BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
the chicken came before the egg

WOW. my first time as well. this is also going to be very hard because I do not have a lot of time to argue this proposition. Ok you defined: Chicken: a domestic fowl bred for flesh or eggs Egg: animal reproductive body consisting of an ovum or embryo together with nutritive and protective envelopes We can use the definition to find out what a chicken is actually considered. The first chicken actually came from two different types of species, the red junglefowl and the grey junglefowl. These two species of birds produced the first known chicken. Even though you used the creationism approach, it does not say in the Bible God created chickens. It says that God created birds, which does not mean he created chickens but a bird that could eventually create a new species. You did not define clearly what you considered a chicken. Even though it is a domestic fowl, it could be considered many of the domestic fowls in the world. The word chicken first originated around 1500 in the Middle English era. It is even shown that India had been using a type of fowl for thousands of years before the word originated. But it did not have the title of chicken. The word egg however was first seen in 450 around the Old English era. This also makes the point that because the word egg comes before chicken, the egg came before the chicken.
the chicken came before the egg

My argument centers around the chicken and the egg. I am new at debating and hope that i will be able to apply some useful knowledge. I will first define: Chicken: a domestic fowl bred for flesh or eggs Egg: animal reproductive body consisting of an ovum or embryo together with nutritive and protective envelopes. Using the creationism approach: Genensis 1:20 "And God said, Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven" Therefore, the chicken came before the egg in the fact that God created animals before eggs. Because the animals came before egg, however the chicken originated it first came from an animal before the first egg. Please do not be too mean because this is my first time at this.
Religion causes problems in the world and would be better with out.

Religion have had its positive and negative impact on the concerned societies , but saying that we are better off without is completely false. If we look at the wars that happened throughout history we see in some cases that religion is only one among many reasons for such event and in other cases it had been exploited in order to hide the real and less noble causes behind wars and to sway the uneducated masses. Removing religion from this equation will not prevent the wars from happening as leaders will find other reasons to declare it. The crusade was not only declared for religious reasons but it also have economic and military motives behind it. Europe was under the constant threat from Arab attacks and the creation of a Latin kingdom in the east would distract them from attacking the European heartland. In addition to that, they needed to secure a safe passage to the east and the historic silk road and to occupy new lands in order the save the bad economic situation of that time. We should not forget the attack on the Christian city of Constantinople by the crusade who realized that the spoils would be bigger than attacking Muslim cities. Fast forward to WWII, the motive behind Nazism was not religious but based on the idea of racial superiority and purity. the cause behind the Jewish holocaust was not religious but racial and the death camps also included Poles, Russians, Roma and even Aryans all who share the same religion with the vast majority of Germans. Now to our modern world and this Mosque controversy. The major motive behind the opposition is political rather than religious. it is a desperate attempt by some far right politicians to gather votes before the upcoming elections. the same people rallied against Gibran Khalil Gibran School even though this public institution have nothing to do with religion. Let us imagine for a second that we live in a world where religion never existed. The arabs would still have expanded to the fertile lands of the Levant, The Europeans would still be tempted to launch attack on the east in an attempt to establish new colonies and the resident of the middle east would still have fought them. The second world war would still have happened and the holocaust would still have occurred against an "inferior" race. The cold war and all its result such as the Korean war, Vietnam, Cambodia and others would still be declared. Not to mention the Christian vs Christian wars in Europe and South America, The war of 1812, the wars among Arab tribes in Arabia, the Japanese invasion of China and the countless others that had nothing to do with religion. Without religion, wars would still be declared, massacres would still be committed, and people would still suffer. Are we better off without it? NO because it is our human nature that is causing this misery not our religion.
Religion causes problems in the world and would be better with out.

Now, to start out with I'm Christian, I believe in God, the bible, and everything else pertaining to religion. Ok the thing is think about all the wars, murders, and killings that have happened throughout history. The crusades, the killing of people by Christians, the Holocaust, killing of a number of Jews. Just look around us, right now the big commotion in New York of the building of a Mosque! A religious place of worship! So what!? If it was a Christian Church would we have a problem? No, we wouldn't. (people might of not herd about the following one) On 9/11, the last few days ago, in north Florida Christians were threatening to burn the Qur'an as an act of protest to the Islamic people. If you disagree with me please post your point of view :). Thanks I'm also going to bed so I will not be able to reply for about 15hours, check back proboly 5hrs before this time and I should have replied
Any political standpoint other than apathy is inherently corrupt.

Burden of proof is on Con. Burden of definitions is on Con.I honestly don't give a crap whether you use round one to accept, to post pornography or even to disrespect me.Do whatever the hell you want.I'll go along with it.You can even try and push the burden of proof onto me. I'll deal with it.I'm not bothered about winning.I actually secretly wish that I would lose so I'd have a reason to kill myself once and for all.Go ahead, smartass, tell me something I haven't heard before about this wonderful world of polishits.
Any political standpoint other than apathy is inherently corrupt.

"Thanks for the debate, you lost at the first hurdle." We'll agree to disagree. "I do not take orders from my opponents." Suggestion, not an order. Notice how I never said order. "Your point is not relevant to the debate's resolution at all." I specified at the beginning that I accepted the debate because you seemed depressed, which clearly implies that it wasn't referring to the debate resolution. "As you can imagine, pigs can fly. Imagination can transcend truth and therefore this is an invalid argument." Irrelevant to the debate resolution, it was used as a tool to improve the transition into my main point, which was completely ignored. "In theory, this debate could all be in your head and never have happened outside of your schizophrenic hallucinations." Irrelevant, for the same reason as above. "it is still prone to failure and error in order to benefit the majority of people " The entire point of government is to benefit the majority of people. "If you would argue that their reactions would not be stifled then you have failed to understand how politics works." Irrelevant to the debate resolution, ad hominem "You see, if a genius saw the transparent corruption and a moron saw it, it would mean that the genius could corrupt it anyway and this is therefore corrupted." What about all the other moral geniuses on the planet who can also see the corruption and try to stop it? In addition, maximum transparency includes that everyone around the world has access to factual information, so no one would start being corrupt because they'd be implicating themselves in a crime. If everyone in the world knew what you were doing the moment you did it, then it would be nearly impossible to be corrupt before being stopped, and so it would be pointless. Furthermore, according the definition of inherently- in"her"ent (n-h"rnt, -hr-) adj. Existing as an essential constituent or characteristic A political standpoint need not have corruption as an essential constituent according to the definition of political standpoint I supplied, and my opponent agreed with. The essential constituents of a political standpoint are completely defined by the language used to describe them, and no rule of logic says that a political standpoint has to be inherently corrupt. The debate is not whether humans are inherently corrupt, but whether the standpoint itself is inherently corrupt. Although I said earlier than my opponent would not need to cite evidence, that was under the assertion that I was only trying to provide a counter example of a political standpoint that was not inherently corrupt. It's likely my opponent will highlight the fact that I'm changing my position slightly, but I now amend my position--that con needs to provide evidence for one case. If my opponent disagrees with the assertion i made in the last paragraph, then since I had to prove political standpoints were not corrupt, it is also stands reasonable that my opponent needs to prove that apathy is not inherently corrupt.
Any political standpoint other than apathy is inherently corrupt.

Talk to the suicide prevention hotline if you feel the need to talk to someone in person. Although you say you're not bothered about winning, you clearly seem to be bothered by losing, as that would give you another pessimistic reason to end your life. If you aren't affected by winning, then you there's no logical reason you should be affected by a loss either. Even though what i'm saying might be cliche, I take it you're a " glass half empty person'; the kind of person who doesn't really react to positive situations, but indulges his negative emotions when something bad happened. You probably do this by blocking out the rest of the world and focusing on that negative event as another justification for why your life sucks, or whatever. My point is that you shouldn't even consider killing yourself over something like debate, but rather use it as an opportunity to learn and improve yourself, so eventually you can use better communication to improve your life from what it is now. Also, for this debate, it wouldn't make sense to push the burden of proof onto you since it is my job to come up with a counterexample of a political standpoint that is not corrupt. Some definitions- po"lit"i"cal (p-lt-kl) adj. 1. Of, relating to, or dealing with the structure or affairs of government, politics, or the state. . http://www.thefreedictionary.com... stand"point (stndpoint) n. A position from which things are considered or judged; a point of view. . http://www.thefreedictionary.com... According to these definitions used together, political standpoints refers to a position where the structure or affairs of government, or the state is judged. As you can imagine, there are a diverse variety of ways that you judge government and the state. So in theory this means I could have a political viewpoint that maximum transparency is essential and that corruption is bad. Thus, my political viewpoint would be inherently incorruptible by virtue of maximum transparency, meaning that every knows what you're doing at all times, so corruption is impossible.
The Earth is spherical (or at least closely spherical)

I see you agree with me now. But I have to give proof , don't I?My proof is through the best reasoning you will ever see - What do you do to Earth? We grow things on it. What grows on Earth? Grass and trees. What colour do grass and trees turn in autumn? Yellow, they turn yellow. So, what else grows on Earth, starts out green and then turns yellow? A BANANA, SIRE! This clearly proves the Earth is banana shaped. That's why the minions live here! Side note : Do you know why it can't be flat? Because paper is flat and we make books out of paper. BUT WE DON'T MAKE BOOKS OUT OF EARTH. So clearly flat earth believers have not done enough reasoning and I respect that you are not one of them.Awaiting your last argument. (COME ON, THROW ONE NICE LAST ARGUMENT AT ME!) Source : http://maiden-of-the-bh.deviantart.com...
Impromptu Debate

Girls are better than boys - or - Outlaws are the best cowboys Both are interesting and appealing choices and actually have some things in common. Outlaws can be much better cowboys because they seemingly have experienced both sides. A lawabiding cowboy knows many of the tricks that an outlaw may try. I can liken my experience of playing guard on the offensvie line after spending time at linebacker. "What might this person do in this situation"? "What would I have done in this situation"? I think I will go with the first topic of girls are better than boys. I will partially concur with this. Girls are better than boys in what aspect? In everything? Certainly not. FM 21-20 appendix B list the physiological differences between male and female. Most males and females are built and geared for different things. I will ademately state that girls are better at being girls than boys. One of the more glaring instances of epic fail is that of crossdressing. Most who attempt it on either side are not passable. However to say that girls are better than boys in general is absurd. It can be likened to comparing our branches of the military against each other. The Air Force has specific functions that are not necessarily applicable to the functions of the Army. Of course there a number of activities that are typical of a male that a female can do equally well if not better. But, that is the exception rather than the rule. While there are generally exceptions to most everything under the sun, by and large, girls are better at being girls, but not better at being boys. Thanks to Shelly and the judges!
Impromptu Debate

Woodbats should be used in all areas of baseball. There is one paper from 1977, when aluminum bats were just beginning to assert their prominence, which concluded that the batted ball speed of an aluminum baseball bat was about 3.85 mph faster than a wood baseball bat.[1] The study was conducted with six skilled college players during more than a dozen batting practice sessions over a 5-day period. Each player would take several swings with either a wood or aluminum bat (randomly chosen), rest for 10 minutes, then take several swings with the other bat. Balls were pitched from both pitching machines and regular batting practice pitchers, but pitchers were found to be more consistent. During the testing, the average pitched ball speed was 56.6 mph. Batted ball speeds were measured using a radar gun. Data was collected for each player until 30 line drives were produced within a certain range of locations in the outfield. The results were an average batted ball speed (for line drives) of 88.6 mph for the wood bat and 92.5 mph for the aluminum bat For some reason, I am going to have to say physics, the ball travels farther when going faster. My second reason is aluminum bats have a trampoline effect.When a ball hits a wood bat, it compresses to nearly half its original diameter, losing up to 75% of its initial energy to internal friction forces during this compression. However, in an aluminium or also know as a hollow bat, the bat barrel compresses somewhat like a spring, when the ball impacts it. The trampoline effect allows the ball to be hit 5-7 times faster than with a wooden bat. Once again this is bad because the ball goes farther when it is going faster. Aluminium bats also do not break. Pitchers are trained where to pitch to stay away from sweet spots. By doing so they pitch inside, outside, and the corners of the plate. With aluminium bats there are more sweet spots. It is again in the design and the physics. But why is it so important that aluminium bats do not break well because many baseball players break bats on these inside pitches. I remember when Roger Clemens delivered an inside pitch to Mets catcher Mike Piazza. Piazza's bat broke and the barrel portion bounced out towards Clemens on the mound. The problem here is not the broken bat but that fact that the aluminium bat wouldve allowed piazza to hit better. The strategy involved in geting Piazza to break his bat or the ability to be able to pitch strategically is taken away when aluminium bats are used. That is why wood bats should be used in all leagues. Sources 1)F.O. Bryant, L.N. Burkett, S.S. Chen, G.S. Krahenbuhl, and P. Lu, "Dynamic and performance characteristics of baseball bats," Research Quarterly, 48, 505-510, (1977) 2)http://www.leaderboard.com... Topics for opponent 1) Girls are better than boys. 2) Outlaws are the best cowboys.
Impromptu Debate

Round 1 = set up. I will post two choices for my opponent. He/she will select one for round 2. Also, my opponent will list two choices for me to argue either side for round 2. My opponent will chosse and argue his/her topic in round 2. Judges will determine who presented the better argument. My opponent's topic choices are: a) Only wooden bats should be used in all levels of baseball b) Halloween parties.dress up should not be allowed in public schools
Does Ohrmazd exist

" In the name of the creator Ohrmazd. " ─ BundahishnHello all, I wish to start a debate on this website, on the existence of Ohrmazd, God.─────────────────────One. Who is Ohrmazd?─────────────────────In Zoroastrian theology, Ohrmazd is the Creator of all Things that are not himself. Ohrmazd is similar to the god of the Christians, and the Jews, and the Muslims in the East.─────────────────────Two. What Evidence is There for Ohrmazd's Existence?─────────────────────This is a very important question to all followers of Zoroaster. Many theologians of all the great religions, such as Christianity, and Jew, and Islam in the East, have used evidence for a creator.A. Cosmogony─────────────────────" Ohrmazd produced illumination between the sky and the earth, the constellation stars and those also not of the constellations, then the moon, and afterwards the sun [...] " ─ BundahishnOne must ask himelf: why is there anything at all? It doesn't make any sense to say, as an anti-theist would say, " The Universe has no reason. " So, in this debate, I will present a cosmogonic argument for Ohrmazd's existence.B. Morals─────────────────────" And by their devotion to witchcraft Ahriman seduces mankind into affection for himself and disaffection to Ohrmazd, so that they forsake the religion of Ohrmazd, and practice that of Ahriman. "─ BundahishnOne must ask himself: why should we do what is right? We know that there are right and wrong things to do. An anti-theist would say, " But it is not absolute. " So, in this debate, I will present a moral argument for Ohrmazd's existence.─────────────────────Three. Miscellaneous Items.─────────────────────Hello all, I would like for the " Con " of this debate to wait until after I present an argument to attack my arguments.Thank you
Terraria vs Minecraft

My opponent forfeited the previous round, so I'll keep this round simple so he doesn't have to play catch up. MInecraft is 3D, while Terraria is a 2D sidescroller. This offers many advantages in a building, crafting game like these two. MInecraft also has many more options for base material to work with. Finally, Minecraft is the original build/craft game that started the trend. I'd offer more arguments, but I don't want my opponent to fall behind. Hopefully he gets in on the next round.
Terraria vs Minecraft

The addition of potions in Minecraft had nothing to do with Terraria, as Terraria development didn't start until January of 2011. (1) Notch, the creator of Minecraft, first mentioned to addition of potions in July 2010. (2) As to one owing the other, though, Terraria owes it's very existence to MInecraft, as it started the genre that Terraria is a part of. In addition, Minecraft allows you to choose between 1st and 3rd person, whereas Terraria is only 3rd. You can also build much more complex and impressive structures in Minecraft than you can in Terraria. There are also modpacks for MInecraft that allow many more building and design options. Tekkit and Voltz are two of my favorites, as you can make highly technological creations like nuclear reactors, teleporters, and even a particle accelerator. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://minecraft.gamepedia.com...
Felines VS. Canines

Cats are more responsible than dogs will ever be! Cats, unlike dogs, are independent creatures and don't need anyones help to survive, and I am not just talking about domestic cats either. Dogs will give up their life for you... WHOPPDEDO, HES DEAD!!! It is because of this dumb fact that most people think "Dogs are Man's best Friend"... SO WHAT??? Cats don't WANT to be your best friend!!! They want their independence and will do anything to get it! That is why a cat will always, ALWAYS be better than a dog!
Felines VS. Canines

Our society is divided into two parts when it comes to the preference of pets; there are "dog people" and "cat people". Dogs and cats are totally different from each other. Both have pros and cons but they are unique in their own manners. In this article, dogs are unquestionably better than cats. Let us take a look at some reasons why dogs are truly better than cats. Remember, they would not be called humans" best friends for nothing. Dogs are Better Companions than Cats Dogs are humans" best friends. This term would not be coined for no good reason at all. Dogs are faithful companions and pets for over a thousand years. They are very devoted to their owners. The strong bond that humans and dogs share is truly undeniable. It is even comparable to a parent-child association. Whether you agree or not, dogs can love you unconditionally. But cats are different; they love their selves more than else. Cats are self-centered. Dogs are Obedient than Cats Dogs are more obedient than cats. For instance, when you are training these two animals, dogs are more likely to obey tricks like lying down, sitting, standing up and many more. On the other hand, cats will just sit in the corner and look at you but would not respond. Dogs are easier to teach because they are smarter and can understand the trainer"s instructions.
Come up with smart answers.

It depends upon your assumption. The main point most people would miss is that a pound is a unit of mass, not weight; weight is the gravitational force that acts on some object. Anyhow, depending upon your assumption, you canconclude various concepts: 1. The bricks are on moon and the feathers are on Earth. Since the gravitational pull of Moon is less than it is on Earth, the bricks will weigh not as much therefor the pound of feathers weigh more. 2. Both are on Earth and in a vacuum. In this case, both the bricks and the feathers will weigh same (assuming there is a uniform gravitational field). 3. The bricks are the feathers are in your home. This is the most practical scenario and in this case the bricks will actually weigh more. This is because while earth's downward pull will be the same on both objects, there is an upward force due to buoyancyof air. Now buoyancy increases with displaced fluid (in this case, air); i.e., with volume. Since 1lb of feathers have a much larger volume that the brick, the buoyant force on the feathers will be much more and thus the feathers will weigh less. 2. If you can lead a horse to water, must your pencil always be led? 3. Do you untie your shoes when you take them off?