BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Squids are better than Octopuses

My proof is my other friends although they always side with him unless they have to admit that my arguments are 50x better than his but when I met him he told me that it's not Octopuses and it's Octopi whereas it is Octopuses so you are wrong in your second point as you made it seem as if I was wrong in saying Octopuses. Also I couldn't post this in my second point so squids do have suckers on their tentacles so get owned. Forfeit already because I win. You lose. That's it. :) I made this argument in like 2 seconds so get owned. Sources: http://grammarist.com...
Squids are better than Octopuses

Where do i start? First off, I wasn't wrong saying octopi, neither would I if i said octopodes or octopuses. I wasn't wrong in saying octopi in anyway. The smartest 'invertebrate' not the one of the smartest ocean animals. Seriously? You put me saying Squids are better than octopuses, yet what proof? For the readers information, I did not say anything of the sort. If you are going to mention that he met me, don't take it seriously we are friends. If you are not convinced already watch this video!
Squids are better than Octopuses

It is clear that squids are better as he said it as well! I'm not joking and he really said it! Squids are so legendary that they can be from 30 cm to 20 metres! They can also swim up to speeds of 40 k/h and even jump around 3 metres high! It's one of the fastest invertebrate's in the world! Referring to your argument 'Octopi' is a plural for people who are really quirky on their words and it is meant to be 'Octopuses'. Another point is that Squids are also one of the smartest animals in the world so your argument was just broken. I made this argument in around 5 minutes so know that I did this really roughly. Sources are: . https://answers.yahoo.com... . http://www.molluscs.at... . https://www.google.com.au...
Dating Should Be Illegal

Some of the Problems with Dating... Dating promotes lust and moderate sexual activity, opening the door for fornication. Dating develops a self-centered, feeling-oriented concept of love. Dating creates a permanent endorphin-bond between two people who will not spend their lives together. Dating teaches people to break off difficult relationships, conditioning them more for divorce than marriage. Dating develops an appetite for variety and change, creating dissatisfaction within marriage. Dating lacks the protections and guidance afforded by parental involvement of courtship. Dating doesn't prepare children to face "life's realities" Dating devalues sex and marriage. Dating leads to intimacy but not necessarily to commitment. Dating tends to skip the "friendship" stage of a relationship. Dating often mistakes a physical relationship for love. Dating often isolates a couple from other vital relationships. Dating, in many cases, distracts young adults from their primary responsibility of preparing for the future. Dating can cause discontentment with God's gift of singleness. Dating creates an artificial environment for evaluating another person's character.
Dating Should Be Illegal

I look forward to this debate, it will be very interesting, let us begin. Dating should not be illegal because it is the most optimal way for humans to meet and choose a partner that meets the criteria that we ourselves create. People choose who they mate with by means of a certain criteria, that my match or complete one's own personality. Dating gives us the chance to know and understand someone, this goes on until we are sure of this person being a good mating partner. If parents were to choose the spouse, this would be flawed do to the previously mentioned criteria, not being of the two people but they're parents. Spouses would be chosen from an outside criteria which does not be as advantageous as getting to know people for ourselves. What exactly do you mean by "dating is something humans were never created to do"? humans have been dating since the 1700's. The argument of "dating is something humans were never created to do" is an assumption of fate. If we were never "created" to date, why did we do it in the first place? Or perhaps you believe we physically or psychologically were not meant to date. But answer me this, how many people do you see die from a date? or perhaps suffer intense mental health problems as a direct result from a date? The argument "dating is something humans were never created to do" makes no sense. You go on to say "We need to get married in order to carry on the human race and help each other survive, but as long as we have a spouse, we're okay" I mostly want to focus on that last bit "as long as we have a spouse, we're okay" That's a bare minimum sort of argument. that is the same as "As long as we have bread and water, we're okay" As humans, we don't settle for "okay" we want the most out of everything. We don't do the bare minimum, we look at people in poverty, they are at the bare minimum, and we have so much pity for them don't we? I have taken your argument seriously and I hope you will do the same for mine.
Dating Should Be Illegal

I believe that dating should be illegal. It is immoral, and humans were never created to date in the very first place. Violence often results from dating, especially among minors. That is why I believe that dating should be illegal. I understand you might think, "Well if dating was illegal, how the heck will people ever get married?" To answer that, let me just say that parents should choose their children's spouse for them. Dating was never something that humans were created to do. We need to get married in order to carry on the human race and help each other survive, but as long we have a spouse, we're okay. And who chooses the person's spouse? his/her parents. Let us make dating illegal. Vote pro. Whoever accepts my debate will have 3 days to come up with a convincing argument to counter me.
Dating Should Be Illegal

Well at least you gave an argument this time. As my final point, legalizing dating could never possibly happen in our country. It would limit our rights and freedoms to choose. Realistically, there would never be a legislation to make dating illegal, there would be an uprising and people would vote heavily against it. Also, you are targeting a rather specific group, not many "young children" date. Not to mention, to young children, choosing a mating partner is mostly out of the question since children don't understand sex. but I will humor the idea. You say "We, as young children, are too inexperienced to create legit criteria" we develop our criteria based on our experiences. We pursue our ideal personality, we then learn that this wasn't the best option, so we improve our criteria. We learn what we do and don't like. "Parents have more experience about life and marriage" That's assuming the parents criteria is better. But, you may want to consider the child may grow to choose a better partner, how would the parents know who to choose? Also, assuming we are still talking about children dating, what kind of an interview would that be? You have yet to make any valid arguments and this was a waste of my time.
Dating Should Be Illegal

You said in the first debate round, and I quote, "Dating should not be illegal because it is the most optimal way for humans to meet and choose a partner that meets the criteria that we ourselves create." I like how you try to counter my first argument, but let me just say this: The criteria that we create may not always be what's best. For example, suppose you want a partner who is honest, loyal, good-looking, athletic, and rich. Only the first 2 (and maybe the third) truly matter. We, as young children, are too inexperienced to create legit criteria on what we want in a potential future spouse. Also, once we have a spouse, we can reproduce. Parents have more experience about life and marriage than their children do, so let parents choose their child's spouse. Obviously, the parents would interview the person and choose someone who is decent in morals and character. Interviewing or examining a child's potential future spouse is what really counts, not dating. We have gone too far to invent the concept of dating. Also, children and teens often date for the pleasure of a relationship. Honestly, there is friend relationships and family relationships. You have one more debate argument to make. I really want to see you shine.
Dating Should Be Illegal

I am annoyed. I asked you to take my argument seriously, you have failed at doing this. this is a waste of my time, I'll give one more chance, please give a decent argument this time or I am leaving this debate. As for your list of "problems with dating" most of them can be refuted quite easily. I could give each a rebuttal but, when reading through them I noticed they can all either be answered with the following: "Elaborate" "how is that a problem?" "No, that is simply false" For example, "Dating can cause discontentment with God's gift of singleness" I would like to ask everyone, to just say this out loud. Does it make sense? is it something you could say to someone in a way that sounds normal and reasonable? being single is a gift of a God now is it? what verse does it say "Thou shalt remain single?" how is being single a gift of God? Since you have made no argument, I have nothing more to say other than that I am very disappointed
Love is in the heart of a rapist

Love is in the heart of a rapist I don't want to hurt you honey I just wanted to have sex, But you said no So I had to rape you, To have sex with you I raped you because you were attractive I raped you because I loved you too much Too much to let you go with someone else Too much to see you alone Too much to see you without me I may be a rapist But love is in my heart I only raped you because I loved you I am a rapist, Love is in my heart I couldn't have you with your will I couldn't have you with your consent So I had you against your will So I had you against your consent The only reason I raped you Is because you said no If you didn't say no I wouldn't rape you We would have consensual sex But you said no And ruined everything Now I am in prison After I have won the battle After I have won you
Patient diplomacy with North korea

I will attack my opponents case and then demonstrate why I think I won this debate. "Through the years The US and North Korea have been participating in multiple peace treaties" Peace treaties? We never officially declared war on North Korea in the first place despite having troops there, so I assume you mean other treaties which have got us absolutely nowhere, North Korea still shells the South, North Korea is still developing a nuclear weapon while we try to engage in diplomacy, North Korea's citizens are still dying from a famine which could easily be helped if they stopped the nuclearisation process. So where have all these treaties got us? Absolutely nowhere, North Korea is simply using "diplomacy" to bile they develop weapons capable of wiping out the South and millions of civilians. We cannot allow that. "China, North Korea's ally, is a major trade partner with the US and by declaring war with North Korea we are losing a big part of US economy. By starting a war, we are losing a business partner and placing ourselves in an unwinable war much like te Vietnam War" We would not go into an all-out war, the most likely situation is that we simply take out the nuclear sites and destroy their capability to fight, they are half a century behind in weaponry so resistance or casualties of any kind are unlikely. China would only react to an invasion, simply taking out their nuclear capability would cause a substantial reaction. In the end, I think it is idea of forcing North Korea to stop that will force them to take diplomacy seriously, which would also be better for their civilians. I believe that humanitarian concerns are much more important than what has turned out to be useless diplomacy. Thank you for the debate.
Patient diplomacy with North korea

Through the years The US and North Korea have been participating in multiple peace treaties and North Korea has even requested that, for them to start denuclearization, a new treaty has to be reached. Aggressive tactics will not result in what the US wants. China, North Korea's ally, is a major trade partner with the US and by declaring war with North Korea we are losing a big part of US economy. By starting a war, we are losing a business partner and placing ourselves in an unwinable war much like te Vietnam War
Patient diplomacy with North korea

Patient diplomacy will not work against a country with violent intentions and one which understands only force. They regularly commit acts of war against South Korea with their shelling as well as submarine attacks. By wasting our time with diplomacy we are allowing citizens of North Korea to continue to die. Under The Just War Theory, if we were to invade North Korea at this point we would be completely justified as it would help save North Koreans from famine while their greedy government militarizes. We need to show the world that blatant violations of basic human rights will not be tolerated.
Heron vs Eagle Rap Battle

I'm a blue Heron, I ain't sharing power with this weak white baron. While I'm the monarch of big birds, chillin while I'm tearin'. This big joke apart with this long beak, you'l be a mess. Showed your girl eagle some new moves at my nest. All you do is soar around and scream like a moron. You're too weak to make a move so I am the one who'll get the gore on. Your fanbase consists of 'Murican country men. That slobber on your feathers over and over again.
Stephen Hawking was fool and knew nothing about how the universe works

Thanks for that Pro.Pro has issues with salt-making elements.Pro's case is that DDT made Hawking unaware of his condition.Pro attempts to link this with being unaware of how the universe works.*Things Hawking Knew About How The Universe Works*1. A star will curve and distort the spacetime near it, more and more, the more massive and more compact the star is.http://www.hawking.org.uk...2. The amplitude is low for surfaces which are not nearly conformal to the round three-sphere and essentially zero for surfaces with negative curvature.https://arxiv.org...3. The evolution of the universe is determined by its quantum state.https://arxiv.org...4. The wave function of the universe obeys the constraints of general relativity.https://arxiv.org...5. A quantum state specifies amplitudes for different geometry and field configurations on a spacelike surface.https://arxiv.org...These effectively negate that Stephen Hawking knew nothing about how the universe works, because they are all published work by Hawking himself and they explain precisely how the universe works.*Responding to Pro*Pro asserts:"Stephen hawking was unaware of the nature and cause of his own disease. Thus, any person who can't understand how nature works would be incapable of working out how the universe works."My response:Aside from the facts that a) Stephen Hawking was well aware of his condition (ALS) and b) being unaware of one's condition does not de facto make one unaware of nature, why does one need to understand medical diagnoses in order to understand how the universe works?Whether or not Hawking knew anything about ALS is irrelevant to whether or not he knew anything about how the universe works.Pro says:"Time is a measurement of spin and rotation."My response:Well, that's one way to measure time, sure.But spacetime is a continuum along which the universe expands at a fixed rate.Pro continues:"Time is purely a measurement."My response:Except that it's on a continuum with space, and the space of the universe is ever expanding.*Conclusion*The resolution has Pro affirming that Hawking knew nothing about the universe, yet Hawking's knowledge on the matter is easily accessible and demonstrates that both a) Hawking knew something about how the universe works and b) he was not a fool.The resolution has been negated.
Stephen Hawking was fool and knew nothing about how the universe works

*I request that voters use opt-in voting standards when voting on this debate.*I accept.*Definitions were not supplied.*Therefore, I will supply them.DefinitionsStephen Hawking - an English theoretical physicist, cosmologist, author, and Director of Research at the Centre for Theoretical Cosmology within the University of Cambridge.http://www.ctc.cam.ac.uk...fool - a person who acts unwisely.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...knew - was aware of through observation, inquiry, or information.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...nothing - not anything.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...how - in what way or manner; by what means.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...universe - all existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...works - operates in a proper or particular way.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...(Verb #2)https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...Let's light this candle!
Stephen Hawking was fool and knew nothing about how the universe works

Thanks for that Pro. Pro has not responded to *any* of the 5 cited things Hawking knew. Not one. Instead Pro creates their own Stephen Hawking strawman, and idiocy ensues. *Review*I have proven that Stephen Hawking knew more than *nothing* abut how the universe works and Pro has dropped this point, which negates the resolution. *Responding to Pro*Pro asserts:"Gravity is pushing action, not a pulling force. "My response:I think the distinction between pulling and pushing with respects to gravity is arbitrary. As long as you understand that the center of gravity of one mass is influencing the center of gravity of another mass and vice versa *because* of the curving of space, you can call it pushing or pulling; it doesn't matter. This also wouldn't undermine the things Hawking knew about how the universe works mentioned in my 2nd round and left untouched by Pro. Pro quotes:"Quote from Stephen Hawking 'an object called spacetime. ' This idiot doesn't understand the complexities of the universe. An abstract concept can't be called or referred to as "an object. "My response:Spacetime is a material consisting of the fluctuations of sub nuclear particles and their forces, which, thanks to annihilation, never remain. This material of never remaining, fluctuating particles is that "abstract concept" you can't seem to understand is itself a material. Pro points out:"There is no rope attached to the moon from the Earth. "My response:However, the non-remaining, fluctuating sub nuclear particles and their forces (space) between the Earth and the Moon becomes distorted by the mass of the Earth and the mass of the Moon creating a barycenter in that very space about which the two celestial bodies orbit. The space between the Earth and the Moon connect the two gravitationally, no rope necessary. Pro reaches:"The universe is everywhere, of which, health and diet takes a large contributing part. "My response:Nope. Health and diet have only been shown on Earth, not on ANY other planet, star, moon or any other celestial entity known to exist in the universe. *Conclusion*Well thanks Pro, we're now all dumber for having read your irrelevance, we've learned that you drop arguments like they're covered in baby oil, and it's clear your obsession with diet/disease/glutophobia is so pervasive, it made its way into a debate about how the universe works and whether or not a recently deceased physicist knew anything about it. Lameo diets will do that to you. So lame.
Stephen Hawking was fool and knew nothing about how the universe works

Thanks for that response Pro.The opposite of thanks for the persistent irrelevant nonsense; stop it.Still no response to Hawking's knowledge of how the universe works?Noted.*Responding to Pro*Pro gripes:"My opponent wants to shut me down and not talk about issues because in his opinion they are of no importance."My response:Oh, they're also very stupid...that's another reason we should "shut down" the irrelevant issues.Pro recalls:"I have to point out and old saying - "you are what you eat"."My response:Then, I have to point out it's wrong because by that logic, after we eat spinach our cells have chloroplasts and we can photosynthesize light, water, and carbon dioxide into sugar.You are what you eat, right?You eat a tuna fish sandwich and suddenly you can breathe through your gills under water.Pro strawmans:"Now, my well informed opponent sees no connection between health and diet."My response:No, I see no connection between health/diet and knowledge of the universe.You still haven't gotten to it.Pro believes:"My opponent seems to think I have ignored all his references."My response:Yes, you've also ignored the quotes that I extracted from those sources, and since you've not addressed them, they also stand.Pro wagers:"Well, I bet he didn't read any of his own references though."My response:So, in order for me to have extracted the quotations, I would have had to read the references.Is there a reason you've not attempted to refute any of those quotations?I know...they're especially damning to your case.Pro points out:"All I left was one meager refutation."My response:The link that you made no effort to clarify, specify, or use to indicate relevant examples simply says they've found a black hole that appears to contrast with current understanding of how black holes are formed.The problem is, Con's source doesn't cite any science-based information, in fact, Con's source doesn't cite ANYTHING, so we're left buying Express's word on the matter.I would say that the black hole they claim is too large to have formed in the time since the big bang could have been a trinary star system (3 stars) that became one triple-massive star and then went nova and created such a gigantic black hole.This also does not negate that Hawking knew a lot about how the universe works.Pro mentions Staphylococcus:"This bacteria is just a common bacteria found everywhere and is not dangerous to humans."My response:"About 18,700 people die in this country (USA) each year from drug-resistant staph infections, according to a federal study."https://wwwnc.cdc.gov...MRSA is dangerous to humans, deadly to about 18,000 humans a year, and even though we're getting a hold on those resistant bacteria, they persist in hospitals everywhere.*Conclusion*Con needs to step it up, he's not refuting anything of substance, and is wasting everyone's time with irrelevant nonsense.Stephen Hawking was not a fool and knows a lot about how the universe works.Just ask Con on the matter.