BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The God Game!

Origin story - I was hit with an asteroid from inside a blackhole while doing an new space exploration to our neighboring Galaxy Andromeda. Idk how or why all I know I am a God now! My 1st order of business would be to destroy all death for humans by imparting a partial bit of my godlike powers on all men and women and children. With this power thay can now end there own existence if thay chose to, to eternal nothingness but not any other humans. . You can also create all forms of food, and build all things from nothing, Altho the bigger/ or complex somthing is the more time it take everyone (but me hence why I am God Mwhaha) people can work together and spead things up if thay wish this will allow ppl to build massive thing faster without me but also pervent some nut job from making 300foot troll statues by him self lol. Ppl could also heal them selfs and reshape there body's how thay wished My 2nd order of business I would increase the size of our planet and the rest of the solar system by 5 times its size right now and make it all work out to support life , I would then bring back all anmials and plant life that has passed away in the last 300 years or so. I would get rid of all the pollution as well. I would then make 3 more planets 5 times earth size now on the same rotation as earth around the sun which could support life. Planet 1 of the 3 would have all the extinct anmials on it the dinosaurs planet life ect Planet 2 of the 3 would be a tec advance world with a massive quantum super computer 2x earths size at the core of it, were ppl could program and play in there virtual worlds/games all of this would be powered by the heat of the sun and the rotation of the planet it's self's friction. Planet 3 would be a minimum plant life planet where people could travel to and create stuff as thay wished where there creations time was 2X there rate for creating thing. I would then create a headquarters on each of the 4 planets where ppl could go and text/call my godly cellphone if it was important and thay needed help and I could ignore it if it got too anouying and put it on silence XD . .. At these headquarters you could also grab one of the many many space craft that I would have created that could travel the known universe and between the new worlds, all of these are self sufficient and could travel indefinitely/forever I belive as a god I have given the human race what it realy wants! -too be god like -food health and room to grow -the abilty to change or not change -freedom to do what thay want when thay want and how thay want short of murdering eachother -I have removed there fear of death by giving them immortality and the choice to end there existence of thay so chose so into blissful nothingness I happly await for cons rebuttal and apologize for any spelling or grammar mistakes I'm only a god I'm not perfect :D
The God Game!

Game Rules -I will debate that I would make a better God than my opponet or if my opponet chooses his God . So my opponet will either defend him/her self as a god over me or there God . (Completely up to them) Feel free to do w/e you want paint a picture or write a holy text full of arguments of why you feel you/your God would be better than me and most of all have fun! And remember it's just a game :) (Voters plz don't judge on grammar and spelling to harshly)
Resolved: Unilateral military force by the US is justified to prevent nuclear proliferation.

I hope Blah and I will have some good fun. So I leave you with these stanza. Hum wahan hein jahan hum ko bhe, kuch hamari khabar nahe ati. We [I] are now there where even we, have no news about ourselves. Kaba kis moun se jao ge Ghalib? Sharam tum ko magar nahe ati. How will you go for the pilgrimage to Ka'bah Ghalib? You have no shame. ~Mirza Ghalib
Resolved: Unilateral military force by the US is justified to prevent nuclear proliferation.

This is part of Zaradi's prized debate tournament. First round acceptance only. No new arguments in last round.DefinitionsUnilateral:Performed by or only affecting one person, group, or country, without the agreement of another or others. [1]Military force: A unit that is part of some military service. [2]United States (US): A country in North America bordering the south of Canada.Justified: Marked by a good or legitimate reason. [3]Prevent: Keep something from happening or arising. [4]Nuclear: (1b) denoting, possessing, or involving weapons using nuclear energy. [5]Proliferation: rapid increase in numbers. [6] I look forward to a great debate![1] https://www.google.com.vn...;[2] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...;[3] https://www.google.com.vn...;[4] https://www.google.com.vn...;[5] https://www.google.com.vn...;[6] https://www.google.com.vn...;
Dark Matter or Black Matter.

Sub-atomic black holes sound plausible, but it is hard to that they would "bubble up" from subspace. So I believe that the sub-atomic black holes could exist, but probably not from subspace considering it would be entirely new energy and new matter just almost spontaneously generating, which could make the universe imbalanced. and if there were millinillions of googleplexians of subatomic black holes, as your theory suggests, there would be very little in the known universe.
Dark Matter or Black Matter.

Dark matter is a type of matter distinct from baryonic matter, neutrinos and dark energy. Dark matter has never been directly observed; however, its existence would explain a number of otherwise puzzling astronomical observations.And dark matter may have a connection to primordial black holes. Primordial black holes are a hypothetical type of black hole formed during the high-density, inhomogeneous phase of the Big Bang due to the gravitational collapse of important density fluctuations, which might explain your proposed theories, or at least one of them. I don't understand your argument, could you please elaborate.
Dark Matter or Black Matter.

I have heard of a theory that sub atomic particles and black holes spontaneously "Bubble up" from a kind of "sub-space" into our universe. This theory has left me with a question or two relating to dark matter and dark energy. I keep thinking about how this process would work, if a sub atomic black hole or some other particle is erupting in to our universe does it appear in an existing area of space or does it force it's way from between two areas of space? Has anyone other than me considered this? My theory is that it is the expansion caused by billions of these sub atomic black holes throughout the universe creating new space "between" the existing space and leaving that space behind after the particles or black holes have evaporated away or subsided back into "Sub-space" in an on going process that is causing the universal acceleration in expansion that is attributed to Dark Energy. I ask that someone try and calculate just how many sub atomic black holes could be in existence at any one moment throughout the Universe and the gravity they would add to the universe, I believe that even if they only exist for micro seconds there will still be enough in existence at any single moment for their gravity to be significant if not enough to account for the observed discrepancy between gravity and matter in the universe, I believe the persistent gravity field from these sub atomic black holes has been ignored as a possible explanation for Dark Matter . I would also propose that existing gravity fields encourage the emergence of these particles explaining why matter and dark matter seem to "clump together". Inside a galaxy the expansion caused to space by these particles creating new space is countered by the gravity of the bodies within the galaxy but between galaxies gravity is not strong enough to counter it explaining why the galaxies seem to be accelerating away from each other but the stars within the galaxies are not being dispersed by dark energy.
The Amero is good idea.

Thank you for making this debate. The IDEA of the Amero is good. I like the idea of it and think it should be put in place. The NAME Amero though is not okay. 1. Why would you use the word "Amero". Are we copying EU? They got "euro" from "european". We should follow suit then and make the "Ameri" or something else. 2. North America shouldn't copy other countries, we should be original. 3. There are plenty of cooler names out there than "Amero". There are also ones that would fit better. Good luck PRO.
The Amero is good idea.

In 1971 President Nixon abolished the 'gold standard' that supported the US Dollar. This action rid all actual value of American currency, thus, causing an inevitable downwards spiral of the US Dollar in the future. Judgment day has come. There is no doubt the economy is in trouble, in October of 2008 a majority of US stocks dropped about 50%, unemployment seemed to peak and economically the country did not seem as though it could get any worse. Unfortunately for the American people, this was not true. As we sit in mid December unemployment rises while stocks make a steady downhill sled. Rumor has come out about the idea of a North American Union (NAU (I like to pronounce it 'now")). NAU would incorporate Canada, The US and Mexico into a state similar to the European Union (EU) while still maintaining individual borders all nations would have a weak central government and unified currency. This unified currency would be known as the Amero. The Amero would hold an strong value at all times due to its gold and silver backing, become more recognized than the US Dollar in the Global Market and assist The US in overcoming this global recession. When President Nixon rid the nation of the gold standard he basically handed us an adjustable rate mortgage, free to go up and down as the economy pleases, with no real backing. While this idea was great in the 70's when the economy seemed to have a constant high, nowadays the value of our dollar took a plunge with Freddie and Fannie. A backing of gold and silver to our currency would anchor its value, still allowing to it to rise and fall, but at a controlled rate and with a near impossible chance of failure (something larger than WWII would be necessary to put a resource backed currency down to 0). While the US Dollar was the favored currency of trade for some time the recent horrors of our economy have caused global banks to want trade their Dollars for something more stable like the Euro. A currency backed by the three strong economies of The US, Canada and Mexico as well gold and silver reserves would stand strong even through future economic crisis'. As established the US is at a near all time low and needs to be saved, this time, however, it is not going to be by a world war but rather a world economic revolution. Joint economies are the new ideal for a successful economy. Canada and The US CAN continue to produce high end goods. Mexico has the potential to be the worlds 7th largest economy with all of its -mostly untapped- natural resources. With The US and Canada working with Mexico we could create a real competitor in the global market; initiating the Amero and NAU would allow for the US to fix all of our past economic problems. Canada would save upwards of $3 billion a year in currency transactions alone. Mexico would undergo a "Revolution of Hope." The United States would be able to pull itself out of its second greatest economic crisis to date. Thank you.
The Amero is good idea.

<> I have argued the resolution, and I believe you're lying about waiting for me to argue the resolution. You weren't even on in the last week until you posted this argument. You just missed Round 3. <> The title states "The Amero is good idea". The word "Amero" could be taken as the subject of the sentence or the word "idea" could be. I chose "Amero" as the subject. As in using the word "Amero" is a good idea. I simply interpreted your title differenlty then you did. If you put "The Amero idea is a good idea" or "The idea of the Amero is a good idea". They both are debating the concept of making the Amero while your title "The Amero is good idea" could be taken as to debate as to whether or not having the name of "Amero" is a good idea. < > The actual topic is the name "Amero". << Heck, worst case scenario we change the name and keep the idea. >> Everything else after you're first paragraph and this sentence are null to what is actually being discussed. You concede that we "could" change the name. I'm fine with keeping the idea but by not defending the name you have lost this debate. CONCLUSION: My opponent has not refuted my points and has thereby conceded them. By doing this he has lost the debate.
The Amero is good idea.

I was waiting for my opponent to actually argue the resolution, sadly, this has not happened. I would love to debate against my opponent if he would actually debate the topic, however, he thinks it the job of the con to rewrite the resolution and then argue against it. QUOTE: This could be taken as "The IDEA of the Amero is a good idea" OR "The NAME of Amero is a good idea." Verbatim. The word NAME never showed up in the original resolution, the one my opponent chose to argue against (The Amero is a good idea) the original resolution can be put the way it is, or the way it is, Debate 101, red herring. Onto the actual topic now. In my first post I mentioned a rebuilding of the infrastructure in Mexico, what this is, is a super highway that is planned to be built from Mexican ports through Texas and up to the Midwest and the highway would then branch out to major US and Canadian cities, the pinnacle of trade and transportation. The Mexican part of this build would phenomenal, allowing Mexico to tap it's massive storage of natural resources, due to the increase in business and functionality, which would strengthen the NAU economy substantially, a worthwhile investment. The gold and silver backing of a currency is irrefutable. America has tried both, backed and unbacked, and since the loss of gold in Fort Knox, the USD has been condemned to the crisis we are now in. At a time where stocks are continually dropping, lay offs are commonplace and the USD is last seasons currency we, the North American people, need functionality. Heck, worst case scenario we change the name and keep the idea. Thank you.
The Amero is good idea.

Thank you for you're response. < > This could be taken as "The IDEA of the Amero is a good idea" OR "The NAME of Amero is a good idea." I took it as the latter. < > I get the "Amer" part but where does the "o" come from? Are you saying we're trying to copy the Euro with the Amero? Please specify. <> You can't compare Nixon making our ECONOMY unique to North America trying to make its CURRENCY NAME unique. <> That's all well and good except for the fact you can find a name that is cool AND fits your categories. Amero is a cool name, BUT it's copying Europe, and everybody knows imitations aren't cool. Why don't we make it something like the "Northo" then? What about the "Nero"? < > We're debating the name, not the idea. > Many European people (coming from newspapers, family, friends, and myself) don't seem to like Americans. They're rude to us and try and make fun of us (check "A bold, fresh piece of humanity"). Think of the torment we Americans will have to go through as every time we go to Europe they'll laugh in our faces at the fact that we had to copied them. That the "almighty U.S." had to copy Europe. Don't make it the Amero... for the children's sake. > The word "Amero" is misleading. This word makes the average person think of the "Americas". The NAU only includes North America so this is unfair to both North Americans and South Americans. North Americans don't want to be included with people they aren't involved with, and vice versa. > If this name goes through we'll have to live with it, I'd rather get the name right the first time. > Down with copiers, up with originality. I await my opponents response.
The Amero is good idea.

First off the resolution is arguing the IDEA of the Amero, my opponent agrees with me that "The Amero is a good idea." But if he really wants to know the reasoning behind the name here we go: The name is something that has to be internationally recognizable. The Amero is its own identity with a common theme for the new world. Amero sounds like it has the same idea as the Euro, but that's because it does. The name also has to work with the languages it is used in. Amero is easily pronounced by Hispanic and Caucasian peoples. As for us being original, we tried that when we eliminated the gold standard. Didn't work. We don't need to be original, we need a functional currency system. And finally we aren't looking for the 'coolest' name out there, as a nation we should be looking for one that works, is simple, recognizable and, above all else, has a realistic and concrete ideal behind. The Amero is a good idea. It will benefit the world economy, strengthen the NA infrastructure and allow for a stable value of currency. A joint economy is what our world needs from North America. Thank you.
America should switch to the Metric System

America should switch to the metric system. But that would be costly and very hard. Many people in America use the imperial system. By switching to an imperial system, America would be trying to change a system of measurement for every person in America. America shouldn't switch to the metric system because learning both the imperial and metric system would is a way to remember that there is more than one way to measure things. There is always more than one way to measure things. If you switched to metric, then you would have to change a lot of things. Planes would need to measure in kilometers instead of miles. Car GPS would need to be remade to adapt to the new system of measuring. That would be very expensive and very tedious.
America should switch to the Metric System

The number system everyone commonly uses and is taught in schools is the decimal number system, where there are ten digits. (0, 1, 2 ,3 ,4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9) The metric system is a decimal system and is easy to convert units, like from centimeters to meters where you have to divide by 100, instead of the imperial inches to feet, where you have to divide by 12. It is also very consistent. Units are always x10 apart. Opposed to the imperial system where a foot consists of 12 inches which each consist of 16 units. Really?
Resolved: Federal government bailouts of major corporations are just

I'll go AC then NC My oppenents observation of how a federal government doesn't mean capitalist is true and I did not state anywhere in my case that I was takling about a capitalist government. For his second one, yes a bailout can entail a loan but if we are to stay with the resolution, the loan may only be to a major corporation by the federal govnerment. I accept my opponents burden. " I don't understand what my opponent is saying here. "First, the only 2 static terms in the resolution are federal government and bailout, thus it cannot be assumed that the society we are evaluating is anything but so saying that a bailout at this point in time for a specific nation is not just still loses the round. " so an explanation would be nice to clear it up. My opponent says that the only value useable for this round is "justice" but just because it's in the resolution, that doesn't mean that it's the only value allowed. My opponent's criterion is Promoting the Common Wellfare and says that because all governments will uphold themselves, then they will uphold the criterion. However if we look at a dictatorship with a ruler who cares about only himself, then yes he will be looking at the common wellfare of himself, which could harm the people. I would like my opponent to state whether he is talking about the common wellfare of the government or of the people. My opponent provides no link between how bailouts prevent economic ruin or how promoting common wellfare is just. Contention1: A) My opponent gives many examples of bad things that can happen if we don't bailout major corporations however this is not the job of the Affirmative. The resolution is "bailouts are just" not "not bailout out is unjust" so any point my opponent states of bad things that come from not bailout out major corporations fall because his job is to prove that bailouts are just. He must provide good things that come from bailouts. Also he says that bailouts are only to be used when necessary however once again that's not in the resolution. He can not slim down the word "bailouts" to mean only necessary ones. The resolution is also talking about uneccessary ones aswell. B) As I stated in my NC with bailouts we lose the cultural identity of the society and without that we have no definition of justice. So without a definitino of justice affirming can't be just nor unjust. My job is not to prove bailouts unjust, just prove that they are not just. There is a difference because there is a middle ground between the two, neutral. I'm sorry that this is so late and I'm at school currently and can't finish arguing my NC so If my opponent would like to continue this argument with only 2 rounds I would be happy to do taht. My excuse is that I was at a tournament all weekend and had no time to write this argument. I would appreciate a PM from my opponent on whethere or not they would like to continue and when they will open the debate.
Grazing cattle is destroying our environment

"I do indeed suggest that certain methods of cattle production are more eco-friendly than their counterparts. I propose that sustainable production can be achieved through pastoral production in oppose to industrial." Pro This seems to contradict the topic. It seems you are making a statement against the topic. Topic: Grazing cattle is destroying our environment I thought pastoral production uses grazing cattle. Therefore, you have done all the work for me. Thanks. I'm also confused by the topic. By stating that grazing cattle are destroying the environment, you are effectively demonizing grazing cattle while putting a halo around feed-lot cattle. "A feedlot or feed yard is a type of animal feeding operation (AFO) which is used in intensive animal farming for finishing livestock, notably beef cattle, but also swine, horses, sheep, turkeys, chickens or ducks, prior to slaughter. Large beef feedlots are called concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) in the United States" Wikipedia We both know that cattle production is extremely destructive to the environment. Why not ban cattle altogether? I mean if you argument was grazing cattle are destroying the environment and feedlot cattle are too I could understand. Yet, I can't figure out why one form of cattle ranching is preferable to another. Feed lots require lots of grain to be harvested and fed to the cows. How is pastoral production more sustainable than feed lots also know as CAFOs? How is pastoral production more sustainable than grazing cattle? What is the difference between pastoral production and grazing cattle?