BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
IS Hilary Swank hot? Seriously, though- let's debate this.

You're right, you're right. It is unfair of me to find a poorly timed photograph of lumberjack Hilary looking like Lord Elrond's twin sister from Lord of the Rings. (1). https://srv4.imgonline.com.ua... Honestly, Hilary has plenty of better photos out there. Even in those photos, is she really scientifically hot? On her body: I decided to find what I personally considered a hot body. I found an article from David Wolfe; a beauty and health expert. (2) . https://www.davidwolfe.com... That's a 99-63-91 on the hotness scale and it's body type adored by men all over. Hilary has a nice body but it's a nice average body. How DARE science tell me what type of body is perfect. .. Anyways, throughout all of time, ideal body image standards have changed and I'm sure that throughout all of time there was that big booty'd woman who got all the attention from the men around her while all those standard bodied ladies gleamed back in jealousy. Unless, you know, it was the time of the big booties then vice versa I suppose. (3). http://celebmafia.com... Oh, hey Hillary's body. So, I notice that she could actually use some more weight on that body, then maybe she could beef up those legs and boobs a bit, and then she could maybe tan that body, and then maybe she has that scientifically perfect body type. .. eat a cheeseburger Hilary! Okay, okay. Yes, Oscar did project Hilary's face on screen, but did you take a close look at it? She isn't really all that symmetrical after all, check it out for yourself: (4) . http://static.newepisodes.co... Her eyes aren't looking in the same direction, her nose/smile are off center, and her chin is a little too long. She doesn't actually fit into the scientifically idea of symmetrical face. It's proven within the grid. I'm a designer, I live by the grid, I die by the grid. Anyhow, Hilary is hugely successful actress, that's cool. But how does Hilary stack against her actress peers? (5) . https://www.trendrr.net... (6) . http://www.imdb.com... Check those ladies out. Symmetrical faces, great bodies and what not, extremely feminine features, and timelessly beautiful. Scientifically hot. Hilary, unfortunately, she does not make the hot lists. I believe this to be so because hot she is not. Instead of a hot list, I see Hilary being ranked on a tom-girl who can fancy up whenever she feels like it. Probably pretty high. Currently, I do not believe Hilary to fit into your current findings of scientifically hot. So that will be all from me.
IS Hilary Swank hot? Seriously, though- let's debate this.

Way to take it like a champ, man. Let's debate! While I can't deny the fact that I am not jumping up and down for a chance to "boink" her, Hilary Swank is still hot. First of all, the image you shown is named "Hilary Swank No Makeup." If you want to prove someone doesn't look hot without makeup, allow me to show you Kate Upton- the well-known and popular cover girl who is often defined as hot for her curvy figure- without makeup. (1) (1) http://akns-images.eonline.com... But about the science- Justin Caba of Medical Daily writes in "What Men Want: 5 Types of Woman Men Want Based On Science" that one "type of woman want based on size is: Women With The Right Waist-To-Hip Ratio." He continues to write that "Optimal waist-to-hip ratio, calculated by measuring the waist circumference just above the upper hipbone and dividing it by hip circumference at its widest part, is considered 0.7 for women." (2) Why is this related? Hilary Swank's measurements are 34-24-34 ( breasts- waist- hips). So, her waist to hip ratio would come to about .705, which is approximately .7. (3) (2) http://www.medicaldaily.com... (3) https://www.celebritysizes.com... In the Prince Family Paper, Oscar brings up the symmetry of Swank's face with a power point- showing how favorable among straight guys symmetry really is- which happens to come with some truth. (6) Lauren Leising of Paste Magazine writes in her article "the Science of Attraction" that, "one of the oldest-known scientific explanations for why we find some people more attractive than others is whether or not their physical appearance is symmetrical. Symmetry has long been associated with perfection in art and nature and studies have shown that we prefer more symmetrical faces over those that are asymmetrical. When we are physically attracted to someone, our brains are really just judging whether or not they are well-proportioned, thereby deciding if their genetics are tough enough to have made it through development and are good to pass along to their future children." (7) (6) https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com... (7) https://www.pastemagazine.com... Here's a image of Swank that I personally found to be very hot. (8) (8) https://pmchollywoodlife.files.wordpress.com... These science-based findings may be referenced to on several lesser-known news sites with sometimes amateur reporters and journalists, but have reliable and valid results, no doubt. Looking forward to your turn! Good luck, man.
IS Hilary Swank hot? Seriously, though- let's debate this.

Oh wow, I clicked to debate. Well, in that case, that's what I mean to do. I will be taking the side of Con, Hilary Swank is not hot. That's my opinion and I doubt science can prove me wrong. Right now I'm sure Hilary Swank is sitting in her computer chair squirting whip cream into her mouth while farting and trying to be as sexy as possible but she's just not hot (I mean you no disrespect Hilary). Sure, I'd give her a high-five and consider her decent but my heart wouldn't be pumping out of my chest, my tongue wouldn't drop out of my mouth to the ground, and my head wouldn't burst at the sight of her, or any other cartoony arooga feelings I forgot to mention for that matter. I will not digress to hard. Here is my proof: (1) https://i2.wp.com... That's all I've got for my initial argument, Hilary Swank is not hot. Let the debate begin!
IS Hilary Swank hot? Seriously, though- let's debate this.

"You know what, why don't you close your eyes? Imagine that Hilary Swank comes into this office for real and she walks over to you and says Kevin Malone..." In Prince Family Paper of the Office, an interesting debate arose in the Scranton branch of Dunder Mifflin: Is Hilary Swank hot? When I first heard this I wasn't sure what people truly thought- whether people believed she was hot or not. We will be debating based on the definition of "hot" by Merriam-Webster: "sexually excited or receptive." While this debate is meant to be joking, I also intend on it being a serious debate. In this debate we will be allowed to post links to pictures, articles, and other resources in a simple three rounds of debating, and at five thousand words per turn. As for my side, I will take pro. My claim is that yes, Hilary Swank is hot and science can prove it. I look forward to debating! As always if you have any questions please feel free to message me and I will get back to you. Thanks everyone and have a good week!
The debate.org site rules should be more strictly enforced.

The debate.org site rules are the debate.org Terms of Use. [1. http://www.debate.org...] Among other things, the member agrees he: Will follow the following rules while participating on the site. Any disregard for these rules or any of the other terms or guidelines may result in termination of a member's account. No use of profanities or swear words. No personal attacks against other members or a member's opinions. No use of racial, sexual or religious slurs. No threats or implications thereof. The site owner has discretion as to how and to what extent the rules are enforced. In this debate, I will argue that the rules prohibiting profanity and personal attacks ought to be more strictly enforced. I'm not saying that DDO is totally negligent, or that there aren't many sites on the web that are worse. It may be the case that DDO is currently stepping up enforcement. For this debate, the level of enforcement typically practiced in the past year is the level referenced for discussion. I will argue that more strict rule enforcement aids in establishing the site as the premiere site for debate.The first round is for acceptance only. All arguments and source citations must be made within the character limits of the debate. No new arguments may be made by Con in the last round of the debate, because Pro has no debate round left to rebut them.This debate is the third round of ClassicRobert's Gauntlet Tournament. [2. http://www.debate.org...] I welcome my opponent to the arena.
Does god exist

"If there is a omnibenevolent god why do things like diseases still exist?" Because of sin. Sin caused evil to enter the world and God allows it to exist so that humans can have free will. That said, God does promise that one day there will be no more evil/disease. "How are you sure that the Christian god is the one true god?" I have a personal relationship with him and I also also believe what the people of the time period said about him. "Do you any other proof besides the bible and personal experience?" No other proof is needed. Although I gave you some arguments that you were never able to respond to. "Many of the actions attributed to god did not or cannot(scientifically) happen. My reasoning is stories like noah"s ark could not have happened under the laws of physics." Events like these could not be caused by humans. But an all powerful God could do whatever he wanted. He is the ultimate mathematician and scientist after-all. "According to the New York Times there are an estimated 10-50 million species." I would like to see a source for this. That said, how in the world would they know how many species there were when they weren't there? "God cannot have created the universe because there was scientifically not a time before the universe." Time did not exist before the universe. That is correct. This means that the cause of the universe had to be timeless which means that it is very probable that God created the universe. The big bang merely shows that the Universe had a beginning (including time) but it doesn't state what caused this beginning. I would ask my opponent what he thinks caused the universe into existence. "I am removing the bible as a credible source for pro to use. There are many contradictions within the Bible" No...there are no contradictions in the Bible. There are only people that refuse to read the whole thing. "This is a contradiction on whether god is for peace or war." I will give you the short response. God uses war to establish peace in certain circumstances. This really isn't that complicated to understand. "This is a contradiction on whether Jesus is equal or lesser than to God." Jesus is equal to God in the sense that he is God. But the father is greater in the sense that while Jesus is man, he was still subject to the laws God created (https://carm.org...). "To provide further contradictions I encourage both my opponent and any viewers to look at this link:" And why do people always go to links for Bible contradictions? I could refute every single claim in that link but yet it would be so much easier for you to read the whole Bible.
Does god exist

Since there is no way to prove god's existence I will try to cast doubt on god's existence and pro will try to show the likelihood of god. I have 3 main arguments for why the existence of god is highly unlikely, and propose 3 questions for my opponent to answer. My arguments are; 1. Many of the actions attributed to god did not or cannot happen. 2. God cannot of created the universe because there is not before the universe. 3. The bible contradicts itself My questions are; 1. If there is a omnibenevolent god why do things like diseases still exist? 2. How are you sure that the Christian god is the one true god? 3. Do you any other proof besides the bible and personal experience? My first argument: Many of the actions attributed to god did not or cannot(scientifically) happen. My reasoning is stories like noah"s ark could not have happened under the laws of physics. A seafaring vessel of this size physically cannot exist - it would be torn apart by the waves, as shown in the case of the Columbus and many others.(https://en.wikipedia.org...) There is not enough water on planet earth to hold a boat of this size. This also brings up the issue that the combined mass of 2 of every single type of animal(or 2 of every unclean and 7 of every clean animal, by another estimate) would sink the ship. According to the New York Times there are an estimated 10-50 million species. This is significant because it casts doubt the validity of the Bible, which is used as "proof" for God"s existence. My second argument: God cannot have created the universe because there was scientifically not a time before the universe. My reasoning is that the big bang was the birth of the universe so it was the birth of time so there is no time before the universe. Stephen Hawking said "There is nothing bigger or older than the universe," as a theoretical physicist he is very qualified to talk about these things. From what we know about the conception of our universe time is a concept that started at the beginning of our universe, there isn"t such thing as negative time. If there was no time before the universe, then when did God create it? My third argument: The bible contradicts itself. While not relating to the debate persay, I am removing the bible as a credible source for pro to use. There are many contradictions within the Bible such as: EXO 15:3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name. ROM 15:33 Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen. This is a contradiction on whether god is for peace or war. JOH 10:30 I and my Father are one. JOH 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I. This is a contradiction on whether Jesus is equal or lesser than to God. To provide further contradictions I encourage both my opponent and any viewers to look at this link: http://infidels.org....
Raise Minimum Wage

Thank you ConceptEagle for instigating this debate. Pro has the burden of proof for challenging the status quo and making the positive claim. As Con, my job is to cast doubt on his case. I will present my own arguments and a rebuttal.C1) EmploymentA higher minimum wage would increase the financial burden of companies to support their workers. Because companies will need to pay their employees more, some will be forced to lay off more workers and cut job opportunities for future laborers. More layoffs would lead to higher unemployment, with less money circulating through the economy. There is a positive correlation between higher minimum wage and unemployment rates [http://dailycaller.com...]C2) IncentiveWorkers who are being paid with a lower minimum wage will be more prompted to work harder and receive more education in order to get a higher paying job and climb the income ladder than those who are being paid at a higher minimum wage. Burger flippers will have more of an incentive to look for a better job if they are just being paid at $7.25 versus being paid at $10.10. Better jobs and more education will not only help the lower and middle classes but the economy as well, since jobs contribute to the labor market and further education will bring more money into colleges. A higher minimum wage prevents workers from wanting to moving up, since they are being paid more at a lower job.R1) Life necessitiesPro claims that a higher minimum wage will provide more money for workers to live on and to survive on better. As mentioned above, raising it will cause less workers to actually find the job they are looking for to survive in their country. If the minimum wage is raised, less workers will be motivated to move up and earn even more money for their family to live off of. If people need to earn the necessary money, then we need to give them motivation to do it, not spoonfeed them. A minimum wage of $16.97 will encourage people to not move up, but instead be a burden for businesses.
Sarah Palin: See Opening Argument for Resolution

Typo-ridden Ad hominems" This supports my point that PoeJoe is a complete D bag. Now on to my arguments. "My argument was that he was being serious--purposefully saying things wrong in order to foster attention and support. My opponent has completely missed the resolution of this debate" I say there is a connection between McCain and his campaign, and you disagree. This debate is on whether the choice of Sarah Palin, among other things, was done to increase poll numbers [in order to strengthen his campaign]. Am I wrong in adding that? I stated that because Senator McCain is old, he is incapable of sarcasm and humor. The idea of lying in order to increase poll numbers is ridiculous, and the idea to do something stupid which could misrepresent and possibly destroy your campaign is preposterous. McCain is too stern, austere, and stubborn to do something like that, because the many years the he has lived have shaped his life so that he does only what he believes and knows is right. Because of this, Senator McCain would not do the actions he has currently done in his campaign for shock value, he did them because he knew they were accurate and intelligent decisions.
Sarah Palin: See Opening Argument for Resolution

Thank you. I'm sure both my opponent and I appreciate it. ---- RE: Typo-ridden Ad hominems ---- "First off, I would like to state that I hate PoeJoe for reporting my recent arguements (sic)" You posted an irrelevant South Park video from YouTube. What you did was not only illegal (distributing copyrighted material), but also had nothing to do with the debate at hand. And, if I remember correctly, you posted a one word response! I think I was right in reporting your argument. "He is also a complete D bag. " Instead of getting angry, I'll just passively accept the conduct vote. "I agree that statistical evidence and quotes are boring, (sic) research is for people with time, so I will argue accordingly. " No, I think that both statistical evidence and quotes are very important in a debate. It's just that for this debate, I was admitting that I had no such evidence. Research is very important, and fun too! ---- RE: Senator McCaine (sic) is old ---- My opponent has stated that because Senator McCain is old, he is incapable of sarcasm or humor. However, this is a strawman argument. In fact, I never claimed he was being humorous anywhere in my opening argument! My argument was that he was being serious--purposefully saying things wrong in order to foster attention and support. My opponent has completely missed the resolution of this debate; and therefore I should win. I urge a PRO vote.
Sarah Palin: See Opening Argument for Resolution

First off, I would like to state that I hate PoeJoe for reporting my recent arguements and pointing out obvious but permissable typing mistakes. He is also a complete D bag. I agree that statistical evidence and quotes are boring, research is for people with time, so I will argue accordingly. My one and only contentions is as follows: 1) Senator McCaine is old Someone as old as him is incapable of sarcasm or humor. He would clearly disagree with your reasoning. If you say that his advisors are not that old, I would like to remind you that they are not the ones that end up choosing and saying those types of silly things, and if McCaine disagreed with their notions, he would drop out of the race before acting against his own will (Old people are stubborn and do not show greed). I await your rebuttal.
Sarah Palin: See Opening Argument for Resolution

First, a disclaimer: I don't actually believe anything I say in this debate. It was just a fun idea I came up with as I was walking home from school today; I am in no way a conspiracy theorist. I hope this will be fun. Also, because I have such a huge disadvantage (in choosing such a huge resolution/being the instigator in a two round debate), I request that my opponent not argue semantics--or anything equally absurd--and that s/he address the resolution in its entirety. Thank you. ---- Resolution (I Must Prove the Following) ---- McCain's VP pick, Sarah Palin, was chosen only to boost his poll numbers. Not only that, but the pick was a premeditated bad choice. McCain hoped that his bad choice would stir media attention, and that he would foster more support because of his choice. Indeed, the McCain campaign has purposefully done many stupid/bad things just to receive media attention. ---- Clarification / Argument ---- From the beginning, the McCain campaign has made several would-be fatal mistakes. "I'd stay in Iraq for 100 years! " and "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran! " are both quotes that should destroy a chance at the presidency; however, these actions only sparked more attention, getting more people to listen to what he had to say. When McCain starting releasing ads that compared Obama to Paris Hilton and Britney Spears, he should have been laughed at for being a slanderous pig; however, his poll numbers only strengthened. Surely someone in his campaign must have objected to such slander! No, it must have been released on purpose to gather more attention! !! Now, when McCain selected Sarah Palin as his VP running mate, his selection must have been calculated--I mean, who doesn't talk about all the possible talking points that Palin introduces? She has five kids; one of those kids is pregnant with a baby with down syndrome; she is a female; she is more clueless about foreign policy than Obama ("que es Bush Doctrine? "/"puedo ver Russia! "); she's from Alaska; and she is, quite simply, inferior to other more qualified selections such as Mitt Romney. Also, because of all the media attention McCain has received for selecting Palin as his VP running mate, his poll numbers have drastically improved. I shall admit from the start: I have no statistical evidence, nor do I have any quotes to work off of. Indeed, all my arguments shall be derived from logic and common sense. Because my resolution does make perfect sense. Why else would McCain be so careless in his decision making? I leave the floor open to my opponent.
genocide is okay if you're christian

rocks never turned evil man turned wicked Quoth the bible Genesis 6:5 - 10:32 5 Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 The LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. 7 The LORD said, "I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky; for I am sorry that I have made them."
Hot weather VS Cold weather

A1: Settlements Con brought up that a lot of people live in Alaska. Let's see how much. http://www.infoplease.com... About 736 thousand. It's the 48th most populated state. It's even behind Rhode Island, the smallest state. Clearly, most people don't like living there. In the 5 regions of the US, the South is the most populated. http://www.infoplease.com... A2: Disease Well, rabies isn't so life-threatening today. If you get a vaccine, you don't have to worry about it. But in the cold, there is a lot to worry about: Hypothermia, frostbite, trench foot, and chilblains are caused by exposure to cold weather. The main danger of hot weather, on the other hand, is just dehydration. It's easily avoidable by staying in the shade.
Hot weather VS Cold weather

But also you have to think of the ecosystem to with the weather. If we didn't have winter a lot of the plants would die from heat unlike in the winter, where they are just frozen. also look at Alaska it is freezing there but yet people still live there. also you do not have to worry about rabies in the winter as much (a deadly disease that humans can get also not just animals). As a result of winter this is how it reduces the risk of rabies. Come the winter, these survivors take off for hibernation roosts. Their metabolism slows to a crawl and their body temperatures drop. These cooler temperatures also slow the development of the rabies virus so it ends up hibernating along with its host. site- http://blogs.discovermagazine.com...