BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The existence of an afterlife.

Pro: "If the afterlife you speak of is in regards to Islam. Then you will have your choice of females if you make it to paradise. You have whatever you wish, and this concept is universal." Well I want you with that sexy hijab on, so why don't you give me your phone number and we get started. Why wait? I'll tell Allah all kinds of great things about you and intercede as a male witness. Can you cook?
The pope should bless a gay marriage.

C1: The world would be a better place if the pope blessed a gay marriage. I fully agree with C1, the world would, indeed, be a better place if the Pope were to bless a gay marriage. However, let us first look at the world from a Christian perspective. What would qualify as "a better world" for a Christian? Or better yet a religious leader like the Pope? Christianity is based solely on the Bible, and their morality is subject to the morality the Bible teaches (Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, 1 Timothy 1:8-10 [1]). Based on the moral principles of the Bible, it is rather clear that homosexuality is immoral. If the Pope truly had faith in the teachings of the Bible, and his morality was dictated by the Bible, to the Pope, condemning gay marriage is in the best interest of the world. "The world would be a better place if the pope blessed a gay marriage. " Again, as much as I agree with this statement, in the Christian perspective, and in the perspective of the Pope, supporting an immoral cause is not making the world a better place. If the Pope ignored the blatant disproval of homosexuality as taught by the Bible, it is a direct disagreement to what all Christians abide by, the Bible. For the leader of the Christianity to directly disagree to the Bible, makes it seem as if the Pope has more authority than the Bible, and only weakens his credibility, further making his beliefs insubstantial. There is no objective discernment of morality. To the Christians the world will be a better place if the act of homosexuality (immorality) is condemned. Therefore, the resolution: "The pope should bless a gay marriage. " is negated. As there is no objective discernment of morality, we cannot simply disregard the Christian Code of ethics and morality. If the Pope is, and I assume that he is, sincere about his faith, then he should not bless a gay marriage, under the pretense that it goes against the objective morality dictated by the Bible, the word of God Sources: [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org...
College basketball is a more interesting sport than College football

The 2nd round is for arguments. The 3rd round is for rebuttals. The 4th round is for closing statements. College basketball and college football are quite possibly the 2 most popular amateur sports. People all across the country watch these sports on a daily basis, whether it be cheering on an alma-mater, or just watching on television to pass the time. I, pro, will argue that college basketball is the more interesting sport, while con will argue that College football is the more interesting sport. This a 4 round debate, and each debater will have 3 days to put forth their arguments. Thanks for reading, and good luck to whomever my opponent may be.
Earth is indeed 4.5 billion years old, not 6000 years old.

It is simple as ABC's: Planet Earth is 4.5 billion years old! The Bible doesn't specifically say how old Earth is. You should watch at least one episode of the new TV series "The Cosmos" Besides all of the scientific facts it talks about, it has AMAZING special effects. It is also on FOX, so, assuming you are conservative, you probably would, maybe, want to watch the show?
Earth is indeed 4.5 billion years old, not 6000 years old.

1. For what reason does the age of the Earth benefit us when the Earth is aging indefinitely? 2. The concept of time is out of our understanding, at best we develop a calendar to keep record of our daily activities which allows us to forecast for our daily bread. 3. And because we seek no further understanding of time than the instruments scientist depend on, we continue to measure within an abstract concept, Because people have no understanding of time, they consider the Earth 'Old', The earth could be New and we have yet to see its potential.
Earth is indeed 4.5 billion years old, not 6000 years old.

The age of Earth is around 4.5 billions years old. However, many people think Earth is not simply because of what Genesis says. Genesis doesn't give EXACT dates as to how old Earth is. It just says that Earth was created in 7 days and other stuff too. When it says 7 days, it doesn't mean specifically 7 days of a duration of 24 hours of one day. It says nowhere about that. Scientists have also proven Earths estimated age by carbon dating and radiometric dating. Earth is not 6000 years old. I do not disprove the Bibles words nor meaning.
is the confedederate flag offensive and should it be banned

I believe the CSA is a symbol of the southern states. In this case it would be wrong to ban their flag because if you fly their flag it just means that you are proud of where you came from, not that you support slavery. And with all due respect if the CSA reformed I would join it. So if anyone believes it should be banned and it is offensive, you have one month amuse me.Look the flag is a symbol of the south and it should not be banned. EVER. In my class we had a court case and I put the flag on my paper and people called it offensive look it will NEVER be banned because our government does not should not and will not have the power to do that the confederate flag is in no way like the Nazi swastika the Nazis can be classified as evil but the confederates were not evil people are just stereotypical and think all that the confederates wanted was slavery but that's not did you know Robert E Lee freed a lot of his slaves before the emancipation proclamation and he didn't even buy them he inherited them and it ticks me off when a classmate say "wait Richard Henry Lee was the father of the commander of the Confederacy, his dad was a great revolutionary war hero and his son was evil that's sad" you don't realize that slavery was going to end in the first place if the CSA won they would still figure out it was wrong maybe not quick but by now it would have been eradicated from the south if we won maybe you should ban the Union flag after all they killed hundreds of thousands of southerners and burned their houses and stop comparing it to the Nazi swastika and I'm not saying confederates didn't kill either but what do you expect its a war the confederate flag is also part of the Mississippi flag I have also heard it was used in tenesee during the American revolution top that. by the way i know that was a gian trun on sentence dont take off for that please.
is the confedederate flag offensive and should it be banned

The Confederate flag can be offensive to African-Americans, just as the swastika can be offensive to Jews. Specifically examples of racial violence incited because of this offensive flag are included on the following pages: [1] [2] [3]. Victims of the needless violence incited by the flag include members of all races and nationalities; indeed, the Civil War was a major turning point for America; even today, it continues to influence the current racial climate of the nation. Hopefully my opponent will agree that due to the similarities between the two, either both the Confederate flag and swastika are offensive and ought be banned or neither one is and both ought be allowed. For this rest of this round, I will operate under the presumption that the two are equivalent, allowing any attacks on the swastika to function as attacks on the confederate flag. P1) Swastikas are banned in Germany, Hungary, Lithuania, Poland, Latin America, and even in the video game COD: Black Ops [4]. They are banned for good reason. Indeed, if that many nations choose to ban a symbol, it follows that the banned symbol must have the potential to incite crimes or disrupt social harmony. P2) Swastikas are used by antisemitism, racist, holocaust-denying, neo-nazi groups to promote Nazism, fascism, and white supremacy [4]. Banned swastikas sends a clear message to the public that these groups will not be tolerated and that being a fascist, white-supremacist neo-nazi is not okay. Hopefully Con agrees with P1 and P2. These criticisms can easily be extended to the Confederate flag: Q1) The Confederate flag is banned in Southern schools [5] because it is "RACIALLY HOSTILE, OFFENSIVE OR INTOLERANT" and has incited and will continue to incite criminal acts given the current racial climate of America [1][2][3]. Q2) Confederate flags are used by white supremacists [6] and racists [7]. Banning this flag will send the message that it is not okay to be a racist or a white supremacist. I do not think Con is a racist, white supremacist, or neo-nazi. If only people like Con were allowed to fly the Confederate flag, I would have no problem with that. In fact, I fully support the legalization of the Confederate flag a couple decades later. However, right now, due to the current racial climate of the US, I must oppose it for the various reasons included in my speech. In conclusion, the practical consequences outweigh the theoretical benefits of allowing the Confederate flag. Sources: 1. http://www.stormfront.org... 2. http://www.heraldtribune.com... 3. http://chronicle.augusta.com... 4. http://en.wikipedia.org... 5. http://www.theblaze.com... 6. http://www.stormfront.org... 7. http://www.stormfront.org...
Flag Burning

Since I didn't get a proper response from my opponent, I will instead respond to the comment left by an observer who thinks he can argue better than wingnut: "oh my god, everybody against flag burning put so much emotion into debates and always talk about why you shouldn't burn the flag instead of why it should be illegal. It's annoying." -First off, I didn't put "emotion" into this debate. I did argue from my point of view, and that is what one is supposed to do in a debate, unless you have some other skewed suggestion. Furthermore, it is not and has never been my position that flag burning should be illegal, so why would I argue that point? I don't see how you are annoyed by this- it is the format of every debate. There is one person arguing one point, and one person arguing the opposite. Is that difficult to understand? So, you disagree... so??? Burn away, buddy! I have made no attempt or comment that would stop anyone from burning flags. All I have stated is that FLAG BURNING IS AN ACT OF VIOLENCE, AND ONE SHOULD EXPECT A VIOLENT REACTION.
Flag Burning

Your argument is that flag burning is legal, but offensive. So, I should be prepared to be assaulted if I exercise my right to free speech. How can you advocate assaulting someone for exercising their rights? Would you beat the hell out of Rosa Parks if that was supposed to be your bus seat? Would you gas protesters if you didn't like their message? What if you didn't like Jews? Your advocating abusing people who voice their opinion or exercise their rights. This kind of mentality is the embodiment of hosing civil rights activists and the nazi movement. Not to be dramatic, but seriously, this is the oldtimely intolerance mentality. "If you piss me off I'm gonna kick your @$$!" Even if you don't personally advocate attacking these people, telling them to stay quiet and not exercise their rights because of the potential backlash goes against every great movement of protest. People acted against Martin Luther King and Jesus Christ, does that mean they should have just kept to themselves and not rocked the boat? We agree that flag burning is a legal right. It doesn't hurt anyone, so acting against someone who burns the flag wouldn't be self-defense, realistically. So, how can it be moral in any way to attack a person who burns the flag? We agree that it is legally ok, and exercising your own rights without hurting others is a moral action. Attacking those who exercise their rights is certainly not moral. We shouldn't restrict people's rights in the name of avoiding a disturbance.
Flag Burning

So, your cool with it as long as I can keep my butt from getting kicked? If no one comes to beat the crap out of me it was fine? Flag burning is meant to be contreversial. Radical means of symbolic speech are the only ones that can bring about change sometimes. Extreme measures make people look and realize that it has come to that point. Instead of quietly casting your vote amongst millions or forming yet another protest, flag burning can serve as one of the most effective avenues of voicing opinions. I realize you would personally get pissed if someone burned your country's flag. But, how can you be against flag burning when you admit you would burn and desecrate one yourself? I think that is the very definition of hypocrisy and your position makes NO SENSE.
Flag Burning

I assume you challenged me to this debate based on my personal position against flag burning. My position is simple- you can burn a flag all you want, but don't cry "murder" or "assault" when someone hurts you or even kills you for it. There is no intelligent argument in support of the act of flag burning- not to say there is no intelligent argument in support of the RIGHT to burn a flag. What purpose does burning a flag serve? Does it send a message that you are discontent with the government of the country in which you live in? Not really- the flag doesn't represent the government. Could it be a protest against the Administration? No- the flag does not represent the administration. Can it be regarded as a protest against specific citizens of a country? No- the flag represents the entire nation. The only intelligent defense in favor of the actual act of flag burning is that you would like to see that country destroyed. A flag, a guidon, a shield, a crest- they all represent the people belonging to a specific country, nation, culture, region, religion, etc. Burning the flag does not affect the sentiments of the government, it does not change policies, it does not bring about change. Burning a flag can only serve to anger those who identify with the flag. I am an ardent defender of free speech. I am very anti-establishment, and I have taken part in MANY protests. I am a Nationalist (not American), and I would take great offense against the burning of the flag that represents my country. I would defend anyone who was disenfranchised, unheard, or unrepresented, but I would also beat the living crap out of anyone who burned my nation's flag. In short, my position against flag burning is not a legal or a political position, rather one of respect for those who may identify themselves with a flag that to ME might represent one thing, but a completely different thing to those who identify with that particular flag. A flag is a symbol, and flag burning is not an act of free speech, rather a symbolic expression of violence. Fire represents conflict, war, weaponry, killing, struggle, etc. Noone burns a flag with the expectation that someone will smile and hug them, rather someone will get pissed and confront them. I would gladly burn a Confederate flag, piss on it, wipe my rear end with it, crap on it, and drag it through the mud (as if the rest wasn't enough), but I would also be prepared to defend myself. I would be prepared to defend myself physically, verbally, and with weapons if the situation required it- but the last thing I would expect is for people NOT to be offended to the point of wanting to confront me. Therein lies the hipocrisy behind those who defend flag burning- many of you write checks that your a$$ can't cash. Flag burning just happens to be one of those checks.
Celebrity Performers are Paid far too much

At this point, I believe it is appropriate to recall some of the arguments put forth by Adam Smith concerning wages. One of the reasons Smith put forward for the disparity of wages was the failure rate. Essentially, wages are like a lottery. If, say, only 1/20 people succeed, that 1 will make the wages due to the other 20. The chances of becoming a celebrity are astronomically slight. That person, therefore, makes the wages that would normally be due to many hundreds, or even many thousands of people. Doctors, lawyers, and other highly respected professions have significantly lower (though still high) failure rates. I would also like to rehash the value point. These people have value. They make stuff sell. Their presence, their endorsement, is worth millions. That's why people pay it. At any given time, there are maybe a few dozen celebrities who have inflammatory value. However, at any given time, there are thousands of doctors who could cure a particular ailment. By the way, the stress of being a celebrity is tremendous. We demand a lot out of our celebrities, and scrutinize their every move on a national level. If you don't think being a celebrity is stressful, talk to Brittney Spears. And celebrities do not spend mostly within their own wealth bracket. Its not as if Snoop Dog pays Tupac $50 to drive a limo around for him. Instead, they create many high-paying jobs in their area that afford relatively luxurious lifestyles for those therein employed. And do you think the limo drivers are buying filet mignon and caviar stuffed lobster? No way, they buy normal things of predictable utility, like houses and economy cars. And the producers of those buy even more basic goods. Basically, there is a principal of economics that says money sinks. People buy things from people who have less money, and it eventually sinks to the bottom, and is then jettisoned back up to the top. Wealth distribution is really nothing to worry about in a free market. It is just another indicator of supply and demand.
Celebrity Performers are Paid far too much

I acknowledge that celebrities keep the money going around, and that they are making profits for multiple people. I still say that all of the profits are not due to them, but are due to the writers, producers, and background people who work to make the lines and scenes, backgrounds and stages, for celebrities to perform. Those people are often not paid nearly as much as the people in front of the audiences. On the issue of celebrity spending, yes, they may spend their money freely, but majority of that money goes to other companies and people who are in that same monetary bracket---and are often connected to the celebrities---paying endorsements and giving away items---basically returning that money. This means that much of celebrity money stays within the same small circle of wealth. This is still unfair to those whose jobs are much more important, and require more education, training, and day to day stress, such as doctors, nurses, politicians, and lawyers.
Celebrity Performers are Paid far too much

Actually, the accumulation of wealth is not necessarily bad. These people make money because the movie companies/paparazzi or whatever will actually still make a profit with these exorbitant wages. People really want to see them. A lot. In fact, so much that they will provide the company that employs these celebrities with millions in profits. I believe that its only fair. If these people's endorsements or talents are really worth millions of dollars in profit, its only fair that they take a good share of it. Besides, having them be very wealthy is not necessarily bad. Its not as if they're hiding the money under the sofa. They are spending it and simply moving wealth around the economy, just like all of us. Their purchases employ others, just like all purchases do. I refuse to fault them for spending their money, that they earned, just because their service is of nearly incomprehensible value.
0.999... = 1 | Prove Me Wrong

At this point, I don't know how much more disrespectful, grammatically-incorrect rambling I can sort through since it is clear that this is not going anywhere. To anyone voting, I will say:- There are many things that can be focused on in this debate. Most notably, I feel, is Pro's repeated demonstration of a complete lack of understanding of even the most basic mathematical concepts...the very mathematical concepts on which he/she bases his/her argument.- I think it has become more than abundantly clear that Pro does not have a single original thought of their own and is simply lifting arguments from outside sources without giving credit.- Further, and as a result of this, Pro is unable to absorb, understand, and refute even the most basic challenges to these arguments that he/she did not come up with in the first place-Pro's repeated use of aggressiveness, invocation of condescending language, and flippant disregard for logical discourse have cast a negative shadow upon the entire debate Thanks for your time!
0.999... = 1 | Prove Me Wrong

I now think you"re trying to not accept 0.999... = 1. To be blatantly honest you"ve just beaten around the bush this whole argument. For the algebra x = 0.999... whatever Your making it so much more complicated that it had to be. All I asked you to do was disprove that this proof couldn"t work, or is invalid. For 1/3 = 0.333... whatever you said that "2/3 = 0.667" in round 1. For what number comes in between whatever... You gave me h. Yes h. This clearly shows you can"t find an actual number that comes in between so you gave me a variable to cover up the fact that you couldn"t come up with an answer because THERE IS NONE! And you"ve completely dodged and ducked the calculator thing. Yes I did in as you put it "put too many nines". There is no such thing as too many nines as it infinetelty repeats nines. Ask any mathematician about this and they will in fact tell you that 0.999... = 1.
0.999... = 1 | Prove Me Wrong

How can 10x - x = 9x - x? If I said that I'm sorry but that's simply not possible. 9x - x is always something less than 10x - x. Ex. x = 2 20 - 2 = 18 - 2 18 = 16 You are right no proof shows 0.3 + 0.3 = 0.7 I'm saying that you got 0.7 by rounding 0.333... + 0.333... What proof do you have that h exists. I could say 1 < h < 1 I checked in those calculators you gave me and they all showed 0.999... = 1. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE watch this wonderful video, it will make everything super clear.
0.999... = 1 | Prove Me Wrong

As I've said so many times to so many people, 0.999 and 0.999... are different numbers. GO figure out yourself, I don't have time to explain it again. 1. As I've said before it depends what x and y are that determine if you can subtract or add them 2. I'm sorry I didn't know you simplified the problem to 10x - x = 9x = 9. But yes if you plug in x you will see this equation is true. 3. Sorry I mistyped that I meant 10x - x = 9.999... - 0.999... 4. Once again you can't take away the ... it simply means the number goes on with 9's forever. 0.3 + 0.3 = ).6 how could it equal 0.7, please show me a proof. Give me the Excel please. By the way then lets not round. 1/3 = 0.333... 2/3 = 0.666... 3/3 = 0.999... There it goes on forever. The way people get is they ROUND. 1/3 + 1/3 = 0.333... + 0.333. = 0.666... Since you round up the 6 becomes a 7 giving you 0.666...7. 5. This proof of yours makes no sense. Exactly you admit you couldn't give me a number as you gave me an "h". What is "h"? I don't think you understand the concept of infinity as there is no "tiny, tiny, little, infinitely small number" to make up the difference as ... means it goes on forever. Forever doesn't have a gap. 5a. Your number that you are waiting for is 0.9999... which is equal to 0.999... the ... means it goes on infinitely. The number of nines in ... is so much it's not even a number it's a concept. 6. Okay fine don't use Google use any calculator you want it says 0.999999999... equals 1. The calculator really doesn't matter.