BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Earth Is Flat

The moon shines because its surface reflects light from the sun, So it does come from the sun. If the earth is flat, Does that make the moon flat? Gravity. This is a very important point about the earth. I brought up the point about the marathon runner that because he ran majority of the world non stop, Meaning the earth is round. If it were flat, He wouldn't have been able to run that much because on a flat earth, Gravity would work differently. "Why does there even need to a edge to the flat earth? " All flat objects have an edge to them, Similar to a disc. If the earth were flat, Then that's what it would look like, A disc. The earth's size isn't an infinite size. The radius of Earth at the equator is 3, 963 miles (6, 378 kilos). How is it inherently possible that the hypothetical flat earth doesn't have an edge? Time. A hypothetical flat earth would have a flat surface, Meaning the sun's rays strike the earth all at the same time. My point still stands. Seasons. "The sun is not millions of miles away" The Sun is at an average distance of about 93 million miles (150 million kilometers) away from Earth. It is so far away that light from the Sun, Traveling at a speed of 186 thousand miles (300, 000 kilometers) per second, And takes about 8 minutes to reach us. Lunar Eclipse. A lunar eclipse occurs when the Moon passes directly behind Earth and into its shadow. This can occur only when the Sun, Earth, And Moon are exactly or very closely aligned (in syzygy), With Earth between the other two. During a total lunar eclipse, Earth completely blocks direct sunlight from reaching the Moon. In a lunar eclipse, Earth comes directly between the Sun and Moon – an alignment that puts the Moon in Earth's shadow. "a 5 hour long lunar eclipse is impossible on the globe earth" Explain how. "The shadow on the lunar eclipse moon is just as curved as the shadow on the sun during a solar eclipse. " That's not true because the sun is much larger than the moon. Other planets. Physics dictates that all planets and exoplanets are spherical. Celestial bodies that have substantial mass are molded into a sphere due to gravity, Which pulls objects toward the gravitational center of mass. "globe earth believers" shouldn't even be a thing. You "flat earthers" are a thing.
The Earth Is Flat

This can either be acceptance round by the opponent and I'll put my argument for Round 2 or they can go ahead and go first with their argument. I did not read all of your comments in the other earth debate, So if you would like to copy and paste what you said here in the debate, Then go ahead. Or if you want to use a different argument then okay. I will be arguing the fact that the earth is not flat and they will be arguing that the earth is flat.
religion is one

As per GEETA(YATHARTH GEETA),chapter 4/31, GOD CAN BE SEEN : "0 Arjun. mighty armed one, a worshipper can know this form of mine directly, acquire its essence, and even become one with it by a total and unswearing dedication." It is easy to see Him face to face, know Him and even gain entry into Him through intense devotion. "Only a seer, views the soul as a marvel, another one describes him as a marvel, and yet another hears him as a marvel, while there are some who hear him and yet know Him not. An enlightened sage could see this SOUL as a rare wonder. This is direct perception. i would like to elaborate a bit more clear......that whenever any worshiper moves towards god then till he/her has become one with the almighty,would be identified as incomplete......god has nothing to become any thing,its us who have to identify god,and in this process we are helped by those who have already known that god and has become one with him like JESUS,RAM,KRISHNA,MOHAMMED,MUSAA etc.Religion is not any book but its a way by which action is performed to know the truth that is god.Suppose I give you a maths book n ask you to solve its problems without teaching you 1,2,3....and various symbols,then would you be able to solve it?Answer is no,you can not solve in your life time without a maths teacher.Lord BUDDHA,JESUS all were those teachers who had become one with that god under his guidance only,but we directed by our human nature counted even religion more than one........Lord BUDDHA says that when a person moving towards god knows the half truth,considers him/herself as supreme,but when knows more than half then finds himself as the most dumb person.
religion is one

for every single human being religion is one,what ever we know about 4 or 5 religions,actually they are the footprints of those teachers who taught us about one god and one religion.like if we take mathematics as religion then what so ever be the numbers of teachers they would be teaching the same subject that is mathematics.but here next question comes that what is its importance..........answer is it frees us from our nature with the help of those who has freed themselves from their nature,like lord buddha,jesus,mohhamed and many of them...........
Should kids date

Pro's arguments are weak and with no facts. Young people should not date until they are at least in their teen years (16), because young people need to care about themselves, and shouldn't change themselves, their interests, or their performance in school because their boyfriend or girlfriend doesn't like they way they already are! (1) And anyways, 16 may be to young! Dating is modern day courting, so if you're to young to marry, you're most likely to young to date! (2) Out of space, links next!
Corporations and other legal entities will continue to exist even after the world ends

"They continue to exist until they are unincorporated (in other words struck off the register). " That's a main problem with your argument. The "Register" is part of this world- the records of this world. If the world ends, so goes its records. The fact of the world ending strikes them all off the register ipso facto. Also, corporations exist only as a product of the individuals who have signed on. If all those individuals are dead, and have no living heirs, and they had no living heirs, the corporation no longer exists.
Corporations and other legal entities will continue to exist even after the world ends

This subject relates to legal persons (corporations). They come into existence when they become registered as corporations. They continue to exist until they are unincorporated (in other words struck off the register). The existence of a corporation is not dependent on its ability to trade. It's not dependent on the existence of a director or a shareholder. Even if in order to incorporate a company those things are required, they are not required for the company's continued existence. Corporations do not need to own assets in order to continue to exist. In fact, so-called "shelf companies" are registered legal entities that sit on a "shelf" completely inactive. People can actually buy them. Corporations do not require anything physical in fact in order for their continued existence. They do not require a physical world around them. As long as they have come into existence and until such time as they are struck off the register by an appropriate authority, they will continue to exist. Here's my proposition: If today the world would end (or even the universe), McDonalds and Coca Cola and other entities would continue to exist simply because they've never had a chance to die. Yes, I do realise that no one will ever be able to test this empirically.
Corporations and other legal entities will continue to exist even after the world ends

"My opponent takes the PRACTICAL view of the issue." No, I don't. There is no "practical" view of the issue of what happens when the world ends. What is practical depends upon what it is you seek to practice. When the world ends, there is nothing left to practice. Since this is obvious, I can only conclude you aren't paying close attention when you say I take a "Practical" view, or you are being disingenous. "A legal entity, however, exists, whether or not my learned opponent believes in it or not." Then prove it. "He may be an anarchist " Nope. "or believe that law is irrational." Yep, though that has little bearing here. What has bearing here is not whether the law is irrational but whether it is a mystical entity which can make things suddenly exist through nothing more than a word. I hold that it is not. "I can't take issue with his believes there. That doesn't change the fact that these entities are recognised, are documented in literature, including dictionaries, both legal and otherwise." Neither dictionaries nor other legal literature make things exist simply by writing about them. The law has, at various times in various locales, recognized such entities as "Yahweh," "Zeus," "Ancestor spirits," etc. This does not mean those all exist. "And yet, they are good law until revoked/repealed/quashed. Speeding at 150m/h on a deserted highway with no one to see me, I still commit an offence." Yet this "Law" is often broken in places where it IS enforceable. It is those instances which are the referents of it's existence- the instances where you are arrested for speeding at 150 m/h on a non-deserted highway. Whereas when the world ends, there are no such instances. :D "A law exists until it is revoked." If it exists in the first place, yes- until revoked by reality- which may or may not come in the form of a human legislature revoking it. Note, that you never addressed the point about the Magna Carta vs. the Constitution. Are you conceding that by your definitions the Constitution (which is the source of current US law, in which corporate rules are written) is illegitimate? And therefore conceding that the Magna Carta too was illegitimate since it was derived from a monarch's law, which was established in direct defiance of the law of Imperial Rome? And that, if I remember right, was established contradictory to the previous laws of the previous rulers of the Italian Peninsula? You'd have to go a LONG way back to find a law that's legitimate on your arguments, and I guarantee it has no reference to "Corporations."
Corporations and other legal entities will continue to exist even after the world ends

My opponent takes the PRACTICAL view of the issue. I can't argue that there is such a physical thing as "corporation". There isn't, never has been, never will be. A legal entity, however, exists, whether or not my learned opponent believes in it or not. He may be an anarchist or believe that law is irrational. I can't take issue with his believes there. That doesn't change the fact that these entities are recognised, are documented in literature, including dictionaries, both legal and otherwise. Once again, I never once intended to argue that they are physical entities. The entities are legal entities, created by law which in itself is not a physical thing. Aside all the arguments about trees and ants and the meaning of "meaning", the position is this: A legal entity is created and exists until it is OFFICALLY dissolved. The one argument put by my opponent that apparently has legs is that in the event of the end of the world (or universe), law would cease to exist and hence any instruments created by it. That's because law cannot exist if it can't be enforced. However, plenty of laws exist currently that are not enforceable! And yet, they are good law until revoked/repealed/quashed. Speeding at 150m/h on a deserted highway with no one to see me, I still commit an offence. The law is present even though there is no policeman (or anyone) to enforce it. Non-enforceability cannot be enough to say there's no law. Equally, non-applicability cannot. The fact that a law is useless or unneeded doesn't negate its existence. A law exists until it is revoked. If a new regime comes into place, takes over the old and creates new laws, those laws may in fact prevail. But that's a different question altogether. The point here is that non-enforceable, unneeded, immoral and wrong laws are still laws. None of those things negate their existence. Laws do not require space to "live in". Unlike people in the "homeless" section of this argument. Laws exist until repealed. Whether they're needed or not. Corporations exist until OFFICIALLY dissolved. Whether they're needed or not.
Police - The new domestic military

Directly from my blog http://teejayflow.blogspot.com... Take your time reading these articles. Witness the true magnitude of corruption. This is what our nation has succumb to. This is what it is to be a "protector". This is the direction that our government has allowed, and our people have ignored. http://www.alternet.org... Police using steel barriers to cage in protesters to the sidewalks, claiming it is to "keep people out of the roads for traffic" when in reality, majority of people actually walk in that area so there really isn't any traffic. Not to mention police are in those areas in the middle of the roads and arresting people for climbing over the barriers or just walking on the road side of them. The police are ignoring any contact with them regarding the "illegality" of being on the road side of the barriers. Citizens of the area claim that the police are much more of a problem than the protesters themselves! The peaceful protesters have marched by buildings and such and done nothing violent or costly to anyone except for walking(stated by a business owner in that area, who also claimed the barriers were hurting his business), yet the police are arresting people left and right for crimes the police themselves provoked. It is as if the police get paid for every person they lock up regardless of the charges and they just think a peaceful protest is a jackpot for victims. http://www.alternet.org... We fight against terrorism for decades in the Middle East while the domestic "public protectors" arm with bulletproof suits and grenade launchers and fully-automatic machine guns against peaceful protesters whom they arrest under fraudulent charges and astronomically exaggerated fairy tales... Meanwhile our economy crumbles. These Neo-Nazis make me sick. At least when Nazi Germany was around their economy was prosperous. We just have corrupt SOLDIERS("police") meeting a quota of corrupt arrests because they see a peaceful protest as a jackpot, further killing our economy by draining our tax dollars to pay for these gluttonous hogs to feast on the weak and peaceful victims, protesters. Is it hog hunting season yet? Get your shotguns ready. http://www.alternet.org... The police are minions of the constitution. Yet they outright violate people's rights that were given on the HIGHEST LEVEL LAW OF THE LAND, THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. How does the lowest level of government (police) get away with breaking the highest level of rules (the constitution)? The government better start doing their job that WE PAY THEM TO DO. Or a revolution will happen, a very much needed one. No longer will we stay the victims of those that we employ. YOU WORK FOR US, YOU WILL DO WHAT WE WANT. Don't forget that, feds.
Police - The new domestic military

"I have friends who are police and they have told me they have to arrest a certain amount of people a year" Am I the only person who thinks that A) you made this up and B) The fact that you have shown tremendous hatred towards the police implies you would never ever ever have any friends that happen to be police officers who happen to have told you there is a quota for arrests....I find it a little concerning that the Con cannot tell the difference between a flash grenade and an actual military-grade grenadeThe Con has also not offered a counter argument to why he feels that living in Nazi Germany is better than living in America...I like how the claims I havent learned math when he thinks that $1 = $4.2 R and in the same sentence states that,$233 Billion = $60 billion R..... A 4 year old could figure out that the ratios dont matchCon has forfeited how the police are allegedly minions of the Constitution Con has forfeited how we live in a Constitutional Republic, not a democracyCon has forfeited how we spend the majority of our budget on programs that do not go to law enforcementCon has forfeited how armed the local police areCon has forfeited how all cops are evil and has admitted there are some good onesCon has countered all my other arguments in the third round with either opinions or rantings, no evidence or factsBut wait, look at this, his very last argument"Those of us who have had the experience of going through the system know it didn't have to go like it did"It all makes sense now..... The Con was arrested for something!!!!!!!He went through the system where he was caught doing something illegal, he didnt like how he was treated, and hes been ranting against the police on his blog ever since and only now has been using rare occurrences of police brutality from the Occupy Wall Street movements to try to justify his biased hatred towards cops :OI rest my case
Who would win? Silver(Sonic the Hedgehog), or Sans( Undertale)

Please through that argument that my opponent has made out. My opponent talks about reading Frisk's face to see that he's died X times, but we have to realize that doing such a realization is improbably and a knowledge of the space-time continium would be the only probable answer here. My opponent also brings up fighting Frisk, but we do have to realize that despite what he might state, Frisk has defeated a great deal of beasts including the self-proclaimed god, Photoshop Flowey [1]. Sans has constantly reset Flowey with him knowing that he can become a god shows that he can do a great deal of things concidering that he can defeat a god. Sources1. (. http://undertale.wikia.com...)
Who would win? Silver(Sonic the Hedgehog), or Sans( Undertale)

While your argument is very good,it has some flaws: - video shows that even when a time entity like Rosalina resets time, Silver will still be around. -I don't think Sans' abilities(Gaster Blasts, Bones, etc. ) would count as transcending time and space. -It is never shown or said that Sans can reset time, only that Flowey has had to reset many times to defeat him. -As Sans said himself, "Thats the LOOK of someone who's died *** times. " I don't think resetting and reading people's faces are the same thing. -While Silver maybe extremely arrogant, , and can get exhausted, Sans is also shown to be extremely exhausted by a 15 minute fight with a child. Plus, it is seen in the Sonic Comic Encyclopedia that Silver can replenish his energy with power rings. As I never specified where the fight was, it could be anywhere. So, if it's in Sonic's world, and theres power rings nearby, Silver could easily defeat Sans as soon as Sans gets exhausted too. -Silver (with Sonic and Shadow's help) defeated Iblis, who is basically the God of Sonic's world. In the video above, he'salso shown to be able to defeat Rosalina, who, can RESET TIME.
Who would win? Silver(Sonic the Hedgehog), or Sans( Undertale)

Sans is a character that can transend both time and space. He has been known to be able to do some of the things that both Asriel and Frisk can do, though not to the same ability as Frisk. Sans is able to reset time, but is unable to do it if it conflicts with Frisk's "Determination." Flowey himself claims in the neutral ending that Sans, ""caused more than [his] fair share of resets," and has constantly defeated him [1]. Unlike Silver, Sans's reset of time will have him beable to constantly defeat Silver regardless of the cercumstances. This is constantly seen when Frisk, or Chara pending on your play through, faces Sans in battle. Each time Chara is defeated, Sans has knowledge of the death of Chara. It is the failure of the interaction rule with Chara/Frisk that prohibits him from resetting time. http://www.youtube.com...Silver has a critical weakness that would contribute to his defeat against Sans, these issues is his temper and the fact that if he overuses his power, and often he does, he becomes heavily fatigued [2]. This is something that will have him fall to the hands of Sans in a fight. Sans, has the power to Control a person's soul in a fight which and his fighting style would result in trouble when it comes to the fight with Silver as Silver's fatigue would lead to his downfall and Sans's quick adjility would be fast to dodge much of Silver's attacks. If you also observe the skulls that he uses in battle, you can recognize that they bare a similiar resemblance to the one's of the Royal Family, a key one is that of Asriel. It becomes highly feasible that he has defeated Asriel in this timeline as Flowey does not transform into him on this route. This shows that he has destroyed the strongest creature in the game as his power level was that of infinity attack and defense. Sources1. (http://undertale.wikia.com...) 2. ( http://sonic.wikia.com...)
Who would win? Silver(Sonic the Hedgehog), or Sans( Undertale)

Silver is a time traveling hedgehog from 200 years in the future of Sonic's timeline. He has a plethora of abilities. Psycokinesis- able to life anythng from rocks to giant robots and crush, throw, levitate them, etc. Flight- his abilities also give him the ability to fly, and , while in flight, can b as fast as Sonic (who's about 2000 mph). Time travel- with a chaos emerald in hand, Silver can basically travel to any part in time. (The only reason I will not post any links this round is my school's stupid firewall gets in the way of all of them.) How Silver can beat Sans: -Silver can just lift him and crush him like a bug. -He can travel back in time and kill him when he was a baby(cheap, but still a useful tactic) -before you say anything about him dodging Chara's attacks, remember, Chara's a human, so her attacks are things only humans can do. Sans has also never been shown to have combatted magic in any way. -and much more.
Chris Kyle a was not a hero nor did he fight for our freedom.

I think he should be admired for being a Master of War, Merciless, Champion, and what I admire most about him is that he did not show any shame in dehumazing the enemy because that is the only way he could enjoy what he does is by bringing them down to savage level. He was not remourseful and when asked if he thinks that the Iraqis might consider him a savage he said he doesn't know and he doesn't care. And he said in a interview that he enjoyed killing savages. It isn't a sacrifice when you openly admit that you do it because you enjoy it. There is nothing wrong with that. Someone has to protect the little bit of land and resources that are left on this planet and that is ultimately what it is about it is a Natural instinct that every living species will carry . Now the people he killed were insrugents.....they were rebelling against their own Government. They are doing what the Americans did when they rebelled against Great Britain during the revolutionary war. We were once the radical extremist. Let the damn arabs have their revolution and quit using our freedom as an excuse the history on the war in Iraq doesn't start at 9/11. When we stop pretending like we hold the moral high ground and start making honest choices , and thinking critically in how we elect and what policy we will support and stand up against leaders and hold them accountable for the bad choices they have made....and demand that they stop stealing from their own people *by they I mean imposed taxes* in order to support a bunch of jews and their occupation in Palestine.........and we fight to change our penal system.....then no American freedom is being taken into consideration. Calling them hero and sayng they are fighting for our freedom is political rhetoric it is sycophancy and it's is shallow.