BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
It is far too expensive to buy a hunting license.

Because my opponent has no objections to my definitions, I assume he accepts them. Rebuttals: 1) Really it's over $300 per year? That's if you buy a LIFETIME pass in California you will not pay $11/yr or any additional cost after a certain legal age FOR LIFE. Either way, how is that over $9000, the defined definition of "too expensive" that we agreed on? 2) We both are 15 year old and are only required by law to buy the $11 license, so what's your point in buying a $300/yr one? 3) In the context we are only debating on a hunting license, not tags or other items. Otherwise the resolution would say: It is far too expensive to buy a hunting license, hunting tags, and other items. 4) Hypothetically speaking if you only eat the meat you hunt and the average American eats ground beef only, you'll be spending over $728 a year on meat. ($2.80/lb average American consumes about 260 lb./yr, I didn't include tax) Compare this to IF you had to spend $300 on a license and probably $200 worth on a gun and ammo (at least I do, cause I'm decent with my cheap rifle). Let it be resolved, it is not too expensive to buy a hunting license.
It is far too expensive to buy a hunting license.

I negate. As my opponent did not post any definitions/clarifications I'll do so: Too expensive: anything over $9,000 :P Hunting License: considering the fact my opponent and I are both under 16, it costs roughly $11 for my junior license. Contention: 1) It only costs $11 to legally hunt one year, excluding guns, ammo, cammies, etc. Only $11, really it's that expensive? 2) States need to restock on game, a decent expense. If hunting licenses were free, the state would not be generating revenue to balance the restocking costs. Either the state will cut funding or they will lose revenue. States will preferably choose to former. Let is be resolved a hunting license is not too expensive. States need some sort of dividend to balance the cost to restock game.
Can the word "buns" be used as an adjective

First, definitions: Yes: affirmative. Buns: a plural noun referring to bread (hot dog buns), or to the gluteus maximus of a human. Adjective: a word that describes a noun. Well this is simple. I'll make it a syllogism: All "buns" are plural nouns. No plural nouns are adjectives. Therefore, no "buns" are adjectives. But saying that someone has "nice buns" is okay. The word "nice" describes the buns that person has (1). Pro? Sources: (1) nicebuns.bun
wh40k vs halo (yes I know this has been done)

Space marines: Near-bulletproof bones by todays standards. They can spit acid via speciised organs placed in their mouths. Complete sync with their suit. Near biological immortaility (somthing they almost never enjoy in their position). Most can have centuries of expierience. 4 lungs. 4 kdneys. 2 hearts. Multiple other surgically emplaced organs. Bolters fire rpg like automatic projectiles at super sonic speeds. Projectiles come in many varieties but the most common has a diamond or diamonite tip and explodes on impact. Some space marines are called "librarians" space marines with warp powers and are able to destroy minds and bodies. Imperial guard: titan legions. War machines that can reach over 400ft tall. Has untold hundreds of billions of soldiers. Tyranids: almost unstoppable swarm that has consumed possible thousands of galaxies. Has the ability to stage space fights with their own technology.
wh40k vs halo (yes I know this has been done)

In the novel Cryptium, the new Didact searches with the old Didact (it's complicated) for the missing Halo ring, as part of a series of weapons designed to wipe out entire galaxies at a time. There were twelve. If one can go missing, that implies the ability to move them. It would be a simple task for the prometheans and covenant to arm the ring, then warp it into another galaxy then recollect it. You must also recall this is not a competition of perfect knowledge; the Halo and Warhammer 40k universes know nothing of each other. The UNSC would first investigate, quickliy be decimated almost entirely before informing the Covenant, who, allied with the Promeatheans (mixed them up with ME, freudian slip) would warp in an armed Halo Ring. The surviving interdimensionals would escape and prepare their orrery and fire back. The two would exchange nukes and universal destruction would occur. The Prometheans are not attempting to return to life, rather to indoctrinate more into their numbers under the rule of the didact, and new didacts can be created (the one in Halo 4 is a genetic copy caused by the same kind of evolution master chief underwent). Now, to decide a victor, there is only one orrery, and the prometheans probably know the location of the last ring (the forerunners mapped out the universe before the flood destroyed them). It would be a costly war, most of the races, human, orc, space marine alike. Perhaps the necrons would survive, but it would be a pyrrhic victory for the Halo universe. I admit to know few things about the warhammer series, but the question is raised for me at least how there is still supposed to be a war between these side when the orrery exists? At least in Halo, the Covenant could not interact with the rings technology because only humans and forerunners could use it. You could flip a coin for this one (or roll a 10 sided dice) for the result; it's the equivalent of nuclear war for us; everyone loses. Still video game debates like these are fun, so do invite to any more you have. Duncan.
wh40k vs halo (yes I know this has been done)

Wait weren't there 7 halo rings during trilogy? With 1 destroyed? And I read a bit more on them but there was no data on moving them. And what would stop them from destroyed? It took the pillar of autumn to self destruct to destroy one. The imperial navy frequently uses firepower equal or more than that. As the orks use a navy as well but they like crashing them into things. I don't think hundreds of space hulks (think far larger than the infinity) crashing down or bombarding the surface). It also takes small arms fire to bring down protheans. That would mean as gauss weapons could one-shot them. The halo rings also couldnt destroy the dark eldar as they live in the webway ( different dimmension used for transportation). Also I don't know the exact numbers on how many necrons there are but some say the trillions. As many tomb worlds there are in the wh40k universe. And usually when the tomb world awakens the only option is to litterally destroy the planet. Not the surface but to crack the planet. Plus halo rings can't destroy what enters or goes into the warp as its another dimension. Every race enters the warp for transportation besides necrons or dark eldar. Another question springs up. How are protheans going to transport halo rings without resistance to the possible thousands of galaxies teaming with orks and tyranids? Especially if the necrons intervene? As their primary goal is to keep other races alive to get their bodies back.
wh40k vs halo (yes I know this has been done)

This boils down the the Halo Rings again. The very name of the game. Super weapons that destroy entire galaxies not solar systems. With warp drives and protheans, the war would quickly become a competition between the Celestial Orrery and the Halo Rings. But the Halo rings are more destructive, and there are 11 halo rings (one is missing) not one orrery. It becomes mutually assured destruction, with the necrons and protheans wiping out all other life, while they both retreat constantly, the protheans into resilient technology, and the necrons into their tombs. My guess? The prothean composer can convert enemies into protheans. There's no metal to retrieve, just ashes. It would be a costly war on a universal scale, but the Halo Protheans would win it by the skin of their cyber teeth.
wh40k vs halo (yes I know this has been done)

Marines; soldiers armed with several types of mech suits and vehicles. What they lack in experience they make up for in firepower. Spartans; highly trained super soldiers with access to a variety of weapons, and each with a personal AI to hack controls. Able to pilot any kind of vehicle, even alien tech. Covenant; Vast army with an even bigger fleet, with soldiers ranging from Elite guards to swarms of grunts. Access to spacial rift technology. Flood; able to take control of biological organisms, very difficult to eradicate, They increase in numbers very quickly and can swarm armies, converting them into flood. Protheans; Quasi-data soldiers, developed by Forerunners. Featuring anti matter weaponry, teleportation, and resurrection abilities. Using the Composer, they can turn enemy soldiers into new types of prothean. But the real kicker; the Halo Rings. 11 out of 12 rings are currently in known whereabouts, and each is capable of wiping all life out of an entire galaxy. With rifts and large armies, a halo ring could be transported with ease to a galaxy, then activated and reclaimed. Side benefit that no wh40k can interact with it as only humans and protheans can. See you next round. Duncan
Death penalty should be icluded in the Greek Justice

My opponent has plagiarized most—if not all—of his arguments from here (http://simple.wikipedia.org...). Thus, conduct points should go to me. R1) Most countries oppose the death penalty This is a fairly weak argument. Merely because most countries oppose the death penalty does not mean the death penalty is unjust or should not be used. Most countries in 1700 had slavery, but that does not mean slavery is just. Most countries currently have a war on terror or ban drugs, but this does not mean those laws are just. In fact, many laws are arguably unjust. Therefore, the fact most countries oppose the death penalty does not mean that the death penalty is wrong. Although death penalty support has fallen in the UK, a country where the death penalty (DP) is banned, support for the DP is still higher than those who oppose it by 6% [1]. R2) Tyranny Again, Con uses similar arguments as he did above. Merely because tyrannical governments exercise the ability to execute criminals—or, in some cases, threats to the state—does not mean we cannot have a system where the death penalty is improved and can represent a healthy justice system. C1) The Death Penalty acts as a deterrent The vast majority of published research since 1999 supports the notion that usage of the death penalty reduces crime. 17 studies show it reduces crime, whereas only 5 claim it is not a deterrent, and 2 say we cannot conclude either way [2]. So, to a 17-5-2 ratio, the studies prove the death penalty reduces homicide rates. C2) The Death Penalty is just The justice system is based upon a system called proportionality. The worse crime you commit, the worse punishment you should receive. Taking away someone’s life is the worst retributive punishment you could inflict. Thus, there would obviously be a point where the DP would be required to give justice. Even if you think one murder isn’t enough to warrant the DP, would you move to execute Hitler? Stalin? Mao? Of course we would. As Edward Fesser argues, “it would be absurd to deny that there is a level of criminality for which capital punishment is appropriate, at least in principle.”[3] Thus, the death penalty *should* be used in any system where proportionality is used in the justice system. In Greece and other western countries, this is the case. Therefore, for justice to actually exist, there should be a death penalty. 1. https://yougov.co.uk... 2. http://www.cjlf.org... 3. http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com...
Death penalty should be icluded in the Greek Justice

Death penalty, also called capital punishment, is when a government or state executes (kills) someone, usually because they have done something wrong. Executions in most countries have become rarer in recent centuries. The death penalty is a disputed and controversial topic. About one third of the countries in the world have laws that allow the death penalty.[1] The United States, The People's Republic of China, Japan and Iran are examples of countries that have a death penalty. Canada, Australia, Mexico and all members of Council of Europe are examples of countries that have abolished the death penalty. Over half the countries in the world have gotten rid of the death penalty in law and practice: 75 countries have gotten rid of the capital punishment for all crimes and another 20 can be considered abolitionist in practice. The latter retain the death penalty in law but have not carried out any executions for the past 10 years or more. Most of the countries that have a death penalty use it on murderers, and for other serious crimes such as rape or terrorism. Other countries especially ones with Authoritarian or Totalitar
Evolution based on Abiogenesis is more Rational than Creationism

Unfortunately, my opponent has forfeighted round 3. I would not like to burden the readers with any more arguments so I will extend my arguments. Con has not given any relevant Creationist argument or evidence regarding the origins of life or it's gradual development. Con has not rebuted any of the arguments that I made so far. The resolution stands, evolution based on abiogenesis is more rational than creationism.
Evolution based on Abiogenesis is more Rational than Creationism

Though Pro rejected restrictions on what can be presented and when, I will refrain from rebuttal in this round and only present opening arguments:I will begin with a simple, purely rational argument (from contingency) [1] that the Universe requires a Creator:P1: Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence (either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause).P2: If the Universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God (as Creator).P3: The Universe exists.From P1 and P3, it logically follows that…C1: The Universe has an explanation of its existence.From P2 and C1, it logically follows that…C2: The explanation of the existence of the Universe is God (as Creator).Pro is free to deny any of the premises or conclusions, but he must provide sufficient warrant for his position(s). After all, we are debating which position is "more rational".This opening may appear to be very light on the content side, but my primary interest here is to understand how Pro can even account for the Universe and then the proposed conditions necessary to support the hypothesis of abiogenesis.Thanks again to Pro for the challenge and for his patience... I look forward to the coming rounds.[1] J.P. Moreland, William Lane Craig, “Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview” (IVP, 2003)
Evolution based on Abiogenesis is more Rational than Creationism

Acceptance of definitions:Evolution - (Pro's definition is acceptable for Pro's purposes):Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.Note: Personally, I would have stopped at "Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations." The "...as a result of..." part is incomplete; and the "...resulting in the development of new species" part is an unproven truth claim. I understand that this is what Evolutionists claim, but I wanted to make clear (as a formality) that my acceptance of the definition is not a concession or acceptance of the unproven truth claim.Abiogenesis - (Pro's definition is acceptable):The supposed development of living organisms from nonliving matter. Also called autogenesis,spontaneous generation.Note: This definition is much less biased, because it contains the qualifier, "supposed".God - (Pro's definition is acceptable):A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.Creationism - (Pro's definition is acceptable):The doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed.Acceptance of rules:I Accept!Note: Pro wanted a "genuine believer". I am that. More specifically, I will be arguing from a traditional, Protestant Christian worldview.Format (proposition):Pro mentioned (in the comments section), "I hope [this does] not constitute too much to cover..."I think we could keep the debate more manageable if we follow this structure:- Round 1: Acceptance (done)- Round 2: Opening arguments (no rebuttal)- Round 3: Rebuttals- Round 4: Cross-examinations (no new information)/closing argumentsPro can choose to honor this proposition or not. Pro should state his intentions at the beginning of his Round 2 post.I appreciate Pro's patience with me as we negotiated the terms and worked toward accepting the challenge. I look forward to a lively debate.
Evolution based on Abiogenesis is more Rational than Creationism

Important Definitions:Evolution - Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.Abiogenesis - The supposed development of living organisms from nonliving matter. Also called autogenesis, spontaneous generation.God - A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.Creationism - the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed.Rules:1) 10,000 characters will be allotted for each round of debate. All arguments and sources must be made within these 10,000 characters; nothing within in the comment section should be counted. Any glitch which would allow a debater to bypass this 10,000 character limit (including posting "pictures" of nothing but text a la Apeiron) is strictly prohibited.2) Any tactic which could be reasonably seen as semantics is forbidden.3) The burden of proof is shared.Breaking any of these rules will result in an automatic loss (via voters awarding all 7 points to the other participant). By accepting this debate, my opponent accepts and agrees to these rules.We will be debating to whether or not evolution after abiogenesis is more rational than Creationism based on accurate peer-reviewed evidence as well as logically sound arguments. I would prefer Con to accept the definitions and rules above before accepting the debate. I want a genuine believer to argue and show his/her best evidence and reasoning for an actual, observable, and provable account of Creationism. First round is for acceptance. I hope to have a stimulating and worthwhile debate with Con.
Canadian Music Battle

Ok, this is kinda like these other poetry battle type things, except you can only use Canadian music. You don't mix and match songs, just take a favorite part of a song and post it. For each round post three different quotes. There is no specific length of the quote, as long as its not the entire song lol. For example, I'll quote Rise Against's "Drones" (not Canadian, but I don't want to unknowingly steal a quote that my opponent may have thought of using). The drones all slave away They're working overtime They serve a faceless queen They never question why Disciples of a god That neither lives nor breathes But we have bills to pay, Yeah we have mouths to feed! Or it can be as simple as one line: I fought the law and the law won "I Fought the Law" by The Clash If you have any questions, feel free to ask in the round one or in the comments section. We'll start the "battle" in round two.
Canadian Music Battle

One song for the final round. Good job! ------------------------------------------------------------ Arms Around Me--Hawk Nelson ------------------------------------------------------------ When I hurt you, I never meant to hurt you I'm just trying to work through things in my life Emotions can be mean and I didn't really mean it I never stopped believing in your truth I'm not big on waiting I could use some patience This time I'm not afraid of losing Wrap your arms around me, I know Trying hard not to let go Every time I stand up, I fall without you When you wrap your arms around me, I know With me wherever I go Nothing else matters at all when you're here You're always near me even when it's ugly Even when I'm screaming up to you I'm thankful for your mercy, you always seem to hear me It's not always easy to push through I'm not big on waiting I could use some patience This time I'm not afraid of losing And I'm not one to frown when The sun is going down and I'm happy to just wait for you Wrap your arms around me, I know Trying hard not to let go Every time I stand up, I fall without you When you wrap your arms around me, I know With me wherever I go And nothing else matters at all when you're here I promise I'll never doubt you You know I'm lost without you Please hold me in your arms tonight Wrap your arms around me, I know Trying hard not to let go Every time I stand up, I fall without you When you wrap your arms around me, I know With me wherever I go Nothing else matters at all when you're here When you're here, when you're here
Canadian Music Battle

Alright, no problem. ----------------------------------------------- I'm sittin' at the wheel, I got a green light I'm not afraid of nothin' cause heart and soul I'm built for life So let the engines roar, push the pedal down I want the white lines on the higheay to lead me outta town I'm rolling on and on and on Who knows where I'm going? Life is an open road, it's the best story never told It's the endless sky, it's the deepest sea Life is an open road to me Open Road - Bryan Adams Source: I transcribed them myself by listening to the song ----------------------------------------------- American woman, stay away from me American woman, mama let me be Don't come hangin' around my door I don't wanna see your face no more I got more important things to do Than spend my time growin' old with you American woman, listen what I say American woman, get away from me American woman, mama let me be Don't come knockin' around my door Don't wanna see your shadow no more Coloured lights can hypnotize Sparkle someone else's eyes Now woman, I said get away American woman, listen what I say American Woman - The Guess Who Source: http://www.sing365.com... ----------------------------------------------- Goodbye, the future's sold out There's no use screaming Who thought we'd ever get this far? Tonight, your faith has come down To money and a TV Psychics who've never been to mars And nazis breast feeding I know you, must be upset I can't find meaning I'm sorry, we're sorry We're all scared, all scared Hey, is anybody home? Has anybody wasted tears on the loneliness That everyone becomes? Is Anybody Home? - Our Lady Peace Source: http://www.sing365.com... ----------------------------------------------- Thanks to rougeagent for this debate, it was interesting to hear new Canadian bmusic and I hope the voters will have some new music to listen to if they like any of these bands.