BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The word athiest be updated within the dictonary. To Athiest the undecided until a later date.

If we are to change the dictionary definition of atheist, the first thing that we should do is look at the current definition of debate. Here is how it is defined in multiple different places: Dictionary.com: a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings. Merriam-Webster.com: a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods dictionary.Cambridge.org: someone who believes that God does not exist en.Oxforddictionaries.com: A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods. Looking at these definitions, there is a clear pattern. And this makes sense, given the etymology. It comes from the Greek word theos, meaning "god". Combined with the a- prefix meaning without, the lack of, or not, and the -ist suffix meaning one who believes in, atheist clearly means, "one who believes in the lack of a god". Additionally, although I found research (Pew Research: https://pewrsr.ch... and Independent: https://ind.pn...) that atheism is on the decline, this is not a good reason to change the definition of atheism. This is because the people who remain atheists still have the same beliefs as before. The only change is the number of atheists.
The word athiest be updated within the dictonary. To Athiest the undecided until a later date.

Latest breaking news head lines right here; There is no such thing as a true non believer of an existance creator of inteligant design in existance at all anymore. As I can not find a true disbelieving athiests anywhere they must be extinct or an endangered species. Maybe the sientists could clone a few of the hard core athiests from an era, when they used Charles Darwins evolutionary discoveries as factural evidance to attack any belivers in any religion or beliefs. For now the so called athiest use is some kind of slinging match apon the tree of monkeys. Where the hell is Richard Dawkins and his hard core followers? With the God delution published over 10 years ago. What happened have they evolved at last, into something that the majority of the human race could call humane?
The word athiest be updated within the dictonary. To Athiest the undecided until a later date.

All that I have found have at least an understanding of an existance creator of the universe with inteligant design. It the only this that matters is if you are humane or inhumane. Tell us if you don't totaly agree with this; our own perception of the conditions that we are subjected to involuntary or not is what motivates the cognitive drive. How about an educated or an uneducated guess is all we have. The majority of the worlds population will stay with some kind of after life allusion throughout their life and the rest are undecided until a later date as very few will with all honesty give up all hope of an after life. So what is your perception of your own personal allution? is anyone standing up saying that our own existence creator of intelligent design didn't create the universe? Oh where, oh where Has my little dog gone? Oh where, oh where can he be? With his ears cut short And his tail cut long Oh where, oh where can he be? I think he went down To the building site To see what he could see And in his mouth Was a globe so bright I wonder what could it be Oh where, oh where Has my little dog gone? Oh where, oh where can he be? With his ears cut short And his tail cut long Oh where, oh where can he be? I last saw him by the bulldozer Playing and running around But I just can't see him there anymore He just can't seem to be found Perhaps the man over there will know He may have seen him go by Who knows where He might have decided to go But we've got to give it a try Oh where, oh where Has my little dog gone? Oh where, oh where can he be? With his tail cut long Oh where, oh where can he be? Peace be with you. All praise and glory belongs to our own existence creator of intelligent design of the universe as we know it to be.https://en.wikipedia.org...
Subbed anime is better than dubbed anime

I belong do the group of anime watchers that believe in only watching subbed anime. The reasoning behind this is based on four statements. 1) Anime is an art form 2) Because it is an art form, any alteration to the original anime is an unacceptable compromise of artistic integrity. 3) Because dubbing into a different language alters the original form, it is an unacceptable compromise of artistic integrity. 4) Because it compromises artistic integrity, the only acceptable way to view anime is to watch it in it's original form, with Japanese voice acting. Another point I would like to bring up is that many English dubs are not accurate, either in translation or in tone. Some words in Japanese simply do not translate well into English, and the dubbing companies are forced into changing the wording around. While this is still a problem in subbed anime, often times there will be a side note on the top of the screen telling what the original meaning is. Also, because the English dubs are not the original material, they can not possibly be 100% accurate in terms of tone. Another argument that is sometime voiced in favor of only subtitling anime is that it forces viewers to learn more about Japanese culture and language if they want to fully understand what they are watching, and that expanding one"s cultural knowledge through this medium is a good thing.
Subbed anime is better than dubbed anime

To be clear, my stance on this subject is that subbed anime is not ALWAYS better than dubbed anime and is not the only proper way of watching it. Although subbed anime is cheaper, it does not prove that it's quality is better only quantity. Remember, subbed anime is not a must and you can watch an anime both ways without needing to be criticized. Both types of animes have their pros and cons but that does not mean one type is superior to another. The superiority of dubbed anime is just my opinion... Thank you for debating with me, I had a good time and it was a good learning experience
Subbed anime is better than dubbed anime

To be clear, my stance on this subject is not that subbed anime is ALWAYS better than dubbed anime, it is that subbed anime as a whole is superior to dubbed anime, and is the proper way of watching it. Subtitling has many advantages: It allows for an extremely accurate translation (including quirks of the original language that play a role in the plot), allows for you to hear the original actors voices, it allows you to watch the anime as it was originally intended to be watched, and it is much easier to produce and is cheaper to produce. As of now, few anime are actually dubbed, and even fewer are dubbed well, so if you only watch dubbed anime you are limiting yourself to a very small amount of possible shows to watch. One other thing that many dubs are guilty of is changing entire scenes, and therefore you miss out on the intended message of the show. Thank you for debating with me, I had a good time and it was a good learning experience.
Subbed anime is better than dubbed anime

Sorry for not following your script... Round 1: Acceptance Round 2: Opening Statements Round 3: Rebuttals Round 4: Closing Statements In your last argument, you said that there are good and bad English dub anime. There is also good and bad english sub anime. Remember your statement in this debate is that "subbed anime is always better than dubbed anime" but, you also say that there are good and bad anime. Subbed and Dubbed anime are both equally good sometimes and you can't say all subbed anime is better.... Subbed and Dubbed anime both can be awesome or terrible and it really depends on the company. There are BOTH GOOD AND BAD sub and dub animes. For all the anime watchers.... I am saying there is no problem with watching subbed anime. My personal opinion is that dubbed anime is better though. Some of the anime companies make terrible subtitles and are sometimes inexperienced too. Again you can not say that subbed anime is the best. It depends on the animation studio works.
Subbed anime is better than dubbed anime

Funimation does an amazing job by giving the Japanese anime English dub. Funimation also gets the permission from the artists before giving it English dub. How is that a unacceptable compromise of artistic integrity? Funimation's English dub is also very accurate and sometimes better than the subtitles. The subtitle's wording also is changed like the English dub. Trust me, I know Japanese and that English dub is far superior to English sub. The English sub sometimes cover the lower part of the show and blocks it. It is also hard for some people to read the subtitles and watch the anime at the same time. Funimation also alters the mouthing animation so it goes along with the English words. Finally if you truly want to learn about Japan and his customs...... DO NOT LEARN IT FROM AN ANIME. That is like Japanese people learning American culture through SpongeBob or any other cartoon. There are thousands of ways to learn about Japan and watching anime is not very high on the list. There I have now debunked all of your arguments... Ready for round 3? ;)
The South did secede in order to protect slavery

This is really hard to refute mainly because I know that the south seceded to protect slavery(some although were to protect a right that America promised, even though it is an ironic freedom because it takes one party's freedom away). It is a well-known fact. I purely wanted to see if I could even muster a semi-strong argument. As I suspected, I could not because if I know something for a fact, i can not fight against it. I concede.
The South did secede in order to protect slavery

Ok, one, even though slavery was a big part of it, there were other causes such as land and population issues, along with secret organizations that were extremists. They were trying to keep rights(such as with keeping their slaves), but they also wanted more land. They were still trying to figure out who would get what. Plus, even after the Civil War and he "freed" the slaves, Lincoln deported a lot of the slaves back to Africa because he did not think they should stay in the United States, rather than their mostly poverty-stricken background.
should public school students wear uniforms

Depending on how strict a school is, students may not be able to just "change the uniform into a clothing style that they want." In my school, along with the required colors and types of clothing are regulations on how one can wear them. In high school guys like to wear their pants to that they are sagging. http://www.urbandictionary.com... The dress code prevents this, it prevents them from making it into their own style. Baggy clothes, permitted in a school without a dress code, look unprofessional and any school with a decent uniform policy would make sure baggy clothes are not allowed. Soccer teams are less strict and will let their players be comfortable to increase their performance. They don't have to worry about appearance like a school does because by the end of a game they will be dirty and sweaty anyway. So yes, female students may slightly change the style of the uniform, but will be heavily limited by a uniform policy. The result will be nice, fitting clothes, increasing attractiveness, and the overall moral of the male student body. In the first round I stated that my school makes all students tuck in their shirts. There is nothing worse than when a nice female behind is covered up by whatever shirt they are wearing. A dress code that requires shirts to be tucked in removes this problem and gives up gentlemen a complete unobstructed view of said nice female's behind. Normally the only hind end available to us is that of the promiscuous sluts with the slutty big butt. Now, that may be desired by some, but the majority would prefer to look at the nice innocent females. I would provide pictures, but I am in school so I cannot.
should public school students wear uniforms

Well, it doesn't matter if they wear uniforms or not. Students will still change the uniforms into a clothing style that they want. There will be no difference in how they do in school with or without uniforms. Uniforms is just a type of school spirit dress code. As my opponent said about being sexy, girls will do the same thing with uniforms. Its just like when you play soccer. You use pennies to differentiate teams. Players dont wear their pennies the right way. They wear it just like they wear their regular shirts. My opponent makes no point with this argument. Therefore I shall make a superior statement in the final round
should public school students wear uniforms

It is my belief that school uniforms greatly increase the attractiveness of females in school. I am sure my fellow debate. org members will agree with me that an increase in attractiveness can only be a plus. As boring as school is, 7 hours a day for me, the attractive womens are the only thing that make it worth attending. There are many types of uniforms, so I will try and start with the most basic. In my school the requirements are as follows: - Blue, white, black, or gold Polo style shirt - Beige, white, or blue khaki pants OR dark jeans - Shirts must be tucked in at all times The majority of high school girls like to wear tight clothing, and Polo style shirts tend to form fit better than your standard t-shirt. Figure 1.1 . http://img355.imageshack.us... In Figure 1.1 you can see how a polo shirt conforms to the female's teenage curves. Figure 1.2 . http://img240.imageshack.us... In figure 1.2 we have the standard t-shirt, the one not allowed by the school uniform policy. No sexy curves, no definition of the breasts. We can't have females thinking it is okay to dress like this, which is why it's best to train them early on with an appropriate dress code. With baggy shirted girls running around, what will be the incentive to attend school? I can not imagine there would be much of one. My opponent's opening was short, so I will stop here and await his response.
World War II Eastern Front TEST!!!

All right, you got me. I think 67.85% is pretty good for a highly specialized test I hadn't studied for. When I said you gave harder tests than my prof, I meant you covered the stuff I didn't know. There was nothing about the actual battles, just the codenames of military operations and a bunch of general's names. I still think Q3 Pt 3 wasn't a valid question. The test was about the Eastern FRONT, which was the conflict between Germany and the Soviets. If you take this into account, I pass the test with 70.37%. Still, it was close. Thanks for the opportunity to test my intellect. I would be open for debate about military tactics and weaponry, but I don't think I could handle another one of these tests. Peace.
World War II Eastern Front TEST!!!

I will now correct Con's answers... Part 1: 1. June 22. CORRECT 2. 1942 CORRECT 3. I think it was June 22 again. I might be wrong. CORRECT 4. June 26 1945 WRONG (it was may 8, 1945) Part 2. 1. Barbossa CORRECT 2. Dammit. You got me. WRONG (it was Operation Silver Fox) 3. I dunno. I'm not really good with code names. WRONG (it was Operation Typhoon) 4. Case blue, or operation Brunshwieg. I'm not sure if I spelled that right. CORRECT 5. There were a lot of Rzhev offensives. I don't know which one you mean. BAD QUESTION, I WILL NOT GRADE THIS 6. Operation Uranus. CORRECT 7. I think it was Citadel. CORRECT 8. Bagration CORRECT Part 3. 1. I don't know! Damn, this test is good. WRONG (it was Manstein) 2. The Germans had several denominations linked to General, the highest of which was General Field Marshall. I think Von Kleist led the offensive. CORRECT (it was Von Kleist) 3. That's not about the Eastern front! WRONG (Manchuria and North Korea is also known as the far east which is close enough, it involved the Soviets which makes it a valid question. correct answer: Alexander Vasilevsky) 4. Don't know. WRONG (it was Chuikov) 5. Von Manstein, Raus, and Paulus CORRECT 6. Bagramyan, Pavlov, Govorov CORRECT Part 4. 1. 25,000 WRONG (trick question, I said 1939-1944 so it should include the 70,000 casualties from the winter war. Correct answer: 95,000) 2. Around 80,000. I'm not too sure. CORRECT (84,000) 3. 1.01 million CORRECT 4. 850,000 CORRECT 5. 55,000 CORRECT 6. Hard to say. It depends whether you count the civilian losses, and Jewish noncombatants used by the Germans as human shields. Losses to the Hungarian military were around 140,000. BAD QUESTION, I WILL NOT GRADE IT 7. Around 5 million. CORRECT Part 5. 1. Don't know. WRONG (correct answer: one) 2. 1943 CORRECT 3. No idea. WRONG (it was about 50%) 4. i. It's size made it an easy target. ii. The tiger tracks would easily jam in mud and snow. iii. High fuel consumption and low fuel tank size. CORRECT 5. Revolution day. CORRECT Con's grade is: 19/28 This is a 67.85% and therefor, he has FAILED this test!!! These were difficult questions and I congradulate Con on getting most of them. If you are up for another test then please say so. However the next test will have the same rules and will be MUCH harder. Anyway, if you are up for another test then say so and I will send you a challenge. "You give harder tests than my prof" hard to believe... VOTE PRO!!!
World War II Eastern Front TEST!!!

Holy sh!t! This is gonna be tricky! Part 1: 1. June 22. 2. 1942 3. I think it was June 22 again. I might be wrong. 4. June 26 1945 Part 2. 1. Barbossa 2. Dammit. You got me. 3. I dunno. I'm not really good with code names. 4. Case blue, or operation Brunshwieg. I'm not sure if I spelled that right. 5. There were a lot of Rzhev offensives. I don't know which one you mean. 6. Operation Uranus. 7. I think it was Citadel. 8. Bagration Part 3. 1. I don't know! Damn, this test is good. 2. The Germans had several denominations linked to General, the highest of which was General Field Marshall. I think Von Kleist led the offensive. 3. That's not about the Eastern front! 4. Don't know. 5. Von Manstein, Raus, and Paulus 6. Bagramyan, Pavlov, Govorov Part 4. 1. 25,000 2. Around 80,000. I'm not too sure. 3. 1.01 million 4. 850,000 5. 55,000 6. Hard to say. It depends whether you count the civilian losses, and Jewish noncombatants used by the Germans as human shields. Losses to the Hungarian military were around 140,000. 7. Around 5 million. Part 5. 1. Don't know. 2. 1943 3. No idea. 4. i. It's size made it an easy target. ii. The tiger tracks would easily jam in mud and snow. iii. High fuel consumption and low fuel tank size. 5. Revolution day. Jesus Christ. You give harder tests than my prof! I thought this would be more about weapons and tactics, not so much The names of generals.
World War II Eastern Front TEST!!!

Since he is a history student I will give him more difficult questions. However I will also include some easier questions. I will use no sources while making the questions. Part 1: Dates and Years1. Name the exact date that Germany invaded the USSR.2. What year did Stalin issue Order Number 227?3. On what year did the Soviet Union launch Operation Bagration?4. Name the exact date that WWII in Europe ended. Part 2: Codenames1. What was the codename of the German invasion of the USSR?2. What was the codename of the German attempt to capture the port of Murmansk?3. What was the codename of German offensive towards Moscow?4. What was the codename of the German 1942 summer offensive?5. What was the codename of the Soviet Rzhev offensive?6. What was the codename of the Soviet operation to encircle Paulus's 6th army inside Stalingrad?7. What was the codename of the German 1943 summer offensive?8. What was the codename of the Soviet 1944 summer offensive? Part 3: Marshals and Generals (just last names are fine)1. Who was the German general in charge of the 1943 summer offensive?2. Who was the German general in charge of the German offensive into the Caucuses?3. Who was the Soviet marshal in charge of the Soviet offensive into Manchuria and North Korea in 1945?4. Who was the Soviet marshal in charge of the defense of Stalingrad?5. Name three other German generals who fought on the eastern front (that have not been mentioned above).6. Name three other Soviet marshals who fought on the eastern front (that have not been mentioned above). Part 4: Casualties and Losses (approximate numbers are OK)1. How many casualties did the Finns suffer while fighting the Soviets from 1939-19442. How many Italian soldiers died on the Eastern Front?3. How many casualties did the German army suffer in Case Blue?4. How many casualties did the axis suffer at the battle of Stalingrad?5. How many casualties did the axis suffer in the 1943 summer offensive?6. How many Casualties did the Hungarians suffer on the eastern front?7. How many Red Army prisoners did the Germans take capture in WWII. Part 5: Random Questions1. How many divisions of Spanish Fascist volunteers were sent to the eastern front?2. What year did the Soviets invent the IS-2 tank?3. In the Caucuses, approximately what percentage of allied lend-lease tanks made up the total Soviet tank force in that area? 4. Name three disadvantages of the German Tiger Tank.5. In 1941, as the Germans were closing in on Moscow, the Soviets had a parade. What holiday did that parade represent? Man, I'm exhausted. OK hopefully these questions are not too easy. Good luck!
World War II Eastern Front TEST!!!

I have never done this so lets see how it goes. Basically, I make a test for Con about the Eastern Front and he answers the questions. If he gets a 70% or above on his test then he wins. If he fails to do so then I win. Rules: 1. Con can NOT use sources! 2. Voters must give their votes to the appropriate person based on Con's test score. 3. If you do not have a good knowledge about the events of the Eastern Front then please do not accept this debate. 4. Be honest, if you do not know an answer then write, "I don't know." Please don't look the answer up. Round 1 is for acceptance. Round 2 is for me to put up the test and for Con to answer the questions. Round 3 is for me to calculate the percentage Con received on the test. I will make sure my questions are reasonable, however on a scale of 1-10, the difficulty of my questions will probably be around an 8. 70% or above is a win for Con. 69% or bellow is a win for me. OK, lets begin!!!
Intrinsically, mass shootings are not significant

First I'd like to point out my opponent's semantic refutation based on the word 'significant'. not arguing semantics was his only rule to which he dedicated his entire first speech. Next, he calls my argument based on the value of human life straw man. It is not. I have argued the significance of mass shootings based on the value of human life since round one. That said the con argument of even one life being lost was never addressed. People are ends unto themselves, and when even a single person dies that is a significant event. It does not matter that there are 7 billion people in the world, if my Dad died because of a mass shooting then he's gone forever -- none of those 7 billion people will ever be my dad, and so that loss is a significant one. So at the point that a mass shooting ends even one life, it is significant.
Intrinsically, mass shootings are not significant

My opponent has created a straw man here by claiming that I am arguing against the value of human life. He has failed to see that the significance of an event is directly proportional to how many people it affects; positively or negatively. Mass shootings affect a very small amount of people, therefore, they are not significant. Please note that when I say "not significant', I do not mean 'not at all significant,' rather, 'not significant' if 'significant' is being used as metonymy for 'very or a great deal significant.' I do not expect to win this debate because I'm supporting a rather unpopular position. But if you think about it, mass shootings really aren't as big of a deal as people are making them out to be. They are few and far between in a world of seven-billion. It's amazing we don't have them more frequently.