BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Kalam Cosmological Argument Is Sound

Firstly, I would like to make note of the fact that it is unjust you feel the need to have the final round of the argument essentially to counter all my points and allow the potential reader to sway in your favor, nevertheless I will proceed to explain. The necessity for something to begin to exist is paramount for its own existence otherwise you assume it has been present for an infinite amount of time which would not agree with scientific principle, which is clearly shown from the big bang theory. Non the less the proof of the universe spontaneously existing has actually been proven by the plethora of helium in the universe (from fusion) and other reasons. Now to convince you the Universe has a cause, you can logically infer this point from proving the universe exists otherwise logic itself would collapse and the whole need to structure anything in some sort of coherent manner would be pointless. An entity (no matter what form) had to have initiated or created the universe otherwise the universe was created out of nothing, although the universe itself does not conform to the laws of physics and mathematics, we do thus meaning a creator who potentially programmed us with these set of laws like a computer, spending endless hours defining parameters and as he gains more experience the universe expands until eventually the amount of power required is so vast everything comes collapsing on itself. Furthermore the ability for us to be able to produce computers and robotics also suggests the possibility of a creator and possibly of higher intellect since this entity has designed us to learn develop emotions and think for ourselves which is the ultimate obstacle for us to creating synthetic humans.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument Is Sound

For those of you who know me, this debate will not be a surprise. This is, hands down, my favorite argument to debate. My opponent must show that this argument is sound: P1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause P2: The universe began to exist C: Therefore, the universe has a cause *If the universe has a cause, that cause is God. Not only must my opponent show that the universe had a cause, but that the cause is God. My job is simply to undermine the Kalam Cosmological Argument, and show it doesn't succeed. The first round will be for my opponent's first argument. To ensure we get the same amount of debating rounds however (because I just wasted this round), my opponent, in my last round, must simply put: "No argument will be posted here as agreed" Failure to abide by the rules will result in an automatic 7 point forfeit.
Frank Gore will be more productive in the upcoming season than last year

If O'Sullivan has productive numbers because of Martz, that will open up the field for Gore to run against less defenders because they will have to protect against the past. Because the 49ers hired Martz, that doesn't mean they are desperate. They had a terrible offensive coordinator last year in Jim Hostler. Martz can only help the 49ers by improving their passing game and forcing the defense to respect that and that will allow Gore to run for more yards. Gore will have a better year. It has been a pleasure debating you. Good luck in the voting.
Frank Gore will be more productive in the upcoming season than last year

First off your rookie Morgan was playing in the preseason, that is different than regular season, everyone knows that, furthermore, Mike Martz is feeding spin, becausehe told the Lions he would run more, but when Martz gets scared, and they are down on offensive, he will throw the ball. Martz can't help him self he will throw and throw, O'Sullivan will have solid numbers because of that, however, Gore will suffer, and Gore doesn't have the tools to be as an effective scat-back where he can catch the ball from the backfied as well. Gore is a bruiser and downhill runner. Martz likes finesse style running backs. Look just by hiring Martz showed how desperate the 49ers are, look at it this way Gore has got a bad situation both ways, either MArtz throws the ball all the time, keeping the ball out of his hands, or they run Gore all the time, and he will face 8 men fronts the whole season. I predict he will miss at least two games this season due to been banged up. Gore won't be better.
Frank Gore will be more productive in the upcoming season than last year

They lost Larry Allen who may have been their best lineman 2 years ago, but last year was completely ineffective. They now have Joe Staley who is much younger and showed signs of a good lineman last year. Josh Morgan also may be untested, but his preseason has been FANTASTIC and he has shown the ability to stretch the field which will allow Gore to run against less defenders in the box. And O'Sullivan may be a journeyman, but he is the only QB that knows Martz's offense completely. He stand the best chance to win games for the 49ers this year. He has also shown the ability to be a decent QB this year. Therefore, Gore will have a better year.
Frank Gore will be more productive in the upcoming season than last year

Ok so I am bored and will debate this due to the fact I am bored! Frank Gore is a "good running back," however, the 49ers have problems with their starting Quarterback, they now are handing the reins over to O'Sullivan and taking them away from Smith, that shows just how bad their passing game really is, furthermore, they lost Larry Allen their best offensive linemen, on a already weak line. In addition, the 49ers have veteran Isaac Bruce who is now slow, and rookie Josh Morgan is untested, with a journeyman quarterback in O'Sullivan. This all combines for Gore not doing all that better than last year, because now he will be facing eight man boxes almost every down. The wear and tear of having to shoulder the offense and not getting anything from it will cause injuries and missed games for Gore, therefore, Gore will not have a better year.
Frank Gore will be more productive in the upcoming season than last year

I feel Frank Gore will have a much more productive season compared to last year. Frank Gore had somewhat of a down year last year, but even after he lost his mother in week 2, and was bothered by an ankle injury all of last year, he still managed over 1,100 yards rushing. Needless to say, his line was not that spectacular. This year Frank is completely healthy. He has looked good in practices during training camp, and Mike Martz the newly acquired offensive coordinator has said Frank will be the center of the offense. Keep in mind, Martz has always been known for his passing game. According to statistics, Gore is a reliable pass catching back. *Last year Gore compiled 436 yards receiving. The previous year he was able to get 485 yards. In total for his 3 years he has a total of 1,052 receiving yards.* If you look at last year, the 49ers had 3 different quarterbacks play. He never really had time to develop great chemistry with any of them. *http://www.pro-football-reference.com... In closing, i restate my original opinion. With the new offense and new coordinator, i think Gore's numbers will improve both rushing and receiving wise. i would like to see what my opponent has to say. Good luck to whoever that is
The word "genius" is so overused

Hey, Hey I love you and all, but you cant say 'I automatically win'. Last time I checked, people vote on who wins, unless you have rigged that. I addressed your point number 2 in round number 3 and point 3 in some other round. There is no theory behind this kind of genius. Its like a slang word for unthought of and unique. Its not official as it is societies interpretation. and as we both said, genius is a 'creative exceptional power' and that is the definition. Therefore it can be used for anything creative, like that Daffy duck play. How many Daffy duck plays do you just randomly see? Not many. Its creative, innovative and unique.
The word "genius" is so overused

"I would have said more, but you put a really horrible character limit on this." I limited the character count because less is more. I was tempted to go with 500... "I was going to analyse what you said in a lot more detail." I'm feeling generous today, so here's your chance. You get a whole round to address my three previous points. If you don't, I automatically win. 1. "The problem is that if a daffy duck play idea is "genius," what's the theory of relativity? Geniuser? The word loses all meaning, since its applicable to anything." 2. "A lot of times it's a " 'genius idea' to that person" because it's their idea." 3. "And just so we're clear, if their ideas are truly genius, I can't think of many ideas that aren't." As always, thanks for your time. You got a little fight in you. I like that. ;)
The word "genius" is so overused

I would have said more, but you put a really horrible character limit on this. I was going to analyse what you said in a lot more detail. And no. You just said it yourself. 'Genius is defined as exceptional creative power'. That Daffy duck play is creative. Who would think to make something as stupid as that. Its creative, though it is not very smart, geniuses do not need to be smart to be a genius. They just have to be creative. Proper geniuses like; Einstein, Newton, Curie etc have sort of set a standard of genius. This does not mean every other creative idea gets ruled off. They just set a standard.
The word "genius" is so overused

your first line pretty much calls out no one. I and those who take a vote on this debate probably have not seen many people calling out there own ideas as genius. Personally, I have not, and I really do not think anyone has. Maybe one or two people I or anyone else has seen have done that but it happens so little that I cannot even remember. Maybe I am wrong, but even if I am wrong, your second line says pretty much every idea is genius if the word 'genius' is used so much truly. you would not call a piece of cheesecake genius. A plain piece of cheesecake. Now obviously no one would be stupid enough to call an ordinary PLAIN piece of cheesecake genius. Now decorate the cheesecake with an extremely unique, non thought of design. I'm pretty sure a lot of people would call that genius as it is unthought of or not seen, just like that Daffy Duck play. No one would randomly think or present a show on Daffy Duck. That play was unique and out of the ordinary. genius = unique to society
The word "genius" is so overused

A lot of times it's a " 'genius idea' to that person" because it's their idea. And just so we're clear, if their ideas are truly genius, I can't think of many ideas that aren't. 'The idea of calling someone or something genius is because you do not see a lot of those ideas or people expressing those smart ideas.' I agree. Plenty of geniuses are unproductive, lazy, unstable, or flat out bums. They are brilliant, but are not labeled geniuses because there's no evidence that they are. Even geniuses have to work to succeed (Tesla, Leonardo da Vinci, ect.) "and even if you think that is stupid, it is what it is and it does not harm anyone, so why try to argue against it in the first place?" People who claim their ideas are "genius" are free to do so. The problem is that if a daffy duck play idea is "genius," what's the theory of relativity? Geniuser? The word loses all meaning, since its applicable to anything. Also, watch any interview of Kanye and you'll see what I mean.
The word "genius" is so overused

Lets remember, I said that even if it is not a genius Idea to you and maybe some other people, it is a 'genius idea' to that person in that persons head, and maybe some of their friends. So though that Daffy Duck play was not a genius idea to you, It was a genius idea to the person that made that post. Also, when you compare a proper genius to a genius in someone's head, that false genius who is not genius to you (Daffy Duck play), (Kanye West), (That homeless guy across the street), may have not shown any smart ideas yet. The idea of calling someone or something genius is because you do not see a lot of those ideas or people expressing those smart ideas. Some songwriters can be called geniuses as their lyrics are unique, so what this genius covers for is the word unique, and even if you think that is stupid, it is what it is and it does not harm anyone, so why try to argue against it in the first place? Good Luck
The word "genius" is so overused

The idea that they're referring to is almost always not genius though. Some guy on Facebook said he had a "genius idea." It was a daffy duck play. This is the kind of stuff I'm talking about. Also, I don't get to pick who's a genius- I'm using examples of people everybody can agree on that are geniuses. Michelangelo=genius Beethoven=genius Chopin=genius Rachmaninoff=genius Thomas Edison=genius If you dispute their genius, please explain to me why, and give me your own list. All the best
The word "genius" is so overused

Remember, when someone says (I'm quoting what you said here) "this is a genius idea", they are speaking about the idea itself. Say the stupidest person comes up with a genius idea. The idea is being referred to. Not the person as he generally not very smart. Secondly, who are you to judge who a genius actually is. It should be societies choice whether they label someone a genius or not. And by society, I mean the majorities of people who use the word genius to describe. It's their choice whether they label something or someone a genius. You can't argue with their thoughts because that person or thing in their mind, key words being their mind, are a genius.
The word "genius" is so overused

It really annoys me when I hear "Oh, I just had this GENIUS idea!" on Facebook, or "(insert person's favorite athlete or singer) is a genius!" In the end, people can say what they want to say, but it irks me because they're taking away credit from the real geniuses. (Michealangelo, Edgar Allan Poe, Ben Carson Etc. ) And just so we're clear, Kanye is not a genius.
Teachers Cooperating for Homework

Well of course students are getting an all time high. Currently there is need for students with more unique skills than what is being taught in school. Going to school should spark your interest in something and give you desire to pursue it. Also, maybe part of the problem is actually the students mindset. If you go into school expecting to much homework, any amount you get will seem like to much. If students were more confident in their abilities and more trusting in their teachers we would have students who would actually realize that what they are learning might be important. If students took more of an initiative to learn while IN class, they wouldn't have to stay up very late trying to do homework about material that was taught that day.
Teachers Cooperating for Homework

(Personally I agree that students today receive an unreasonable amount of homework.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Many students see homework as an annoyance rather than a tool. Whenever a student does his/her homework, there are basic life skills that come into play. Students learn responsibility, time management, perseverance, and self-esteem. Also, studying comes into play when doing homework. Developing good study skills is a must if a student decides to attend college. Homework in such amounts is important also because when students are in college, they are more independent than they ever have been before. (In a school setting.) Being able to be responsible and manage your time correctly is must if a student wants to pass classes. Also, homework can bring teachers closer to their students through discussion. Another reason is that homework is a good way to practice what will be on tests and quizzes. When a student learns a skills through an assignment, they are better prepared for tests. Lastly, doing homework and turning it in on time can help create punctuality.
The Affordable Care Act is Beneficial Legislation

Conditions: I will be arguing for the resolution, Con will be arguing that the Affordable Care Act is NOT beneficial legislation. I had some trouble wording the title of the debate, so any questions make them clear. This is an open challenge, I expect Con to be able to source and put considerable time into their arguments as I have opted for the 10000 character limit.I will be using Standard British English, Con may use American/British. As this is such a contentious issue I hope voters will put personal beliefs aside and make judgement based on the quality of the debate. Finally, good luck to whoever accepts! Looking forward to the first round of points, please remember your round one should NOT be your argument but rather acceptance. Rounds: 1. Acceptance only 2. Opening arguments 3. Rebuttals 4. Closing arguments/rebuttals Definitions: The Affordable Care Act:' The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act' (PPACA),[1] commonly called the Affordable Care Act (ACA) or "Obamacare": United States federal statute signed into law by President Barack Obama on March 23, 2010. Overhauling the current US healthcare system. [1]http://www.gpo.gov...... - .gov record of the Act. Acronyms: PPACA- The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ACA- Affordable Care Act
I am a bad debate

I must disagree to my opponents claims that I was just using gibberish about how he was a good "DebatER". HE says that if he were a debate, he would be bad, however I turn to my opponents first argument when he states "I affirm the resolution that I am bad debater. I will let con go first" The sad fact of the matter is Mr. Dan1, you said debatER. Therefore the argument was merely based off your preliminary remarks. Furthermore, If my argument about you being a good debatER was to be considered a forfeit, then your first argument should be considered one as well, due to the fact that you also stated that you were a bad debatER. Furthermore I must point out, even if you yourself were a debate, it would be good. As a real life debater myself, I have a habit of loving all debates, so in some opinions you may be bad, but in others, you might be awesome. So therefore, because you have forfeited 2 arguments to my 1 (according to your standards), you have failed to prove you would be a bad debatE or debatER, that I urge the CON ballot on this resolution. Thank you all for your time. Spay and Neuter your pets.
I am a bad debate

Sorry for the forfeit. My opponent has claimed that I am a good debater. I agree with him, that I am a good debate. But the readers should look at the resolution, is says, "I am a bad debate." Since I am not a debate, if I tried to be one, I would be quite bad. Therefore I am a bad debate, and my opponent essentially foreited his round, because he was just talking gibberish, on how I was a good debater, I never talked about that. So the readers should disregard my forfeit because my opponent essentially forfeited as well. For all these reasons I urge a pro ballot
I am a bad debate

As the negation, I will prove that you are NOT a bad debater while defending why you ARE at the same time. Definitions: Bad-failing to reach an acceptable standard : poor {1} Debate(r)-one who engages in the art of debate or argumentation Contention 1- The track record of the subject at hand (dan1) is more extensive than that of others. By looking at my opponents win/loss record in the middle of his profile page (. http://www.debate.org...), his record is as follows: Debate Statistics Debates:17 Lost:8 Tied:6 Won:3 Win Ratio:27.27% Percentile:83.75% The sad fact of the matter is, he is better than 83.75% of those on debate. org (. http://www.debate.org...). I myself am not even at that level of intergrity. He's even in the top 500 debaters on said website. So as we can see, dan1 is clearly a "good" debater, because hes not bad which by definiton is below the standard, and the below standard on said website is ranks 1,500 through 1,581, and my opponent is above the top 500. Therefore, it is evident that my opponent is not bad at debating, and thus urge a con vote. Thank you for your time.
Drug Use should be decriminalized (and users sent to rehab)

Illness should never be a crime. Locking people up for an uncontrollable addiction seems a preposterous solution, yet it's a normality is today's society. According the the Federal Beurea of Prisons, an astounding 46.2% of prisoners were incarcerated for a drug offense. The New York times reports that some 80% of prisoners were linked to some sort of drug abuse. You may think this is a positive thing. That an addict would be prompted to get his act together if sent to jail. But this is the opposite of what we most times see happen. In jail, these prisoners are presented with few rehabilitative resources and increased stress levels, leading them through a vicious cycle of prison time, relapse, and recidivism. Often times these are young people whose decision-making skills are still sup-par. A minor mistake could cost them their future, and the people meant to help are the ones sabotaging them. Putting addicts in this position is not only cruel, its pointless- it leads to more crime and mass incarceration. If we were to provide addicts with rehabilitation, we would not only save $75,000 per year PER inmate and cut the prison population literally in half, we would reduce crime exponentially and create a better world for victims, law enforcement, and citizens alike.
Drug Use should be decriminalized (and users sent to rehab)

Sorry for the late response, this summer is a busy one! Drug use should not be decriminalized based on how drugs cause many problems in younger generations. Drugs, especially opioids, have rendered thousands, if not, hundreds out thousands of residents in the United States unable to work, or just purely addicted. If we can punish and separate all these people from the drugs stopping them, we could create a better society for Americans. If drug-use prisoners were let out, who knows that their addiction will come back to haunt them and not let them stay away from drugs again. A prison is a rehab needed by drug users. Separating them from drugs, and punishing them for use will result in a lesson that will strike clear. A lesson that a dog could learn. A lesson that Napoleon from Animal Farm could teach the sheep. The lesson is not "Four legs good, two legs better." The lesson is "Drugs, bad! Drugs equal jail!" A person must be taught never to do something, and they must receive punishment for doing it.
You cannot disprove the existence of God.

Well, the only thing I am confused about is why are you siding with my side of the argument, that you cannot disprove God, when you chose to be on the side that disagreed with my statement? Do you know in debate it does not always matter whether you're right or wrong and factual logic is not always necessarily key, but may you rather (and what I was more so looking for in this debate, I don't think I quite elaborated on it enough though, so defiantly pardon me for that) but you chose to pick the side to prove to me that the existence of God is not real, whether you believe it or not, I suppose I was looking for a battle of the wits using self produced logic just to back up the actual statement that you chose to side with. But, I realize I wasn't very clear on that, so pardon me. =]