BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Debating on Debate.com

Most of my opponents arguments are fallacious, as quoted below: "Has this website always been this way?I don't think so, it must have changed to accommodate for the general public's other debates." First of all, this is just a guess, not a cited fact. Even if it were changed, then why was it changed to accommodate and not changed to ban? "Why would people want to debate about things such as MLP. It didn't resolve anything nor does it have an effect on the general public because most will not bother to see it." People do what they want to do. If you really want to know, ask them. I cannot speak for them, as these courses of actions are personal. Some possible reasons are that they just simply feel like it, or (like I said before) they would want to defend the prejudice of being deemed a homosexual for liking MLP. Call them unsatisfactory responses, but you would fare no better if I were to question all your quirks and choices you make. Like: Why would you tilt your head 12 degrees to your left when you run? "Debating about unimportant subjects is just waste of time." Some people consider debating fun. Take Imabench for example. He has a lot of fun debates, and he is considered one of the best on this site. Or what about the drawing debates? Rap Battles? Call it a waste a time if you want, but make sure you don't become a hypocrite* in doing so. *in this case, it means doing anything that is a waste of time. "Also, how many poets do you know?How do you know that the poet might have done an unintentional idea that high school students need to ascertain?" That was just an example. For example, if I said "For example, Steve Jobs used toilet water as stress relief.", I don't have to even know Steve Jobs to say that. Also, you don't seem to grasp on to any concept of what an example is. An example can be anything logical and fitting, whether it be an actual account, a possible account, or even a fantasy. (Aesop's fables were fantasy, and can be used as excellent examples) "If the creators of the website didn't put to have intellectual debates, then it could have been implied, or they wouldn't have posted a quote on the home page of own website." Keyword: Could. It could not have been implied. It could have been a secret message in a different language meaning the English equivalent of "Bamboo"
Debating on Debate.com

If people wanted to debate about unimportant ideas then they should do that else where. Has this website always been this way? I don't think so, it must have changed to accommodate for the general public's other debates. Why would people want to debate about things such as MLP. It didn't resolve anything nor does it have an effect on the general public because most will not bother to see it. Debating about unimportant subjects is just waste of time. Also, how many poets do you know? How do you know that the poet might have done an unintentional idea that high school students need to ascertain? If the creators of the website didn't put to have intellectual debates, then it could have been implied, or they wouldn't have posted a quote on the home page of own website.
Debating on Debate.com

My opponent appears to have only three definite opinions stated in their argument: We should not debate whether or not My Little Pony is for homosexuals (because) we should be debating other issues that are more significant(because) a debate about My Little Pony isn't intellectual Though it may be claimed that My Little Pony was merely an example, I have no reason to believe so as of right now. All I have to refute is those three opinions, but realistically only one because it is the reason behind her other points. Pro: A debate about MLP isn't intellectual First of all, although "Debate.org is a free online community where intelligent minds from around the world come to debate", that is merely a saying. Ever heard the quote, "Don't quote me on this"? That means that people don't have a definitive, strong opinion on a certain case, and is not to be carefully examined. Kind of a like a poet, who may not have intended to have their work scrutinized to the bare minimum, yet because of their decorated status, a high school classroom may try to brainstorm some unintentional ideas that might apply to the poem. People don't wish to choose their words like a merchant at a market all the time, and it would be uncourteous to hold somebody for a lax sentence that had no intended further meaning. However, the terms of service is a carefully published set of words, as the owner would not want to have people find loopholes in the rules and get away with stuff right? Though I currently have no proof of this, a quick comment from TUF would be nice. The terms of service are found here--> http://www.debate.org... nowhere does it explicitly state "you must have an intellectual debate" or "you must research today's controversies". In fact, as I type this argument, there is a list of debate topics on the side bar, with Entertainment, Funny, and Games amongst them. If these were subtopics, then it cannot be intentional unless you want to argue to possibility of accidentally coding something and not changing it long enough for over 3000 debates to be created. It may not be stated, but like I said before, don't take a slight statement too seriously. It is a place for intelligent minds to converse, but it did not say what it is not. And that, is the type of evidence a person who claims something is not or not for something else should have. And with that, we have the other two opinions unbacked. An unbacked opinion cannot stand on it's own and is worth nothing.
Debating on Debate.com

We should not debate whether or not My Little Pony is for homosexual, or any to that reference, we should be debating other issues that are more significant. "Debate.org is a free online community where intelligent minds from around the world come to debate online and read the opinions of others. Research today"s most controversial debate topics and cast your vote on our opinion polls." I agree with this statement, but what I have seen so far, debates about my little ponies isn't an intellectual debate.
The earth is flat.

My opponent's rebuttal for not seeing a specular highlight is one that is used as an excuse for many holes in the ball earth theory: it's too big. My opponent ignores the actual mathematics involved in measuring the earth entirely. So let's see once again, exactly how big the earth actually is. At one mile, granted, 8 inches is very slight, but we don't live on a slope, so the next mile should be showing four times that amount of drop, 32 inches. At three miles, a 6 foot drop, hiding another human. My opponent what attempted to undermine this argument, saying things like: "It is unclear to me whether or not my opponent understands optics to a high degree" "he proposes incorrect models of optics to base his statements" With no specific rhyme or reason. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com... He continues: "one significant error with his argument is his statement; where he proposes that on a flat mirror/surface, the reflection would be elongated." I've never made this statement. Ocean surfaces are not mirror like in the least. Though some bodies of water are relatively flat, as in the salt flats during the flood season. http://torontominiclub.com... These flats are about 4,000 sq ft. Of mirrors during this season. He continues with: "even more so when cast in light of the presence of waves," Which is why we don't see mirror reflections in every body of water. Yet the light from the sun should not even be reflecting on these waves at all. According to the model my that con defends, the sun is below the observer's feet upon sunset. Which means that this statement: "the experiment suggested by my opponent does not consider that we would have to hold the part of the material closest to our face, so that it would be parallel to our line of sight with the light-source" Cannot work with his model. http://askanastronomer.org... https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com... http://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov... In this picture the sun is far enough way from the cloud formation to create (almost) parallel rays. This doesn't mean that the sun is 93,000,000 miles away. This is how light works. http://www.debate.org...
The earth is flat.

Good evening, all; without further ado, I will now present my counter-rebuttal. My opponent first claims that the sun is a mere 10 miles above the earth's surface; a demonstrably wrong statement in light of what I am about to explain. Starting with the fact that anyone in a plane, flying higher than 10 miles, can still see the sun way above their line of sight; indicating that it is indeed far higher than only ten miles. Not only that, but if it were to be no more than ten miles high, the total amount of time in which the sun would be in the middle of the sky (for this sake, any higher than 45d above the horizon), would be no longer than 28 seconds, due to speed at which it would be moving (as it does a 62000km journey over 24 hours; or in detail: http://pastebin.com...). This is also problematic for the 100km option, but as I am generous here, that is the lower bound. Due to the possibility of the sun being 10km high being ruled out, we do not need to take much consideration of crepuscular rays; moreover in light of them not supporting the 10km model to begin with. Yes, they may seem angled; but in fact, they are parallel. This is rather simple to demonstrate, as all parallel lines will appear to be angled when perspective is considered (also, there's this: http://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov...). That being said, my opponent further tries to present evidence to support his argument instead of addressing the many images I have brought. Both (1) and (3) occur with clouds in the distance; whilst my sources to not. The atmosphere excuse does not apply to any (or most, at least) of my sources. In my sources, the sun is peeking over the horizon, not over a layer of atmosphere. His argument brought with source (4) is irrelevant, as at higher altitudes even he agrees it does not apply ("...where the observer is very close to the ground..."); due to this, I do not even need to address his "explanation" about perspective; one that is false in every way possible. Yet I will. When you are above any common wave (a mere twelve feet will do); perspective cannot cause anything below you to rise any higher than the horizon, ever. In perspective, the further away something is, the higher your perspective of it becomes; yet this effect cannot ever cause something to go above or under the horizon, as it will always be above or below your line of sight with it; this can be easily explained using a simple piece of paper, and similarly with mathematics. Did you know that, Edlvjsd? Perspective is based off mathematics! It may seem odd to you, but perspective is simply another name for applied trigonometry; if you refuse to accept the latter, you refuse to accept the former. Mathematics being accurate is simply a fact, else nothing in our daily lives would even begin to work. Planes, infrastructure, anything to do with engineering; it all goes back to simple maths. And as always, I wish you all a good night.
The earth is flat.

I explained in the last round how con's arguments and mine were very similar, yet different. The difference is important because the evidence I provide is directly related to the earth, and how a source of light acts upon it, while con is trying to prove his position by observing the sun, and how it acts in the sky. That being said, cons argument is just his misunderstanding of perspective, coupled with his obsession with mathematics. Con assumes a few things in his equations. First, the distance to the sun from the closest point on earth. While flat earth websites claim that the sun is 3,000 miles, or, as con claims, 100km above the earth, I cannot make this claim. I've seen the sun at no more than 10 or so miles high (0). Granted, these are videos and can be faked of course, but add these together with crepuscular rays(0a) , which are seen by literally everyone, and it is enough for me to conclude that estimating what and where the sun is is mere speculation. Con will pull his text book out, explain crispucular rays away like RR tracks, but there is an obvious difference in the angles. I'm very impressed with con's ability to come up with measurements using angles and so forth, but as I will show, mathematics is NOT absolute. You cannot factor for everything in an equation. Let us look at some sunrises.{1) As we can see at 1:00, the sun comes up NOT in the shape of a waning moon(2b), but more of a waxing moon(2a). This tells me that this shape is due to atmospheric blockage, which get thinner with altitude, not coming over some curvature. Atmosphere can be very thick even over small distances, as seen on foggy days. This is at a relatively high altitude, so we know we are pretty clear of most any higher ground than that of the observer, contrary to this timelapse of the sun, done lower, yet not quite sea level.(3) Notice at about 2:18, there is a pretty solid darker line, forming the transition from visible terra firma to a layer of thick atmosphere, 1,000 miles of it, as my opponent mentions. This atmosphere is no doubt blocking light from coming through, and sure enough, at 3:43, the sun is peeking over this patch of atmosphere, and not the ground plane. In instances where the observer is very close to the ground plane(4), this is where the earth itself is blocking the sun... Let me explain. The earth is far from perfectly and mathematically flat. There are waves, swells, hills, etc. Perspective causes the horizon to rise up to the eye's level. This is the point of convergence, where all lines converge. If a swell is at or near this point, it's peak will be above this point. Essentially the horizon will move up, and block any light behind it. These swells vary obviously, in both size, and distance to the POC. Note how the horizon rises and falls. These swells get very large on the ocean, so until you can get higher than these, you won't even see the combination of more than 4 miles of atmosphere. Sources in the comments.
The earth is flat.

It is unclear to me whether or not my opponent understands optics to a high degree (nothing wrong with that); but whatever the case, I will do my best to try and explain the issues with his argument. What his argument seems to say is that the earth, begin a convex structure, should have light reflect off it in a way that does not comply with evidence. The rebuttal, as simple as it is; is, at its heart, a matter of scale. Because of the size and distance of the earth, the curve is indeed too small to cause us to see specular highlights in a way that would stand out so that it appeared significantly different from the reflections of a mirror. Furthermore, he proposes incorrect models of optics to base his statements; and so, I will now go into detail regarding my rebuttal: First, one significant error with his argument is his statement; where he proposes that on a flat mirror/surface, the reflection would be elongated. This can be refuted by simply using a mirror (and was already addressed in my previous debate with the gent); and as I have stated before, due to the earth being so large and close to us, the difference it being curved would make, would be negligible to say the least; even more so when cast in light of the presence of waves (water waves, not light waves; in case you got confused); significantly changing how we see the reflection either ways. To go into further detail, my opponent provides a diagram which supposedly demonstrates how we should be able to see reflections of the sun. The issue here, is that his statement: "It would even be safe to say that a reflection of the sun would be impossible to see, since the observer is at point 1 in this diagram. (6) The reflection would only be visible at 7. ", is simply false. Light reflecting off a low angle, near point 1, would continue forth in a similar angle, (from below,) until reaching the viewer, at 1. It would be most definitely possible to see this reflection on a spherical earth; this is simple optics. And to address the continuation of his argument; given that even after 100km of distance, we still have less than one kilometer of curve; the effect would be negligible (think about something that is one meter long, yet at one corner, only one centimeter high). But aside from that, the experiment suggested by my opponent does not consider that we would have to hold the part of the material closest to our face, so that it would be parallel to our line of sight with the light-source; this would accurately represent the system in which we see the sun, and this would allow us to see the reflection. And if even that wasn't enough, I HAVE already explained how we could see the reflection on a spherical earth beforehand.
The earth is flat.

Thanks again for inviting me to debate about the flat earth. My opponent's wishes caught me a little unbalanced, because I feel that the most powerful argument for a flat earth is a preponderance of evidence in the dichotomy, versus the opposition. Occam's razor is a close second. Neither of these options would be viable, so I'll have to choose one that my opponent and our voters can understand. Since my opponent loves the words mirage and refraction, Chicago was out, so it fell to number 4 on my list, and it happens to be similar to my opponent's opening argument... but different in a very important way, more on this point in the rebuttal round. The specular highlight. Light reflects off of convex surfaces in unique ways. I'll just pull one of my opponent's sources here for starters. (1)(2) This is a linear reflection. The light from the sun or moon is elongated here, and mirror like here. (3) but there's the problem, curved surfaces produce specular highlights on a ball (4), and shrunken, warped reflections on a ball.(5) These expected results have never been found. That should be the only truth anyone should ever need really. It would even be safe to say that a reflection of the sun would be impossible to see, since the observer is at point 1 in this diagram. (6) The reflection would only be visible at 7. Samuel Rowbotham wrote in Zetectic Astronomy: IF the earth is a globe, and is 25,000 English statute miles in circumference, the surface of all standing water must have a certain degree of convexity--every part must be an arc of a circle. From the summit of any such arc there will exist a curvature or declination of 8 inches in the first statute mile. In the second mile the fall will be 32 inches; in the third mile, 72 inches, or 6 feet" When the math is done (7), it should curve 6 feet down in just 3 miles from the sea level, and, being a ball, would curve very sharply with over a mile drop from only 100 miles, so we should see these effects on our lakes and oceans. It would be a very noticable drop. To show this in observational experimentation, flatten out a long piece of reflective material, such as sheet metal. I like to use the side with imperfections, to simulate waves. Since we are very close to the earth in comparison to the sun, we hold the material up to the eye, and point it at a source of light, now bend that material, even the slightest, and the reflection will not remain. Now consider where the sun is at the time if sunset for any observer. Logically, any curve would interrupt this line of light between the source of light and the observer, this is the reason we see shadows being cast by ripples. Since this reflection is impossible to get on a ball, but experimentally reproduced with a flat surface, this is an empirical proof that there is no curvature. https://docs.google.com...
The earth is flat.

My opening argument is rather simple: I will diagnose the mutually exclusive possibilities of a model in which the earth is flat, and how it does or does not fit with simple observation. The flat earth model states that, in supposed correlation with the presence of time-zones, the sun setting is nothing more than said sun reaching a certain distance (usually accepted as 10,000km; yet that is a minor detail), from which no light can reach the viewer, causing night. Ignoring the lack of evidence or structure that would allow such a phenomenon to occur, this model still does not correlate with simple observation, as explained hence: If the sun was to "set" in this manner, we would stop seeing it in the sky after reaching a certain angle above the horizon. This is supported by the principles of perspective, those dictated by the simple laws of trigonometry (easily demonstrable with a piece of paper). Depending on the supposed altitude of the sun, the angle above the horizon in which it would set would be no lower than two degrees (as per: . http://pastebin.com...); this means that according to the flat earth, the sun and no part whatsoever thereof could ever be lower than two degrees above the horizon, and that being with the most generously low estimate for the sun's altitude. Evidently, the sun reaches lower than two degrees over the horizon, as demonstrated by the following images (a handful out of a thousand, not to mention personal experience anyone can try at the right time): . http://scontent.cdninstagram.com... . https://c1.staticflickr.com... . https://tradeashesforbeauty.files.wordpress.com... . http://www.captaindanswatertours.com... Not to mention the sun (or parts thereof, easier to demonstrate) going BENEATH THE HORIZON. If the sun was to go under the horizon on a flat earth, the entire world would go dark at once; this clearly isn't the case, meaning that the sun would have to constantly hover over the horizon. It clearly doesn't, leaving the conclusion to be almost obvious; as the flat earth is hereby impossible. Of course, I could also mention the fact that the angular size of the sun does not change to the degree it should on a flat earth; but that is another argument for another debate, as (for this debate specifically,) each contender is allowed only one argument. And before I close my opening argument; I'd like to address the rebuttal I already see coming from my opponent, one regarding refraction; so if he does indeed use that as an argument, I can already give a guarantee that my counter-rebuttal is ready in hand.
The earth is flat.

The rules are simple. My opponent accepts the challenge in round one, and presents ONE of his strongest arguments in favour of the flat earth. Round two is where I present my opening argument, and in which my opponent attempts to rebut it. In round three, I will present my rebuttal for my opponent's strongest argument, and my opponent presents him counter-rebuttal for my refutation. Round four is where I present my counter-rebuttal for my opponent's refutation, and since round one is more or less forfeited by me (a round of nothing but formalities, unlike what I am requesting my opponent to do in it), it is mandatory that he forfeits the last round, so that we both get an equal amount of space for the debate. Alternatively, he could simply accept the challenge in the first round; and the remaining rounds would go as commonly accepted (R2 - arguments (again, ONE for each side), R3 - refutations, R4 counter-rebuttals and closing remarks). No new arguments are to be presented after the second round. No external sources are to be allowed, unless for information alone (i. e. the argument cannot be posted as a source).