the one claiming that I am a "pigment" of your imagination thus you must prove it. If I were Pro and you were Con for this same debate the BOP would be flipped. But putting that aside I will first say that pigment is defined as " a substance that imparts black or white or a color to other materials"[1] meaning that it is a physical thing since a substance cannot be a thought. If we follow this line of reasoning, even if I were a pigment, I would not be in your imagination seeing as imagination is "the action or process of forming such images or concepts"[2] and that is not a physical thing. Also, we can prove I am not a pigment by saying that I cannot impart colors onto other materials (without the aid of outside help). Therefore we can see I am neither a pigment nor am I in your imagination. QED. [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] http://dictionary.reference.com...
God broke his promise to Abraham and the Bible admits it

As a Bible skeptic, I love debating Bible issues to show fallacies in the Bible so I would love to get into a debate about the reliability of of the Biblical God's promises. After all, if He cannot be relied on for one promise, how can he be trusted on any promise? This is for Bible believers only. First round is for acceptance and I will go ahead and put a little info out there. God promised this to Abraham: The LORD said to Abram after Lot had parted from him, "Lift up your eyes from where you are and look north and south, east and west. All the land that you see I will give to you and your offspring forever. I will make your offspring like the dust of the earth, so that if anyone could count the dust, then your offspring could be counted. Go, walk through the length and breadth of the land, for I am giving it to you" (Genesis 13:14-17). This promise was not unfulfilled yet. It was broken and the Bible admits it. Anyone?
God broke his promise to Abraham and the Bible admits it

“Today, Christianity and Judaism teach that the promise was not fulfilled "yet." They look at it as some kind of futuristic fulfillment that will happen someday.”Pro fails to provided a source for this. Undoubtedly there may be those who believe it to be true, but that does not make it the only/correct view. “The problem with this is that as mentioned, the Bible writers in Acts and Hebrews disagree. They flat out stated that the promise did not come to pass. There is no indication that God's promise to Abraham would not happen immediately, and even the writers of Acts and Hebrews failed to mention what Christianity teaches now - not "yet." If the OT were true, God broke his promise to Abram. He said "I am giving it you," not "Someday thousands of years from now, your descendants will get this land."[emphasis mine]This is unacceptably wrong.The problem with pro’s “argument” is that he unabashedly flat out lies, perverts, fabricates and misquotes the bible. The bible never indicates that God said “I am” as pro wrote in quotes, but rather I will, in the future tense. This is made even clearer in the 2007 edition of the new living translation, which states “...that eventually the ...”I will wait to see if Pro can produce a coherent argument based on what the verses actually say, as opposed what he falsely decides to claim they are saying. If he can do so, I'll gladly respond to that. Until then, no coherent argument has been made, and thus the resolution is negated.