BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
I am a worse debater than my opponent

A group of giraffes is called a tower.Sung to the tune of: "Dance (A$$) - Big Sean"Con Con Con Con ConCon Con Con Con ConCon Con Con Con ConCon Con Con Con ConCon Con....STOP! Click con for all the arguments like oh oh oh oh ohContentions Contentions ha! Argue, ArgueEach Po-posting you make I gotta google the wordI got issues every round that I cant comprehendHow my opponent so good? Gives me 7-point lossDrop that line....its the strongestAttack my sources, man, I made them upNew York Times, Yesterday, CNN that other day,Forget that....The Onion all the wayI just make up my points and I cant even spreadMy opponent's so good my pants getting wetPRO scared me so much, I peed in my pants,Just forget real life, I can't debate on the net, so sadDrop that contention, name those sourcesYou the best, you deserve the titleAttacking the Con Con Con Con ConCon Con Con Con ConCon Con Con Con ConCon Con Con Con ConCon Con....STOP! Click con for all the arguments like oh oh oh oh ohStop it! Negate it, Negate itYou got everyone in here doubting my sourcesYo voters, I'm your worst-est, pro the winna,Man you're good, they know I'm badYou try to lie, shut upYou got those mad skills, contentions still upAnd you got those sources, those C's still backed upClaim it then you back it, I can't even comprehend it,Man I'm 'bout to back out,Might forfeit the next round,Cause I just can't back thatCon Con Con Con ConCon Con Con Con ConCon Con Con Con ConCon Con Con Con ConCon Con....STOP! Click con for all the arguments like oh oh oh oh ohWoah, papers, journals, magazines, sources!Back those points, back those points, back those pointsBack those points, back those points, back those points,Oh no!My opponent's better thanCon Con Con Con ConCon Con Con Con ConCon Con Con Con ConCon Con Con Con ConCon Con....STOP! Click CON for all the arguments!
I am a worse debater than my opponent

The Easter Island heads aren't just heads, every head has a body though most of them are buried to deep for people to see them. To be read to the tune of Somebody that I Used to Know To start off, I'd like to say that you are better At anything that's related to debates I plan to use this round to make my point Though my arguments, they may be too disjoint We have our rules and I'll follow them to the letter You can try to claim that you are a really bad writer But truly you are doomed to win, in the end. I guess I might as well not even try But I plan to try my best this round But my best debating is not very good at all I wish I could debate better! Can't make a good counter claim or make a central point My argument's too redundant, but that's the only way I know I am just that bad. I even have mispellings! Even miss some puctuation and utilize CAPS LOCK I am bad at all those things I do not have a conclusion for round one!
I am a worse debater than my opponent

This debate is to decide who is worse at debating, me (pro), or my opponent, (con). There will be 5 rounds the first round will be for accepting the challenge and agreeing on the rules. Rules: The arguments must be written with the same rhyme scheme and syllable counts as a popular song so that the argument can be sung to that tune. The song's title must be provided at the beginning of each round. No words used may have more than three vowels in a row. Each round must be begun with a fun fact such as, "Scorpions can hold there breath for up to six days.
The Witness, WORST video game ever!!!

To be honest, I don't even know why I'm taking this. Just look at your username. But I guess I should probably take this seriously. No. The Witness is not the worst game ever. It's very easy to see that there are a large amount of games objectively worse than the Witness. It has nowhere near the amount of bugs and flaws in coding in other games such as Superman 64. We also can't forget public opinion. The Witness has many 10s and 9s. But let's check your personal arguments. Let me copy and paste a few paragraphs from a Reddit beginner's guide. "The game will always have a set of "tutorial puzzles" for each new mechanic, so again, if you haven't found the "tutorial" for a certain mechanic or puzzle symbol type, you can just move on." Which means you probably should've tried to see if there was any tutorial. Also, the environment helps a lot. The environment often plays a role in the puzzles - you often have to literally think outside the box. Look at the environment around or behind the puzzle and see how it might be related. Example (small puzzle spoiler): near the beginning there's some pink trees - the key to the puzzles in that area is to look at their branches. (it hints at this because the puzzle is also pink and shaped like a tree)." It's not that the awnser isn't there, it's just that you weren't in the right mindset for this game. Speaking of that, why didn't you use a guide? Don't let your pride of solving it yourself ruin a game for you. I recommend you give a second chance. Hope I helped. Sources:https://www.reddit.com... http://www.metacritic.com...
The Witness, WORST video game ever!!!

I appreciate all your comments on The Witness, you have some good points, but I must stress that this is not a game. This is a Leap Frog exercise and for anyone like me who got fooled into thinking this is an adventure/puzzle game, IT'S NOT. The Witness could have been a good video game, IF they added some kind of story, an intro story or some kind of reason why you are on the island in the first place. The micro recordings could still have been hidden but would provide clues to puzzles. The puzzles themselves could have been different instead of the same move around a maze screen going left right left, could have used more puzzles like in The Talos Principle. They could have had some dangers thrown in or maybe some native cannibals to make the game more exciting by having you sneak around while trying to solve the puzzles. A day and night cycle. Like I said before I give this game 1 star for the graphics out of 10. I wouldn't even consider this a game. This is more of a mental exercise for retards like those exercises on Leaf Frog for kids. All you do is try to figure out some stupid candy crush/tetris/bejeweled puzzle, to be rewarded with another same stupid puzzle with a different variation. That to me is not a video game, just a lame IOS exercise. You want to talk about good video games, how about Horizon Zero Dawn, now there is a game, a great story, action, suspense, reward system. The Witness will for ever go down as the shittiest video game in the video game history books, right there with the ET for Atari https://www.bbc.com...
Riddle Debate

This is a fun (not a serious) "debate". This is not a debate. This is more of a riddle debate.If the opponent gets it correct, everyone please give the opponent all seven points.If the opponent doesn't get it correct, please give me seven points. Now to the riddle.When is it possible that 99+1=60. (hint: look carefully).Good luck to whoever my opponent is. The first round for my opponent will be two hints. The opponent will have to answer on the second round. You can only guess once.Thank you!
Resolved: God is not alive.

This is a debate concerning whether or not God is alive. The burden of proof obviously relies on pro, it is my job to prove that God does not exist or, is dead, or is not alive in his/her present state. If con can refute my arguments successfully or prove that God is defined as alive then they will have won the debate. Rules: 1. No trolling. 2. No Semantics. 3. Dropped arguments count as concessions. Definitions: God: The monotheistic God. This is the same god described in all of the Abrahamic Religions such as Christianity, Islam and Judaism. Characteristics of God include: Omnipresent, Perfect, and all powerful. Alive: Possessing all 7 characteristics of life commonly defined by most scientists. Can be found on the definitions section of this site: . http://en.wikipedia.org...
Best Religioun

It is unfortunate that my opponent forfeited as I would have liked to see his arguments. This debate is twofold. First is that I show what is wrong with Koran. Second I will show why Christianity and the Bible is better. One verse is the verse of the sword Surah 9:5. “Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.” In Islamic theological tradition later verses abrogate previous verses rendering the previous verses no long applicable. This verse of the sword is one such late verse. [1] The Koran has been corrupted and changed (see second video the first few minutes) so which version is correct? Now why is the Bible better? The Bible had been translated then most faithfully of any book and has the most evidence of any book of its era. The dead sea scrolls show some of the oldest available manuscripts and the words match up with later manuscripts perfectly. There are about 24,000 manuscripts that all agree.[2][3] I hope my opponent shows up for the next round of the debate as I am looking forward to what he has to say. 1 http://library.flawlesslogic.com... 2 http://www.allaboutgod.net... 3 http://home.earthlink.net... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com...
Best Religioun

My opponent challenged me to a debate about the best religion. I don't know why he chose me specifically and he didn't really give anything to go by so I will take it upon myself to set up some parameters. First of all, the one thing my opponent did say is that "Islam is the best religion". I can only assume that means he wants me to debate against Islam even though he chose himself as con. However, since he didn't actually set up specifics for what pro and con would be, con will be defending Islam, pro will be defending Christianity. I await the next round to see what my opponent has to say and if he agrees to these terms.
This house believes that christmas was killed by consumerism.

Although Pro had some good points, many were either irrelevant, or simply not true. I will start with my refutations. Refutations:Pro's second paragraph says that gift giving is a great idea that"is a symbolic gesture which servces to both evoke and remind people of an important part of the Christmas Story (the wise men recognising a King and bringing him gifts) while at the same time acting as gestures of love and bonds between family and friends" So far I agree with him, yet later Pro said, "The exploitation of Christmas gift-giving by big business has led to 25th December becoming (and I am speaking more specifically about children here) a time of material gain, with much of the symbolism and meaning lost. "Pro himself recognized the importance of gift giving, yet he also criticizes consumerism and blames it for the loss of the "true meaning of Christmas" How can we purchase and give gifts, an act which pro himself admitted was important, without consumerism. If we go back to the definition, consumerism was defined as: "The advertising, purchase, and giving of gifts on Christmas day. " We can therefore not give gifts without consumerism. In your argument, you are falsely attribute kids not knowing the origins of Christmas with consumerism. Most Christian families both participate in consumerism, and teach the children the origin of Christmas. This goes to show that they are not mutually exclusive, and therefore consumerism and teaching of Jesus's birth can be done along side each other. My Constructive Argument:Consumerism and understanding the origins of Christmas are not mutually exclusive.2. Gift giving is part of the Christmas tradition.3. Kids will be more interested in Christmas if presents are involved. Consumerism and understanding the origins of Christmas are not mutually exclusive. It should come as no surprise to you, that most of the Christians who celebrate give presents; and of those who give presents, most also honor the birth of Jesus Christ. Your implications that consumerism somehow inhibits the ability to teach of the birth of Jesus is simply false. Many people simply choose not to recognise the birth of Christ on that day, and instead use it to give gifts to young ones. Gift giving is part of the Christmas tradition. Gift giving, and yes, consumerism has been around for up to 1711 years. [1] If people claim that gift giving is just big modern day companies being greedy, they are clearly wrong. Kids will be more interested in Christmas if presents are involved. I can already hear the refutation coming. It would probably say something like this: Of course kids are more interested in Christmas if there is presents! They are getting toys for free! Yeah, I know. But that is not my point. My point is that if you get kids interested in Christmas for the toys and the gadgets, they will think "what's the occasion? " And instead of being bored through the lecture as they normally would, they would likely be at least somewhat interested. For these reasons and others, the resolution must fall. Thank you. [1] . http://wiki.answers.com...
This house believes that christmas was killed by consumerism.

This house believes that Christmas was killed by consumerism, when 'killed' is defined as 'changed in a negative way'. Opening Statement For clarity of argument I will be focusing on the gift-giving side to Christmas consumerism, arguing that while the idea of gift-giving is creditable, the consumerist age has led to businesses appropriating, exploiting & manipulating the Christmas period for their own (profit) gain. I will argue that this manipulation has blurred the Christmas message, and ultimately stipulate that the meaning of Christmas is less clear and less special as a result of rampant consumerism. Jesus was brought gifts by wise men, and it is thought that this is the basis for present-exchanging at Christmas as we know it today. It is probably the most obvious facet of consumerism that we associate with Christmas. It is not however the idea of gift-giving that this house opposes and believes has had a negative affect on Christmas - after all, this has long been an important part of the Christmas celebrations. Exchanging gifts is a symbolic gesture which servces to both evoke and remind people of an important part of the Christmas Story (the wise men recognising a King and bringing him gifts) while at the same time acting as gestures of love and bonds between family and friends. This house argues that the rise in consumerism has blurred this meaning. The exploitation of Christmas gift-giving by big business has led to 25th December becoming (and I am speaking more specifically about children here) a time of material gain, with much of the symbolism and meaning lost. Indeed, a survey carried out in 2011 of 1,000 British school children aged between five & seven revealed that 36% did not know whose birthday was celebrated on December 25th, while 25% answered 'yes' when it was suggested that it could be Simon Cowell's. [1] The survey of 1,000 school children aged between five and seven years old reveals that 36 per cent don’t know whose birthday we celebrate on December 25th. Christmas for many has come a difficult time. Parents feel they have to spend a great deal to buy the latest gadgets so as not to disappoint or upset their children - and this house is sure many people feel the same way about their partners! For some this can be an incredibly difficult financial time, yet constant advertising pushing the latest tablet, phone or game into their faces can make them feel incredibly insufficient and unable to provide for their families. This house argues, that in fact, consumerism can cause a great deal of distress both economically and emotionally over the Christmas period. This is clearly a tragic state of affairs, when the whole idea of celebrating the birth of someone who would go on to champion the meek and promise them salvation is forgotten. I look forward to further developing my arguments and presenting my rebuttals in the next round. [1] http://www.dailymail.co.uk... (please excuse my using of the daily mail... I hate this paper!)
Christianity and Science can coexist.

My opponent has forfeited his round. He must see my point. I have already shown that according to God's word, the bible is mean to be taken literally and, I will spend my last round presenting a few additional inconsistencies the bible and science have with one another. Genesis 2:7 says the Lord made man in his current form by making him from dust. If we take this literally, as I have proven we have to then there is conflict between that and science because the theory of evolution claims man evolved from apes over millions of years and wasn't created from dust in his current form. (Sources http://skepticsannotatedbible.com...) and (http://en.wikipedia.org...) Further the bible claims God made the earth before the stars, Gen 1 14-19. But this is asinine because science tells us the oldest stars age is 13.2 biilion years old (http://www.physorg.com...) and the earths age is only 4.54 billion years old. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) Finally, concerning the flood, there is not enough water in the atmosphere to fill the entire planet. Also inbreeding with only two animals to start would wipe out every creature from existence due to chromosomal defects. (http://members.shaw.ca...) I know I probably didn't even have to make further arguments since my opponents not even convinced of his case anymore, but I thought I would just put the nail in the coffin. This is extremely poor behavior from my opponent. I have shown the bible is not consistent with current scientific theories. Both accounts of reality are conflicting and therefore both cannot be true. Vote con. http://www.youtube.com...
Christianity and Science can coexist.

Lets settle something. You say there are parables in the bible not meant to be taken literally but you provide NO proof in the bible where it says that they aren't meant to be taken literally. Then I'm just going to throw this out there "The parts of Greek mythology that are unscientific are meant to be read as metaphors." And I have shown the bible was supposed to be take literally. You said the burden of proof was equal, but so far all you've said is parts of the bible CAN be read as metaphors and parables with no proof in the scripture to back you up . The apostles wrote it as literal and People did take it literally past the dark ages, and it's because it claims it's the word of God. Then you go to my examples and misquote and say they are metaphors which shows you don't even know what a metaphor is. I stand by my proofs. Your word, O LORD, is eternal, it stands firm. Eternal= unchanging, immutable= people like you should stop trying to change it. Every word of God is flawless. "A literal translation is no less flawed than a metaphor." I don't care if it doesn't make sense it's the claim he makes. God gives his word that it's flawless so we must judge it as such. It's like if I said "My word is flawless" and then said "Hitler and the Nazis won world war II." Then you would be like ‘Your word can be read as a metaphor.' And I would say but it is NOT INTENDED to be. You say, "metaphors are God breathed and useful for teaching rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness." Metaphors are not useful in CORRECTING facts + it didn't say all "metaphors" are useful for all that stuff it said all SCRIPTURE. STOP MISQUOTING THE WORDS THEY AREN'T EVEN CLOSE TO THE SAME. If it was not meant to be taken as a parable then jesus wouldn't believe it. Jesus said the worldwide flood actually happened. Either he is right or bearing false witness (a sin) if he's wrong according to scientists. See Math 24:38-39 for proof. See a conflict between science and religion
Christianity and Science can coexist.

Good Luck, Con. The main point of my argument is that many parts of the Bible are meant to be taken metaphorically. In analysis of the scriptures you used, I don't see how any of them say that the Bible cannot be taken metaphorically. Under normal circumstances, I would use logic to try to prove God's existence, but that is truly irrelevant to this debate, as we are debating the ability of Christianity and Science to coexist, assuming they are both valid. Psalms 119:89: "Your word, O LORD, is eternal, it stands firm" -The Bible is eternal and stands firm. That does not mean it can't be taken metaphorically. The Bible is a beautiful piece of literature, with wonderful use of symbolism. That doesn't make it any less eternal or valid. Proverbs 30:5-6 "Every word of God is flawless" -A literal translation is no less flawed than a metaphoric translation, and in some cases more so. For example, Gen 3:24: "So he drove out the man and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims and a flaming sword which turned every way to keep the way of the Tree of Life" -I don't really believe that God sent down a physical flaming sword after the expulsion from Paradise. People have mapped the area where the Garden of Eden was. The Bible offers the location between some rivers, the names of which I am not familiar with, but that area today is a desert. Desert = hot, dry, FLAMING. That was just one interpretation. 2 Timothy 3:16. "All scripture is God breathed and useful for teaching rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness." -Metaphors are sometimes more useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training than literal translations. They offer a new perspective on things. Also, you must keep in mind that the Bible was written by prophets, for shepherd's who knew no science at all. You try explaining sub quantum physics to a herder. I look forward to your reply, Con.
Christianity and Science can coexist.

This is my first debate. The question is (at least in my understanding of my opponents opening statement) whether the teachings of Christianity and the teachings of science can both be true at the same time in that they won't conflict with each other and can co-exist. Please clarify if this is not the argument. I was also told that, "for the purposes of the debate we will assume the Judeo-Christian God exists." This makes my argument only a little more difficult as I will explain. Normally I would just prove the Judeo-Christian God didn't exist and therefore show that science and Christianity can't possibly be true together since Christianity is not true at all. However, you have asked me to assume the god of the bible exists which I will do. You made the claim that the Bible could be interpreted as a parable or metaphor, but if we're assuming the God of the Bible is true let's see if we can make that claim. First, assuming God is true, let's establish whether the bible is open to interpretation as a parable or metaphor. According to the bible, which is also claimed to be God's word, it is not intended to be either a parable or a metaphor. Psalms 119:89: "Your word, O LORD, is eternal, it stands firm" Proverbs 30:5-6 "Every word of God is flawless" 2 Timothy 3:16 "All scripture is God breathed and useful for teaching rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness." Now I have made my case that the scriptures in the bible were meant by the bible to taken literally as the word of God. Now that I have established that the bible is according to its scriptures "without flaw," I can argue specific passages which contain inaccuracies (or accuracies if I'm still assuming God is true) and conflicts with current scientific theories. I will clear up any problems you have in the next round and will begin with Genesis and it's problems with concern to current scientific theories. I greatly look forward to this debate.