BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Debate.org vs DebateIsland.com

I would like my opponent to explain what a UI is. I'm not sure what this acronym stands for.I think debate.org is better, based on what I'm looking at debateisland.com because debate.org has actual debates. If you go to debateisland.com, these don't seem like actual debates. Almost everyone just posts a sentence or two for a given topic and that's it. For example, go to this "debate" on the website[1] and look through others, they're all like that. That's not a debate, that's just stating a general overview of your opinion. A debate is when two people get together, and discuss the pros and cons of something through evidence. Each opponent would also directly respond to what others bring up, but their format doesn't support that idea. I mean, when it comes to looking for a debating website, I don't think any beats debate.org when it comes to idea of responding to what your opponent says, the guidelines that a person should generally offer points and evidence rather than just stating their opinion, etc. Almost everyone on DDO does this. Also, debates generally have people vote on the specific points and deciding who won. While there is voting going on at debateisland, none of it is voting on who brought up better points, and I think this also discourages people from offering up quality arguments, since they're not held liable to do so. Their voting system is more similar to the polls we have here on DDO. If anything, their website should be called pollingisland, because that's all that seems to be there is polls, not debates. [1] http://debateisland.com...;
Debate.org vs DebateIsland.com

Well, like I said, ddo might only be a little more complicated because it offers more things. If all you're interested in is voting on polls, then debateisland would be for you, but if you want to do more than that, then DDO is much better.I believe I have won this debate because I have offered my own arguments and rebuttals to my opponent's arguments. My opponent didn't offer any rebuttals to my arguments.
God exists.

I apologize for my lateness WHAT? are you kidding me if god isn't matter he isn't energy how can he come before them explain this to me how can some thing not made of matter or energy create matter and energy itself? WHAT you want to debate gods exists every religion matters so what religion are you saying Jewish,christian,catholic,Muslim? if you don't clarify I can use any religion. You can not use god and not say it has nothing to do with religion I question that if he does excite why does he not PROVE IT.
God exists.

I'll ask the all important question that everyone would like to know if there is a God were is he? Where'd he come from? What you said contradicts itself you clam matter can not be created or destroyed then how was God made? like you said he couldn't have just appeared and if is real why has there been no sign of him sense people began to question he existence in the bible all of these stories take place of these great adventures were God spoke to man about his wishes why does he not smite the non believers? why would he let his child be beaten,stabbed, crucified?( I apologize for spelling error I'll try not to make any) Why has he NEVER made any other universes? why would he hate gays if he loves all of his children? Why...why....why Every religion has a god Muslims (Ala) accepts everyone why can't Catholic's and Christian's God Doesn't. With their almighty God who tells them to kill EVEN THOUGH the ten commandments do say THO SHALL NOT KILL they went on crusades (Catholics and Christians) All of these questions and more go unanswered why does a God not answer simply he doesn't excite. Now granted there is no direct proof he excites but think about this without Religion (God,Pope etc.) would there be as many wars? No,because with a God the people at war have someone to blame for the war not that they are greedy and corrupt and foolish. If there was a God would he let people Starve and die and get raped and worse? Just so that they can join him in the "almighty heaven" with him yet he send people to Hell he makes people who do one bad in there lives and they suffer for it WOULD A GOD DO THAT? You have religions who fight one another American soldiers are in the Middle East fighting corrupt Muslims (Terrorist) would a god want this for his children to kill each other? I think not. If God made the universe WERE is he why does he not speak to us why does the church think that it knows every thing that is to be known.
God exists.

NotesTo clarify, the possesor of the burden of proof is on whoever wants to persuade, and we both want to persuade since this is a debate. When the burden of proof is shared, it means that each side has to give arguments to support their case. If only one person has the burden of proof, it means that only they have to give arguments to support their case whilst the other debater's obligation is to refute those arguments. To learn more about the burden of proof, please go here [1].Also, I thank 1devilsadvocate for correcting my grammar mistake from the first round. I said "Me and my opponent", when it should've been "I and my opponent".ArgumentsThe Argument from the first law of thermodynamics(P1) Matter and Energy cannot be created or destroyed.(P2) If matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed and the universe is composed from matter energy, then would make sense if the universe didn't exist.(P3) But the universe does exist, so there must be some force that doesn't need to follow the laws of thermodynamics. The only being as described is a God;(C) Therefore, God exists.Justification of the first premiseThis is a widely accepted scientific fact [2].Justification of the second premisePretty self-explanatory.Justification of the third premisePretty self-explanatory.Justification of the conclusionThis is the logical conclusion following the three premises.What are some properties of God?So it's been clarified that God created all matter and energy and therefore is the creator of the universe, but what are God's properties? Well, to avoid an impossible infinite regress of events, God must be uncaused. If he is uncaused, then he is eternal. He must be spaceless because he existed before space and he must be timeless because he existed before time. Therefore, a God as defined in round one that this debating is arguing the existence over, exists.The Kalam Cosmolgocial argumentThe Kalam Cosmological argument is a cosmological argument popularized by William Lane Craig. It can be summarized as follows:(P1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.(P2) The universe began to exist.(C) Therefore, the universe has a cause.Justification of the first premiseIn his book On Guard, William Lane Craig gives us three reasons to think that the first premise is true. I will present to you to of them:- Something cannot come from nothing.- Even if it could, there would be no reason why that thing came into existence and not something else. Hence, everything that begins to exist has a cause.Justification of the second premiseWithout a God, if the universe never began to exist, then it is eternal and there is an infinite regress of events, which is impossible, as infinity is not a number as you cannot add to it or take away from it and so when the question "How old is the universe?" is asked, you'll have to come to the conclusion that the universe began to exist.Justification of the conclusionThis is the logical conclusion following both premises.Sources[1] http://www.burdenofproof.org...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
God exists.

Me and my opponent will be arguing over the existence of God. DefinitionsGod - A spaceless, timeless, and uncaused being who created the universe. StructureRound 1 - AcceptanceRound 2/3/4 - Arguments and rebuttalsRound 5 - RebuttalsRules1. The burden of proof is shared.2. No word play, trolling or semantics3. No insults. 4. No making arguments in the last round unless those arguments are absolutely necessary to refute arguments made previously.5. No arguments are to be made in round 1.6. Failure to obide to the rules will result in a loss.
"There aren't 360 Degrees in a Circle"

In order to make angle measurements it is essential to first define a straight angle, that is to say the total number of degrees on one side of a straight line. A straight angle has 180 degrees, and just by knowing this I have shown the interior angles of a triangle add up to 180 degrees. The central angle is the sum of angles on both sides of this line. We are taught to imagine the central angle takes the form of a circle, when in reality it can be any polygon. Since the angles add up to 360 degrees like a square it makes more sense to think of the central angle as a square. To counter my arguments my opponent relies heavily on definitions, which he assumes to be true because the Babylonians assumed them to be true. He wishes for me to talk about central angles where it is easy to imagine a circle having a central angle of 360 degrees, especially when we are taught to do so. However, if we accept that a circle has 360 degrees then we must accept that there are 360 degrees in a pentagon, hexagon, septagon etc because they also have a central angle of 360. We wouldn't say a pentagon has 360 degrees like a hexagon, we would say a square has 360 degrees though. The only way it can make sense for a circle to have 360 degrees is if: a) circles do not have an internal angle, or b) the internal angle of a circle is 360 degrees. I have shown that circles do have an internal angle, which is equal to 179.9... Despite definitions saying otherwise, a circle is a polygon with infinite sides. If this wasn't true we wouldn't be able to calculate Pi. A circle can have an infinite number of edges yet be curved, because infinite edges become smaller and smaller into points just like those that make up a straight line, which is probably why there are 180 degrees. If I look at a regular polygon with 3 million sides, each interior angle equals 179.99988, meaning the sum of it's interior angles = (179.99988 x 3 million) = 539999640 degrees. Increasing the number of sides will increase the sum of interior angles. By increasing the number of sides I can establish the 4th decimal point of an infinite sided polygon, and the one after that and so on, each decimal point is found to be a 9 followed by another 9. When there is a flat angle 179.9...(or 180) and an infinite number of angles of 180 degrees, there are no other sides! This is why the sum of interior angles would be 179.9... or 180 degrees, and why a circle has 179.9... degrees, rather than 360 degrees.
"There aren't 360 Degrees in a Circle"

Thank you for providing definitions, however they are very specific. The Oxford dictionary defines a degree as a unit for measuring angles, which is a more accurate definition in my opinion. Argument A The definitions you have used assume it is impossible to calculate the number of degrees in a circle. Circles are commonly divided into 360 degrees because the Babylonians did [1] but they couldn't have calculated how many degrees there are in a circle because they couldn't calculate Pi accurate to 2 decimal places. It is possible to divide a circle by whatever we want to make useful angle measurements, 360 just happens to divide evenly by 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10) however a new unit should be used if there aren't 360 degrees in a circle, or if it is not known. Mathematicians do not show angles in more than 1 decimal place, so this means they use a polygon with 647,640 degrees to make angle measurements. Therefore there is no need to "make up" a unit for a circle. Doing so hides the real internal angle of a circle. Argument B Saying that one degree is equal to 180/ pi does not prove there are 360 degrees in a circle, a circle can be divided any number of times. I could just as easily create my own unit and call it a 'klark' and say 1 degree equals 1.6... 'klarks'. I will now calculate the number of degrees in a circle, to do this I will effectively place a regular polygon inside a circle and increase the number of sides. 16 sides: 360/16 = 22.5 degrees There are 180 degrees in a triangle, so the edge angles add up to 180 - 22.5 = 157.5 1000 sides: 360/1000 = 0.36 There are 180 degrees in a triangle, so the edge angles add up to 180 - 0.36 = 179.64 3 million sides: 360/3 million = 0.00012 There are 180 degrees in a triangle, so the edge angles add up to 180 - 0.00012 = 179.99988 20 million sides: 360/20 million = 0.000018 There are 180 degrees in a triangle, so the edge angles add up to 180 - 0.000018 = 179.999982 If I continue increasing the number of sides of a polygon, each edge angle will become "flatter" i.e. closer to 180. But it will NEVER reach 180. By increasing the sides an infinite number of times I will create a polygon with one side i.e. a circle. This means a circle has 179.9... degrees. This should be obvious really because a line has 180 degrees, and for it to form a circle it must bend by the tiniest amount. Imagine if I make this curved line longer, it will still have 179.9... degrees, and if I made it so it almost came back on it's self it would still have the same number of degrees, and there is no reason to assume this wouldn't change if both ends met. Thanks for reading
"There aren't 360 Degrees in a Circle"

I will dedicate this round to my constructive case. DefinitionsDegree - (in Geometry) the 360th part of a complete angle or turn, often represented by the sign °, as in 45°, which is read as 45 degrees. [1]alsoDegree - π/180 radians. [2]Radian - a unit of angular measure defined such that an angle of one radian subtended from the center of a unit circle produces an arc with arc length 1. [3]Circle - A circle is the set of points in a plane that are equidistant from a given point. [4] A circle can also be called a turn, revolution, complete rotation etc. [5]ArgumentsNote that I will assume the standard and fundamental axioms of Mathematics and Number Theory, such as the Peano axioms. A. By definition of a degree, there are 360 degrees in a circle.1) A degree is the 360th part of a of a circle (see Definitions above)2) Therefore, there are 360 degrees in a circle. B. Proof by a unit circle. 1) Take a circle with a radius of 1 (a unit circle)2) By definition, an arc of length 1 of such a circle corresponds to an angle of 1 radian. (see Definitions above)3) Observe that for any circle, its Circumference (let's call it C) is calculated by the formula C = 2πr [6]4) By proportion, an arc of length C corresponds to an angle of C radians.5) By substitution, an arc length of C corresponds to an angle of 2πr radians, which is simplified to 2π radians, as we have a unit circle.6) By inverse geometry, this can be generalized to all circles [7]. Thus, all circles have an angle of 2π radians.7) By definition and the relation of radians and degrees, it can be shown that 2π radians are equal to 360 degrees.8) Therefore, all circles have an angle of 360 degrees. My opponent has the Burden of Proof to show that both of these arguments are unsound. Sources:[1] . http://dictionary.reference.com...[2] . http://physics.nist.gov...[3] . http://mathworld.wolfram.com...[4] . http://mathworld.wolfram.com...[5] . https://en.wikipedia.org...[6] . http://www.mathgoodies.com...[7] . https://en.wikipedia.org...
"There aren't 360 Degrees in a Circle"

I agree with the statement: "there aren't 360 degrees in a circle". It may be that we chose 360 because it's close to the number of days it takes Earth to orbit the Sun, but it's more likely because the Babylonians chose to divide a circle by 360 degrees. But the Babylonians couldn't even calculate Pi to more than 2 decimals places! Whatever the reason, it seems we have accepted a circle has 360 degrees on pure faith, as no-one seems to know why a circle has 360 degrees to this day. My opponent must argue why there is in fact exactly 360 degrees in a circle, while I will prove that there are not 360 degrees in a circle. Good luck Con
trans people are the gender they identify as

ok. . . 1 No it is biological and part of your DNA. You cannot deny that. 2 You didn't provide any evidence, Just a cheesy 1-liner. 3 At the start of humanity, Before people could change their gender, Than there were only two genders and they were (and still are) set in stone. Why are we suddenly deciding that we can change them now? At least bring an argument to the table.
You Choose the Topic!

First off just let me say that I think this was a fabulous idea for a debate, if you don't mind I might use this style for some of my own? Anyways, I hope these are reasonable pieces of argument (in case of some are not I included two extra) 1. Animal Extinction (is it that much of a problem) 2. Social Media (is it good or bad) 3. Electoral College (is it still relevant, should we still have it) 4. Depression + Anxiety (is there anything more we should do about it) 5. Global Warming (is is real/should we try and fix it) Extra 1: Space (should we be doing more to try and find life/whatever you want) Extra 2: Ocean (should we try and explore more of our planet) I bid you good luck, 'till the next round ~winter22
Laws Banning Guns for Citizens will Create a Safer Environment

Well, for one, look at all the other countries that have gun bans, and look at their deaths from firearms, and then look at us, who don't have gun bans and look at OUR deaths from firearms. There's your proof. Personally, I blame the screwed up American mentality, and I think that if we could all be more reasonable then we wouldn't have to do this, but since people just don't seem to understand that guns are dangerous, and that you shouldn't have ten guns stockpiled in your basement, we need to impose this ban, mainly to make sure that all Americans know how dangerous guns are. ' I thought my examples that I gave you made it clear that it WOULD save lives overall. It would stop any amateur murderers, murderers who were normal people until they snapped, since their crimes were crimes of passion, not plan. I think that it is pretty obvious that a gun ban would lessen the amount of guns people have, and therefore prevent people from dying since, without a gun most people suck at killing. I think that is really just simple knowledge, but what I'm interested in is the psychology of it. A lot of people support making marijuana legal, liberals especially, and conservatives argue that if we do that, people will think that it's ok and it's right to do drugs. Well I see the same basic concept here. Guns are dangerous killing machines, but a lot of Americans don't seem to understand that. I've said this before and I'll say it again, children as young as 6 in some places are introduced to guns, how to shoot, how to load, and the glory of being a good shot. Americans are pretty loose with their guns, and I'm almost certain that it is because they are gun-friendly, and they don't realize the magnitude of what a gun really is, and what it's true purpose is. A gun is not meant to be used lightly. I am also horrified that children are given toys like airsoft guns and paintball guns. I am horrified at how guns are being painted in children's minds as toys. I believe that this ban will fix it, because children will reason that the government must have a reason for banning guns. And how are numbers misleading? I am very confused with that argument of yours. Sure, the context they're in can be misleading, but numbers are not misleading. In the situation you are describing, then they WOULD be misleading, but thankfully, that is not the case here. It just makes it that much simpler to see that guns ARE the problem. You say that if this is the case, but PurpleDrink, it is not, and we should thank whatever deity or deities there are for that. :)
Laws Banning Guns for Citizens will Create a Safer Environment

2004 National Academy of Sciences Review http://www.nap.edu... 2013 DOJ Leaked Memo http://static.infowars.com... Washington, DC http://online.wsj.com... Kennesaw, GA http://usnews.nbcnews.com... Australia and UK Crime Statistics from UNODC. What's funny is that the burden of proof is actually on those who wish to impose gun bans, because they are the one's proposing a new, costly and ongoing program that may not work and diverts resources from things that might work. I've yet to see any proof that a gun ban would create a safer environment. You have hypothetical and anecdotal situations about individual crimes, but they say nothing as to how much, or even if the absence of gun laws gun laws leads to higher overall murders and violence rates than if a gun ban on citizens were in effect. It says nothing as to whether it saves lives overall. It says nothing as to whether it creates a safer environment or not. Using the misleading "Gun Violence/Deaths" is an often used statistic used by pro-gun control folks. It's misuse is what made me raise my eyebrow and look into the debate as a whole because I had previously been in the middle about gun control, slightly leaning left on the issue, as I do on many social issues. The goal of gun-control is to promote a safer environment by reducing violent crime and homicides. Using "Gun Crime" stats begins with the assumption that guns are the problem and excludes any other possible explanations for the problem of violent crime and homicides and therefore it's use is deceptive and misleading. If gun violence/deaths go down, but violence/deaths by other means goes up to make up for the reduction, or even EXCEED the original statistics, the goal of a safer environment is NOT met. If this is the case, it would mean you're imposing a costly and ongoing program than does not have a positive effect and possibly has a negative effect. This is potentially dangerous and squanders resources that can go toward something that DOES work.
Laws Banning Guns for Citizens will Create a Safer Environment

I have no idea where you are getting all your information. Could you post a source? A lot of what you are saying is outright lies. The reason that so many more people die of gun violence in the U.S. is our thinking. Most Americans think that they have a right to have however many guns they want, and in a lot of places, guns are introduced to children at a very young age. A lot of Americans have handled guns all their lives, and feel very comfortable around them. This shouldn't happen. Guns are killing machines, whether you like it or not they kill, and most of the time they attack not defend. You say that the violent homicide rate increased the years following the ban was because in SANE countries, countries where peoples lives don't revolve around killing machines, homicide rates and violent crime rates fluctuate. Besides, saying that violent crime rates increased the years following the ban doesn't prove anything. 1,000 years later is years following the ban. 5,000,000 years later is the years following the ban. You have to be more specific to prove anything. And where are all your sources? If you are going to provide exact numbers, they you must provide sources. When criminals act, they don't really think. Unless they have this elaborate plan, their crimes are usually crimes of passion, in-the-moment types of crime. They won't think "Hey, what if this person I'm going to mug has a gun?" They just do it. If they DID think, then we would have substantially less crime. But they don't. They don't usually think about what they are doing, because if they did, then they would see reason. Since most crimes are crimes of passion, if they have guns easily available, then they will use those guns. Buying guns illegally takes time, thinking. If they have a gun in their house, or in their safe, they will go, grab their gun, and wreak their havoc unto the world.