BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Scorpions are good pets in general.

=Scorpions are generally not lethal=The number of scorpion species on the planet is estimated to be around 1,752, and they are found in all continents except for Antartica [1]. The number of scorpion species that are able to to deliver lethal stings to humans is estimated to be 25 [1]. This means that only 1.42% of scorpion species are capable of killing a human being [3]. Since the number of lethal scorpion species is so low, it can be known that scorpions are generally not harmful.The fear humans have for scorpions is like the fear we have for sharks and other 'monsters'. We think they're going to kill us, but in fact, we harm them a lot more than they harm us.[1] http://tinyurl.com...[2] http://tinyurl.com...[3] http://tinyurl.com...=Scorpions are easy to take care of=Scorpions are very easy to keep. After you have set up the terrarium for it, it's not a challenge to keep it well-fed and happy. All a scorpion needs is a ten gallon tank (minimum) and a hiding spot to hide under [1]. Scorpions do not require food that often. Most scorpions only need to be fed 1-2 times a week and 1-2 proper sized crickets each feeding [2]. A bag of crickets will cost $18.69 for 250 crickets [3]. When you take into consideration the fact that you can't feed a scorpion before molting or after molting, you will be buying cricket food very rarely.Even if you forgot to feed your scorpion, some scorpions can survive without eating any food for a year [4]. Even the most irresponsible pet owner would be able to take care of one just fine.[1] http://tinyurl.com...[2] http://tinyurl.com...[3] http://tinyurl.com...[4] http://tinyurl.com...=Conclusion=(1): Almost 99% of scorpion species are not lethal to humans.(2): Scorpions are easy to take care of.
Scorpions are good pets in general.

I will be arguing that scorpions are good pets in general, and Con will be arguing that scorpions are not good pets in general. Good- To be desired or approved of Scorpions- A terrestrial arachnid (order Scorpiones) Pet - an animal kept in confinement General- not confined by specialization or careful limitation First round is for acceptance. The debate will be back and forth arguments and counter-arguments (no semantics). Good luck!
Youtube being used a place for fighting, not social networking.

First off yes, my argument was more opinion based but every debate is formed by an opinion, so I don't see the significance in that argument. I pulled this definition of a comment off of dictionary. com: a remark, observation, or criticism. The definition of argument does differ, an oral disagreement; verbal opposition; contention; altercation The people on youtube are asking for "comments" not arguments. That is considered a fact, not opinion. My point in this debate is when someone posts a music video they do not want users arguing over an irrelevant topic such as global warming, etc. They want constructive criticism or just liking or disliking the video. You're right, I did not create youtube. This does not change anything, it just simply proves I am not the creator of youtube. I do know that it is a place to upload and watch videos, not post debates. No, many people do not know about this website. They could post their arguments and opinions else where, but it should stay off youtube. When I am watching a video for something such as skateboarding, I want to see what other people think about the video. I do not want to see people complaining to each other about random things. Once again yes, these are all opinions, but all debates are based on Pro and Con opinions. Thanks.
Youtube being used a place for fighting, not social networking.

"The majority of youtube's videos contain (in my opinion) 10% reflection of the video, and 90% arguments over things completely unrelated. " This is merely opinion. You stated it yourself. Thus, you cannot prove it with valid evidence. "Is this what Youtube was created for? I believe not. " You cannot fully know what YouTube was created for. You did not create YouTube, so this is once again a mere opinion. "The comment section on the website if used for "commenting" the video, not global problems. " The comment section on the webiste states, "Text Comments. " It does not clarify what you must type about. How do you know it's not meant both for commenting on the video and discussing the world's problems. You can't prove that. "If people feel such a need to post these things on the Internet, why not use this website? Its relatively easy to find, also free of cost. " Most people do not know about this website simply because they are not interested in debate or simply have other blogs that they can post on. People do not necessarily think about going online and doing a search for random debate websites. They can post this stuff on YouTube, facebook, etc. DDO is not necessarily an answer. "Whoever accepts this debate as a pro, should tell me why they think "Youtube" debates" are acceptable. " I think YouTube debates are acceptable because there is no valid reason for them to be unacceptable. Resolution affirmed. Thank you.
Youtube being used a place for fighting, not social networking.

In this debate, I will first thank whoever accepts it. I will hope to make it as interesting as possible. A few years ago, I became a member of youtube. I subscribed to post, rate, and comment on other peoples videos. The majority of youtube's videos contain (in my opinion) 10% reflection of the video, and 90% arguments over things completely unrelated. Is this what Youtube was created for? I believe not. The comment section on the website if used for "commenting" the video, not global problems. If people feel such a need to post these things on the Internet, why not use this website? Its relatively easy to find, also free of cost. Whoever accepts this debate as a pro, should tell me why they think "Youtube" debates" are acceptable.
Do you believe Methuselah is the oldest man in The Bible? I don't.

I meant this as a Bible trivia thread. Now I'm forced to point out a personal attack. Personal attack: Your beliefs get questioned, you don't know how to respond, so you attack. That's the way the pro began this debate. He challenged my integrity. Look at the first comment on this thread. His first sentence explains he didn't know who I would name... then he attacked my character. Nothing in his comment makes me believe he could think of one of the names Kyle mentioned. But, he obviously understood my position. Check out his 2nd to the last sentence in comments. My 2nd paragraph is a question asking, how well do you know The Bible? and the title is a question. Kyle named 3 men in response. The pro couldn't even name one, so he attacked. Now he's even trying to change the rules, and use 3 Bibles; and also redefine time. Enoch was born thousands of years ago by our calendar; and he never died. Methuselah's been dead for thousands of years. Enoch is older than Methuselah.
Do you believe Methuselah is the oldest man in The Bible? I don't.

And Con was deliberately trying to keep the full topic of the debate from a Challengers awareness until they have already accepted and it's too late. Though this deception was rectified Pre-debate it was not of Con's lack of effort to keep it a secret. Consider this when casting a vote on Conduct. The following is the relevant verses in question in the 3 kinds of Bible translations (thought for thought, word for word, and combination of the two) . https://www.biblegateway.com... 969 is older than 365. Yes the passage does say Enoch technically did not die but that does not mean he can be considered to continue growing after God 'took him'.
Do you believe Methuselah is the oldest man in The Bible? I don't.

Aloha. People often judge The Bible by the words of men; but Jesus warned, In vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. Mt. 15:9 How well do you know what The Bible actually says? In Genesis 5:27, Methuselah lived 969 years. According to Bible scholars, Methuselah is the oldest man mentioned in The Bible; and if you look up his name online, you will see many sites that claim he is. The only source I'll use or accept is a King James (commonly known as The Authorized Version) Bible; and I'll prove Methuselah isn't the oldest man in The Bible. Mahalo nui loa for your time. Marauder said in the comments, he wouldn't take the debate; because, he didn't know who I would argue was older than Methuselah. He also implied that my character is not good; and I'm hiding something. Now that Kyle has made my case, I'm challenging Marauder to refute it. He said he would.
Do you believe Methuselah is the oldest man in The Bible? I don't.

But the people you mentioned did not live for 1,000 of years after Methuselah died, the Word of God specifically says "and then he was not" in reference to Enoch. He was 'translated in heaven'. And my point is, if your going to count years after being translated into heaven, if heaven can even be considered to time in years pass in it, as part of Enoch, or Elijah's long lives, then you might as well count Methuselah's years in heaven as part of his age. sure he died to get there but he no less lives there now because of the method of his arrival. And likewise if you get to count years in heaven as part of age the way you are counting them for Enoch's, then all of our years with God in heaven must count as part of our age, and as you yourself admitted this means our lives began before the creation of the universe itself. Making all of us the same age. As for Mark, What Mark actually says is "till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power" (KJV). They saw this on Easter Sunday
Do you believe Methuselah is the oldest man in The Bible? I don't.

Going by chronological order from, The evening and the morning were the first day, in Ge. 1:5, until Methuselah was born in Ge. 521; and Enoch was born 65 years earlier than Methuselah. By that same calendar in The King James Bible, Enoch is older than Methuselah. Elijah didn't die either in 2 Ki. 2:11; so, he'd be thousands of years older than Methuselah too. There's also the people in Mark 9:1, which Jesus said, wouldn't taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God come with power. They were alive about 2,000 years ago, never tasted death, and nothing says they are in heaven. He did choose us before the foundation of the world. Eph. 1:4; but we weren't born before Methuselah: and we didn't live for thousands of after he was dead, the way the people who I mentioned did. And... there's the Gentile high priest Melchisedec... who is without beginning of days, or end life. The Letter to the Hebrews 7:1-3. Thank you con. I appreciate the tone in your last post. Aloha nui loa
Do you believe Methuselah is the oldest man in The Bible? I don't.

I understand Con stated he only accapts the King James Version in round 1, but don't pretend a definition for time or age or anything else was set then. There are no debate definitions given in that round. And there shouldn't be. Arguing what rhetoric and semantics is most accurate in this issue is the whole point of the debate. As for using 3 Bible's I always do this for any interested 3rd party viewers who may prefer seeing that the translations all agree, which they do. But don't ignore that I take careful effort to only base my arguments on the KJV. Now consider this; does Methuselah have birthdays in heaven? Sure he's dead but his sole lives on. Can you say he kept ageing? Of course not. Enoch does not either even if he went to heaven without dying. The passage says he now "is not". So he 'is not' older. And if we count our existence outside of earth as our age should it stop after we die? Technically you and I are as old as Enoch (eph 1:4)
Is Pokemon GO a good game

Pok"mon GO is a very great game. I personally am level 18 and it is hard to fight gyms but only in very populated areas, and if you have a friend who is on the same team it will be much easier. It was very hard to get multiple of the more rare Pok"mon but that's why they added the buddy system so you can walk around with your buddy and get more candies. I do happen to live in an area with not that many Pok"mon but I sometimes go on bike rides to more populated areas so I can catch more Pok"mon. I also think I that it help you and your kids because instead of sitting inside all day playing games you can go out side get exercise and explore areas you have never seen. Some people might say that "people die all the time playing the stupid game" but Pok"mon GO gives you warnings about not trespassing, being aware of your surroundings and to not play Pok"mon GO well driving. Plus you can't hatch eggs well you are going to fast to encourage not playing the game well driving. In all I think the game is very fun and has lots of nice features to help keep people safe.
FIFA should use modern technology in matches

Thank you, my gorgeous opponent, for setting up this debate. It seems it was needed, going by the comments section. I'd first like to say that I've generally no interest in any sort of sport of foreign origins, aside from playing them, and it's not for any stupid patriotic reason, just that I have enough to talk about with our own national games and I prefer them anyway. I have, however, watched quite a few soccer matches, and I've made a show of myself once or twice at the pub on my feet roaring for teams from which I couldn't name a single player. It does grab you... at least after a few pints anyway. I think the reason the game grabs you so much and has been such a success is partly due to all those things that using modern technology would kill. Soccer players break the game's rules constantly and are often fully aware that they are doing so. Can I use a person as a source? [1] The way it is now allows for an element of strategy that has been in it since the game's beginning and introducing modern technology as a means of more efficiently enforcing the game's rules would kill this element of strategy. I can't speak for the players and what way they'd want the game reffed, but they certainly seem to take advantage of human refereeing limits at every opportunity, and it's also a fairly sure way to put themselves down in world history. Who hasn't heard of the Hand of God? [2] In my opinion, it would be a shame. Soccer is, basically, a non-contact sport, so it'd be fairly boring to watch if the rules weren't broken in probably every match that has ever been played. It would be like watching the olympics, or tennis. There's nothing to cheer for in those sports. The only thing I'd ever watch to do with tennis is if someone gets a tennis racket bounced off them or something like that. Sport happens to be the main topic of conversation for quite a lot of men, and, as it is now, soccer generates more humourous conversation, helping us all to get along just that bit better. I know this might sound like complete bullsh1t to anyone who only watches the World Cup, but I'm sure the Brits have some idea what I'm saying. Soccer is a drama. There's bad guys and good guys. Take Brian's ranting about Ronaldo, and I'm sure one thing will come to mind for the English when I say Drogba. It's just good crack to support. There are plenty of funny digs to be thrown at fans of opposing teams. Tighten the rules and all we'll be left with is admittance that a player is either good or bad. That's boring! Us fellas need something to bond over... and for a lot of us, soccer is that something. Tightening the rules would be like taking all those different kinds of shoes from women and leaving them with just bad one or good ones. This is a terrible argument. I wrote it last night and at the time I was fairly spaced out of it. I'd try and fix it now, but I've only half an hour and I'll be leaving any minute anyway. I'll make myself more clear in my other rounds. It's weird to read things that you wrote and have no memory whatsoever of having written them.
Girls get better grades than boys in school

I have to disagree. Smarts are down to the individual regardless of their gender. In my school there are girls who cannot be bothered to complete their homework and are always handing it in late or 'forgetting' to complete it. I myself have been one of those girls on a handful of occasions. And, of course, there are always the boys who take part in all the extra-curricular they can and love learning and soaking up knowledge. There are girls like this and boys like the girls I mentioned earlier. I can name a few boys in my year who always go the extra mile in things such as science projects, building elaborate models and using their knowledge of technology to make fun, original presentations. There are girls and boys who will do the bare minimum. I feel there fore that girls and boys are equally matched and the thing that sets them apart is their attitude to school. This has nothing to do with the genitalia of a student.
Girls get better grades than boys in school

It seems that girls are smarter than boys. Throughout the years girls have outperformed boys from studying more and spending less time on video games. Girls are always more dedicated to getting work done and are more focused and alert in school. The girls in my class have always done their homework as soon as they get it or is done as soon as possible, whereas the boys are always doing it last minute or on the day are scrambling for answers. Another thing is girls put a lot of effort into their work and have always done their best, but that's not just the case with boys where they look like they are doing the work correctly but actually not a lot of effort is put into the work.
Religion, The World's Greatest Evil

Religion has, without doubt, caused the most hatred and bigotry in the world. In this debate, I will cover: PART 1 - ULTIMATE EVIL PART 2 - EFFECTS ON SOCIETY PART 3 - PANDEMIC Conclusion This debate will discuss how Religion does or does not poison everything. Rules Rule 1 - The opponent should discuss how Religion is nothing but a positive effect on people. Rule 2 - There will be no saying which God is better than the other. Rule 3 - This will not only be the Christian God, but every God PART 1 - ULTIMATE EVIL This happens to be one of my favorite quotes from the Bible. "I have wiped out many nations, devastating their fortress walls and towers. Their cities are now deserted; their streets are in silent ruin. There are no survivors to even tell what happened. I thought, 'Surely they will have reverence for me now! Surely they will listen to my warnings, so I won't need to strike again.' But no; however much I punish them, they continue their evil practices from dawn till dusk and dusk till dawn." So now the LORD says: "Be patient; the time is coming soon when I will stand up and accuse these evil nations. For it is my decision to gather together the kingdoms of the earth and pour out my fiercest anger and fury on them. All the earth will be devoured by the fire of my jealousy. "On that day I will purify the lips of all people, so that everyone will be able to worship the LORD together. My scattered people who live beyond the rivers of Ethiopia will come to present their offerings. (Zephaniah 3:6-10 NLT) This God is definitely a loving one. Besides, think about this. So much hatred in the world comes from Religion. The Christians hate homosexuals, just because a thousand year old book said so. In Islam, a man is allowed to hit his wife if she is disobedient, and also in Islam, they think by killing in the name of Allah, they will be rewarded with 72 virgins in Jannah (Paradise). In other words, killing is okay, and in fact, we'll even give you things that would be considered sinful on Earth. Does God Even Love You? If you ask your parents if they would be able to send you to what ever version of Hell your family believes in, what would their answer be? Their answer would most likely be, "No, not even for a second." How, then, could your God do that to you for all of eternity, when your parents couldn't even do that for a second? Besides, Hell doesn't even seem like a fair punishment, no matter what the crime. For example, it doesn't seem fair that a murderer could kill someone (Even though that is very wrong) and go to Hell. It doesn't seem like eternal suffering and torture doesn't seem very fair, no matter the crime.
Sex is not just a means of reproduction! (Christians ONLY!)

SO! Sex for pleasure (in marriage) is never said to be bad! even the verse you brought up (Hebrews 12:14 Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous) it says ADULTEROUS , which means cheating (which IS bad) "Genesis 2:24 (ESV) 24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh." it is for a couple to become one, and bond!!! Read Song of Solomon... it talks about sexual intimacy, but NEVER procreation!!
Sex is not just a means of reproduction! (Christians ONLY!)

The bilble also quotes that Lust for pleasure is a sin, so it would contradict itself if it really meant that, the only thing sexual about that statement is "let her breasts satisfy you" it could mean that let her satisfy you enough to release and create, other wise quotes like these would not make sense: Genisis 1:28 And God blessed them. And God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth Hebrews 12:14 Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous I'm pretty sure satisfaction was made for us to want to release, otherwise, how else would we reproduce?
Sex is not just a means of reproduction! (Christians ONLY!)

I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT SEX BEFORE MARRIAGE... Sex is a means of pleasure, or bonding, as well as reproduction... Genesis 2:24 says, "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh " this verse suggests sex is a means of becoming one (like bonding) proverbs 5: 18-19 says , "18 Let your fountain be blessed: and rejoice with the wife of your youth. 19 Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy you at all times; and be you ravished always with her love. " Very much sexual (LOL)... this verse sets sex as a means of pleasure, not just for procreation.
plays are better than movies

Rebuttal1. How does the same thing happens over and over? In which movie has the same thing happens over and over? There are different themes and they act out a story, just like a play.2. Mess ups do happen at times in plays. Not in movies because of multiple shoots. There is "humor" in movies, there are many humorous movies.3. It is true, but even a mediocre sound system would show music and stories. Plays do not have better music than movies, in fact, some of the greatest pieces have been writen for movies. When was the last time you heard the whole Orchestra playing at a play?4. The animation does not make the movie unreal and gory. Many movies have animations that are not "gory". Also, animations can make the movie more realistic, someone can edit the video so that a scene can work.ConclusionA movie is just as fun as a play, you can do just as much as what you can do in a play, but more because of the technology and animation.Sourcehttp://movies.ign.com...