BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The universe was probably created by an Intelligent Designer.

The word "universe" is defined, in essence, as everything in existence. Everything. In order for something which designed the universe to exist, it would have to design itself, which is impossible as it's existence cannot predate it's design unless it is possible for something of enough complexity to design it to exist without being designed, which your argument denies in assigning design to a necessary condition of complexity. In other words, contradiction... Beyond that, our universe contains quadrillions of stars. Many of which we don't know much about. Of the ones we do know about, none are apparently capable of supporting life except one in our system. One of nine in our system. The rest, with the possible exception of Mars, support no life. But they are nevertheless very complex. A designer with the goal of life in mind would not commit such a grievous sin against it's purpose as to waste it's time. Unless you are talking about another end for your annoying impish universal intelligence? On another level, your argument that it "must be" designed because it is complex, quite simply, does not follow from any logic. Just because a designer would make something complex does not mean that something complex has to be designed, to think it does is affirming the antecedent. Nothing about the quality of random chance has been demonstrated to limit itself to simple outcomes, indeed, quantum physics relies on random chance and yet is highly complex. Poker is complex precisely because there is so much random chance involved, with so many different factors, and it makes it harder to design a strategy to beat it. Indeed, the more complex it gets, the less likely something is to be designed, because for one thing it gets harder to rack up the kind of intelligence necessary to design it, and for another much of the complexity out there is either useless or even counter to any possible design. Why would a designer leave comets lying about to knock into it's creation? Why would a designer make murderers? Does it like murderers? Then why would it make police? Too much conflict for any smart designer, and too much complexity for a stupid one. Either way it doesn't compute.
The universe was probably created by an Intelligent Designer.

I would like to restrict the challengers to those who do not know me very well. I'll keep my initial argument short. The structure of the universe as we know it is highly ordered and complex. The level of organization in the universe and the factors that allow us to exist in our present shape and form could not have simply come about by pure randomness. I find that I must conclude, there is a guiding force in the universe that acts towards a specific end. We know this force as "nature". However, there must also have been an intelligence at the source, carrying out this end using the natural forces we study.
Baseball is America's past time when it comes to sports.

Do football would be the most popular sport among spectators. But baseball is our countrys past time. Because football is popular now doesn't make it our past times baseball should be brought back into the lime light and honored as the great game as it is. These sports are in two different seasons. The summer is warm and people are out and about. But the fall and winter is cold while people are inside and have time to watch the games for football
Baseball is America's past time when it comes to sports.

Making a statement that Baseball is "America's past time" is equivalent to saying it is the most important sporting activity today for America. While it easy to make the case that Baseball has been a very important sport for our country's history, baseball today no longer occupies the position of "America's Past Time". From a professional sports perspective, the NFL makes more revenue per season and the average franchise is more valuable than baseball. The NFL made $11B in 2011 and MLB made only $7B (http://en.wikipedia.org...). The average NFL franchise is worth approximately $1B and the average MLB franchise is worth $523MM (http://www.plunkettresearch.com...). More value per franchise means more people care. Plus, even though each team in MLB has 10x as many games as the average NFL team, they still make less revenue, another example that fewer people care. Further, if you simply take a look at how people spend leisure time in sports, baseball is very low on the list with more people spending time playing golf, basketball, running, soccer and swimming (among other activities). I concede that Baseball has been important in our history but the data above proves that it's prominence in America has faded.
Baseball is America's past time when it comes to sports.

My argument is that it is Americas past time. All these other sports are now so popular in the U.S., that now it is important to keep baseball up there as the most important game in this country. I was speaking about present day and how it is the same as it has always been for baseball. Nothing has changed when it comes to the game. Pure and simple. Baseball is important to keep around and play because it connects us with our past. It is our countys past time. It has made this country better, game by game
Baseball is America's past time when it comes to sports.

I accept the debate with the understanding that when you stated that Baseball is America's "past time" what you likely meant to state is that Baseball is America's "pastime". "Past Time" is a moment of time in history, not present day. "Pastime" means something that amuses and serves to make time pass agreeably (http://www.merriam-webster.com...), specifically in relation to sports in this debate. Pro, state your case.
Baseball is America's past time when it comes to sports.

SPorts have been the back bone for this great country. When there is war, when there is peace, there is sports. Baseball has been around since the late 1800's and has been the biggest sport played in this country. It is what brings people together and is one of the toughest skilled played game there is. Baseball has some many traditions that comes with the game that is so exciting to watch. Such as the 7th inning stretch, the umpire yelling "play ball", and hot dogs shared between a father and son as the game starts. The players have traditions all their own. Whether on the field or off the field the game has changed live and made this country happier and better with every game played.
Nintendo's 3DS is their worst handheld platform in years.

By the way, I'm not saying the 3DS is a bad system. It can provide some entertainment - it's no Sega Saturn. It's just not up to Nintendo's caliber of quality in my opinion. Compared to MOST other Nintendo systems, it's a weak link. As a lifelong Nintendo fan, the 3DS is the only product of theirs that I regret purchasing. ==VIRTUAL BOY COUNTER-ARGUMENT=== 1) Virtual Boy is not a handheld, so it shouldn't count. It's semi portable but you can't really take it with you in your pocket and feasibly play it on a bus and such. 2) Virtual Boy is regarded as one of the worst consoles of all time. To say "The 3DS is better than the worst system of all time" doesn't say much. 3) I said the 3DS was their worst handheld IN YEARS - not their worst of all time. Meaning that even if we assume the Virtual Boy to be a handheld, I'm essentially saying the 3DS is the worst since Virtual Boy (or Gameboy Color, if that counts as a separate console - and not a GB flanker). Main point: It's a step back from the Gameboy Advanced & Nintendo DS. (And if you want to throw consoles in the discussion, I also found the Gamecube and the Wii to be better) == THE GAMES == As far as the games you mentioned, Ocarina and Majora are ports - and not original titles for the system. There's a superior version of Smash Bros on the Wii U, so it's not an exclusive anymore. I've played Pokemon X/Y, and despite all the graphical improvements, mega evolutions and conveniences and such added to the game, it's still the same basic game I played 15 years ago. Same plot, same progression, same battling system. Grind, gym, grind, gym. No real surprises or twists. I think what every system needs is a "killer app". A title that's so groundbreaking and unique that you can't get anywhere else. 3DS has a number of decent and merely good games, but in terms of having brilliantly original games that will age into all-time classics, I think it's lacking. In a way, the 3DS has become the personification of the modern criticism against Nintendo. It's a Mario/Zelda/Pokemon device. You buy the device, you get those 3 things and there's not a bunch of other pleasant surprises. == OVERALL DESIGN == The GBA was a big jump over the GB. The DS particularly was a significant system that was the progenitor of touch based interaction on portable devices. The DS created its own lane and had something completely different to offer for people who already had a Gamecube and GBA. The problem with the 3DS is that it pretty much just exists in the same lane that the DS (and now the Wii U) exist in. It didn't give me an entirely new and fresh gaming experience. It's quite derivative.
Nintendo's 3DS is their worst handheld platform in years.

I know this pretty bad to start on, but it's time for my ace in the hole: The Virtual Boy. When you say that ALL other Nintendo handhelds are better for their time, this also would include the Virtual Boy. And the 3DS has a great selection of games! Pokemon X and Y, Pokemon OrAs, Link Between Worlds, Smash Bros, Ocarina of Time and Majora's Mask 3D, Phoenix Wright: Dual Destinies, and more!
Nintendo's 3DS is their worst handheld platform in years.

All of Nintendo's previous handhelds were the best they could make at the time, but the 3DS made too many mistakes and was wasted potential. **Sales** Sold significantly less compared to the Gameboy, GBA and the original DS. **Hardware** Has really low blurry resolution in this day and age. Tablets and smartphones have evolved with more capabilites and better hardware, making the 3DS less essential to own than ever. **Innovation** It's basically a clone of the DS. The DS touch screen was great for its time, but applying the same idea 7 years later doesn't achieve the same effects. **Social** It's the 2010's and Nintendo still has a paternalistic attitude. You can't message friends or send friend requests to random people you meet online. **Price** It's Nintendo's most expensive system. 3DS launched at $250, and even now it costs $175-200. GBA costed $100. NDS costed $150. **Launch** One of the weakest launches in modern history. The system had a drought and took 2-3 years to attain a decent library. **3D Vision** Gimmick. Most titles on the system rarely use it. I can't think of any titles which used it to create a unique meaningful gameplay experience. **Indie Support** Exists but pales in comparison to what the Vita and mobile devices have. **Digital Distribution** The virtual console has a small selection. The 3DS should well be able to handle digital GBA, SNES, and DS games. Also, the online marketplace for 3DS is lacking in sales and deals like other marketplaces have. **Lack of Original Titles** Most of Nintendo's games on the systems are ports and formulaic sequels. Even my favorite game on the system (A Link Between Worlds) is heavily derived off of another game. **Lack of new IP's** Gamecube had Pikmin. Xbox had Halo. PS3 had Uncharted. GBA had Advance Wars and Fire Emblem. DS had Nintendogs and such. 3DS had.... nothing?? Okay, it had Steel Diver... Perhaps Nintendo should have waited it out a year or two, to design a more up-to-date platform.
any equation that ends on 0 is not true

i agree 0 is equal to 0.. but 0 is not true.. but thats not what im talking about soda=1 " I have a soda and you have a soda. If you give me your soda, you now have no sodas. I have two sodas. This can be demonstrated mathematically" but do i have nothing or do you now have something of mine.. soda i=eye=1
any equation that ends on 0 is not true

This resolution is false. There are many equation that end in 0 that are true. The equation 0 = 0 is true. I'll also give you an example. I have a soda and you have a soda. If you give me your soda, you now have no sodas. I have two sodas. This can be demonstrated mathematically: your soda = 1 my soda = 1 Now we perform the transaction. Here's your soda: 1 - 1 = 0. Here's my sodas: 1 + 1 = 2.
rap has the best lyrics is American music culture

http://www.youtube.com...Here is a pretty good love song by adele"Set Fire To The Rain" I let it fall, my heart, And as it fell you rose to claim it It was dark and I was over Until you kissed my lips and you saved me My hands, they're strong But my knees were far too weak, To stand in your arms Without falling to your feet But there's a side to you That I never knew, never knew. All the things you'd say They were never true, never true, And the games you play You would always win, always win. [Chorus:] But I set fire to the rain, Watched it pour as I touched your face, Well, it burned while I cried 'Cause I heard it screaming out your name, your name! When I lay with you I could stay there Close my eyes Feel you here forever You and me together Nothing is better 'Cause there's a side to you That I never knew, never knew, All the things you'd say, They were never true, never true, And the games you play You would always win, always win. [Chorus:] But I set fire to the rain, Watched it pour as I touched your face, Well, it burned while I cried 'Cause I heard it screaming out your name, your name! I set fire to the rain And I threw us into the flames Where it felt something die 'Cause I knew that that was the last time, the last time! Sometimes I wake up by the door, That heart you caught must be waiting for you Even now when we're already over I can't help myself from looking for you. [Chorus:] I set fire to the rain, Watched it pour as I touched your face, Well, it burned while I cried 'Cause I heard it screaming out your name, your name I set fire to the rain, And I threw us into the flames Where it felt something die 'Cause I knew that that was the last time, the last time, ohhhh! Oh noooo Let it burn, oh Let it burn Let it burnConclusive statementMy opponent has stated that rap has better lyrics. I have proven this claim false with the art of Slipknot- the virus of life, Micheal jackson- you rock my world,And lastly the artwork of adele-set fire to the rain witch poentialy was the best song of the year. I have give very exotic lyrics witch is affirmedby my opponent geting confused by the depth of slipknot. No ones music can match micheal jason, And adele is a lyrical genius of potentialy al pop music. I believe that con should win this debate because i have proven that the rap genre doesnt have the best lyrics or songs.
rap has the best lyrics is American music culture

I am not here to say that rap is the best form of music, I am saying that rap has the best lyrics when it comes creativity(similes,metaphors) and content such as social issues(talking about politics,religion etc) or every day problems such as (relationships,depression etc) who ever is con must support the other forms of music that is popular in America such as country,rock,pop etc, and prove that those forms of music have better lyrics when it comes to creativity with the words and the content of the words please stick to music that is popular in the united states but you can use music that is not from America as long as it has a large following here. for example punk which has allot a bands outside the U.S but still have a large following(ramones,clash,iron maiden etc) also I've noticed on this site people tend to separate hip hop and rap, because I am not sure which artists you may put under the category of rap and which you would put under hip hop I will be putting both under the same category of rap. I would like to also add that I am not saying all rappers are creative and have content when it comes to lyrics, but that rap in general does
War can be good

I saw that my opponent did a debate on this as the con side saying that war can never be good, and I don't feel that his opponent did a great job defending the pro side of the resolution. Therefore, I will extend out a second opportunity to debate this topic so that we can really get a good discussion going. Resolved: War can be good. The burden on the Pro is to prove that there is a situation where entering war is good. The burden on the Con is to prove that entering into a war, regardless of the situation, can NEVER be good. First round will be acceptance. Second round will start argumentation.
Food Irradiation

There is no detectable levels of radiation left behind in the food after it has been irradiated. A common misconception is that irradiated food is radioactive. The radiation used is very different. It does not generate Gamma, X-Rays, and Electrons. Also irradiated food causes minimal change to the chemical composition. Food irradiation also extends shelf life, reduces food spoilage, and there is less of a chance to get food born diseases, such as Salmonella, and Ecoli. (BetterHealth.org)
Food Irradiation

Though leaving macro nutrients unaffected such as proteins, fats, and minerals, it still effects vitamins such as Vitamin C and E which is either reduced or completely eliminated in all due to the irradiation process of food, (www.livestrong.com) 20% of all vitamins are deteriorated as irradiation breaks down the foods cell wall. (www.rense.com) Radiation in food equals 10 million regular X-rays in the body which equals 100,000 rads. (www.preventcancer.com) This is very harmful to the body making it obvious why most people would develop cancer after eating these products.
Food Irradiation

Many people have the assumption that irradiated foods are safe though being wrong as it cannot eliminate pesticides creating possible mutations in food. (www.livestrong.com) Cancer rates have now reached epidemic proportions striking one and three killing one in every four with 500,000 deaths in this last year (1992 www.preventcancer.com) Food irradiation creates new chemicals in foods called radiolytic products which is cancer causing. The amount of radiation used is equivalent to 30 million chest x-rays. Example. 2-Deb damages DNA in rat colon. (www.rense.com)
Food Irradiation

Food safety. In 1999 food born disease was responsible for 76 million illnesses, 325,000 hospitalizations, and 5,000 deaths which was a 30 billion dollar impact on the United States. Would you rather have 30 billion annually, or 47 million every once in aw while? The choice is obvious. 25% of world wide food is lost after harvesting due to insects, bacteria, and spoilage, which was a 17 billion dollar impact on the United States alone. Lastly it is the exact same thing as heat pasteurization, and it is already used to sterilize medical devices and equipment, supplies, implants, wine corks, cosmetic ingredients, and food packaging materials. (wisc.edu)
Food Irradiation

Just to show an irradiation plant in Georgia leaked material from the facility going into the sewer system of the state causing mass destruction. This costly damage accumulated $47 million dollars in its wreckage. (www.rense.com) Whose money did it come out of? The taxpayers. As well it threatens farmers and food processor whch are those whom produce the food. It competes and puts these workers out of a job. (www.foodcomm.org.uk) Lastly, it is more expensive then other companies to produce these irradiated products. This is because the businesses must pay an upfront fee and costs an average between $3 to $5 million dollars. So which part of this is safe and inexpensive? (ww.livestrong.com)
Food Irradiation

Cite for round 2 (epa.org)Round 3 Point: Limited people have accesss to clean consumable food. Although if it is reintroduced to the bacteria it will grow again that is a very low percentage of a chance that that will happen, because for a New bacteria to grow on the food is very hard considering the fact that it sterilizes the food. Food irradiation makes the food safe and transportable, 37 major developed countries approve of food irradiation, and it IS SAFE. (usda.gov)
Food Irradiation

Though irradiated foods may kill bacteria, if cross contaminated with food which has bacteria it means disaster as the bacteria is reintroduced into the sytem of irradiated foods which is why one must handle with care (www.foodcomm.org.uk). Insufficient amount of radiation is used which causes mutations in microbial strains as well makes bacteria more dangerous (www.livestrong.com). Though never tested for cancer causing stimulants in the bacteria most governments have banned their usage as many cases of cancer and deaths have been reported since its introduction (irradiated foods) in the 1990's (www.preventcancer.com)
Food Irradiation

Food irradiation is the same thing as pasteurizing food. Both things kill bacteria and other pathogens, and they both eliminate food spoilage and food poisoning. Also, ionizing radiation decays to non-radioactive nickel which when cooked leaves the food, and it poses no environmental risk at all. No radioactive waste whatsoever. It can also be turned on and off as needed so it is not active when it is not needed. Also MRE's are irradiated, to keep the food clean for transportation and storage.
Food Irradiation

Food irradiation is inefficient and hazardous to the work force of the factory. In 1997, a poll which surveyed the use of irradiated food showed that 77% had opposed the use of irradiated products. This is why irradiated food is banned in America (www.rense.com) Residents oppose having these potentially dangerous facilities, many of which use radiation, in their neighborhood cities, as well provides poor security threatening these cities, and contamination risks such as leaks into the sewer system (www.foodandwaterwatch.org) Lastly, irradiation is not the only option for providing clean and sustainable food. It has much more hazards then benefits as it kills many people, and slows down the processing lines of irradiated food. (www.rense.com)
The big bang theory is false

well of course it is still a mystery where hte energy came from.and it will remain one for some time to coe.but to make this topic more debatable i would lik to eplain how it was probably much smaller than dot. it was extremely dense and this energy well formed everything else. i have two different arguments which one might be true. first, the energy might not have been created and was there beofre tim reated by a superior being hich most of us me included blieve as God.next the law o fthermodynamic may as well be a hox. one quetion posed by scentist was where did waste energy go to . then they created a orm of axion that are 'invisible' and inert. this might never be proven unless we can see themor rect withthem which woul dnt is there.happen in the real world. so the la f thermoynamics may be broken because not enough proof . for the record even the big bang theory includes God as a upremebeing