BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
matter is the balancing point between positive and negative energy.

matter is space, and space is time matter is energy, that is my argument, without a balancing point you can have no positive and negative energy, thats like taking the wires of the light bulb, and the light still keep on shinig, not possible without a power source no assertions balance is positive and negative, but balance is also the opposite of positive and negative, and positive is the opposite of negative the wire is balance, there is a positive and negative wire
matter is the balancing point between positive and negative energy.

Thanks Pro. Case: * matter: the thing that forms physical objects and occupies space [1]. * energy: the property of matter and radiation that is manifest as a capacity to perform work [2]. - Now, clearly, matter is not energy, for the latter is a property of the former. Thus, not the balancing point, nor any other point, between positive & negative energy. Rebuttals: to simplify, positive and negative energy needs a balancing point, it dosnt travel through air unless its really powerfull, but even a lightning strike has a balancing point before transference of energy like a lightning strike.. - This is an unsupported incoherent assertion. energy is positive negative and balance - Bare assertion. => Not that any of this is related to the resolution! balance=positive and negative - If Pro means by balance, Equilibrium, then the energy is not necessarily positive or negative, it’s conserved [3]. - If Pro means by balance, Mechanical Equilibrium, then the mechanical energy is not necessarily positive or negative either, it’s conserved [4]. - 'balance' can not be at the same time positive & negative, law of non-contradiction [5]. balance is the opposite of positive and negative, and negative is the opposite of positive - balance can not be the opposite of both positive & negative at the same time [5]. earth is life - Earth =/= Life [2]. a simple example is if you have a light bulb with a plus and minus side and the light bulb is shining, remove either the positive or negative connection like taking of the wire representing negative, then the shine from the light bulb dissapears, remove the light bulb itself, and there is also no shine from the light bulb as its not attached to(perhaps enough) positive and negative energy - Pro is confusing Electric Current with Energy! If the light bulb is shinning then it’s not in balance, it consumes electric energy, & releases thermal & radiative energy, you know, the Watts being = joules (unit of energy) / seconds (units of time flow) [6]. => Either case, none of this is even related to the resolution! Conclusion: - Pro’s entire case is weird semantics & incoherent assertions unrelated to the resolution, at best characterised as a straw man fallacy. - Pro has failed to carry his burden of proof in showing how matter is the balancing point between positive and negative energy. Thus I win the debate. => Vote Con. Sources: [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] Google Dictionary. [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org... [5] http://en.wikipedia.org... [6] http://en.wikipedia.org...
matter is the balancing point between positive and negative energy.

to simplify, positive and negative energy needs a balancing point, it dosnt travel through air unless its really powerfull, but even a lightning strike has a balancing point before transference of energy like a lightning strike.. energy is positive negative and balance balance=positive and negative balance is the opposite of positive and negative, and negative is the opposite of positive earth is life a simple example is if you have a light bulb with a plus and minus side and the light bulb is shining, remove either the positive or negative connection like taking of the wire representing negative, then the shine from the light bulb dissapears, remove the light bulb itself, and there is also no shine from the light bulb as its not attached to(perhaps enough) positive and negative energy the negative "wire" is the energy that goes back into the relai to form the circuit and energy coming from the relai which would be the plus side in the positive wire as i described it ai?
Global Nuclear war is good

There is no way the human population would be able to survive a nuclear war. The radiation would be so catastrophic that it alone could kill us all. Say that doesn't give everybody cancer, the clouds and smoke would be so big and so much that it would reach out atmosphere and get trapped in there. This would cause an extreme famine, as sunlight would be minimal. There is a chance that it could also put us in another ice age. No way we survive a nuclear war. - im talking a nuclear world war as that would be the case. Because of NATO and the UN, multiple countries would fire nukes if one did.
USA should nuke everybody.

okay you socailist knob-bobber, first off clearly saying we are 22nd most stable country is just unpatrotic anit america talk that only a socialist pig would say. Maybe you didn't make the website...but i am sure someone from you "cause" did. Clearly, my information comes from FACT! (www.americaisstillthebest.com) The reason why such a high percentage of people in the US are in prison because they get in trouble for killing/beating/maiming/raping useless american hating people like you. And china has a low number of people in there prisons because the police there are allowed to kill on site. (www.chinasucksmorethanUSA.com) Your bird brain came up with: "A third world country is marked by extreme wealth and extreme poverty, for the past 30 years the disparity between the classes has widened extremely. In 1980 the difference in wages between the CEO and the average worker was only 40 times. The large increase in difference points toward our movement to a more third world-like society." Regaurdless of the gap, that maybe the trend for other countries but no for the best coutry in the world that is far superior to all other coutries. And to say we are moving to a 3rd world like society is apauling. A homeless person in america lives like royality compared to others in 3rd world coutries. (www.Hobosinamericaarebetterthanthirdworldroyality.org) And since i am completly NOT joking about any of this i will tell you. I absoultly condemn the death of billion of people. However, for you to say they are "innocent" is a lie. They are not americans therefore gulity and need to be excuted. And it is once agian FACT that we are superior to all other countries. (www.Americanpride.org)And we will just launch nukes on a non windy day and we would be fine as you can see on this website. (www.shootingnukesatthirdworldcountriesisokay.com) And lastly, just so you know a little about me, mr.19 year old. How dare you say i don't mourn for my fallen brothers. I have been boots on the ground in Iraq, I have had my best friend killed less than a foot away from me from a roadside bomb, I, myself almost paid the ultimate sacrfice for this awesome far superior country. Don't tell me i don't or won't mourn for the loss of my brothers in arms....And who said anything about having ground troops on the the deck killing the inferior civilans of the world. That is why we use nukes, duh. (www.iwin.com)
USA should nuke everybody.

You said: "Anyone can make a website saying USA isn't the best...hell i can make a website saying the USA is the best and put it on my debate.(but it is a known fact so it would be a waste of time)" I didn't make the websites I just use them as evidence for my points. These are facts that prove our weaknesses. There are other countries that have more stable, peaceful, and prosperous societies than ours. In fact the U.S. was ranked 22nd in a survey of the most stable and prosperous nations (http://www.prisonplanet.com...). "And the reason why we have so many people in prison...is because we are so bad@$$. America is filled with so many bad@$$ that we had to lock up the most bad@$$ people." No this shows our inability to move towards peace and civility. The country with the second most prisoners is China and they only have that many because of political prisoners. The amount of people in prison shows the breakdown of our society. "And the fact that a CEO makes 500 times more money than an avg. worker is one of the things that make America so beautiful. Because someone can make 500 times more money than an average worker." A third world country is marked by extreme wealth and extreme poverty, for the past 30 years the disparity between the classes has widened extremely. In 1980 the difference in wages between the CEO and the average worker was only 40 times. The large increase in difference points toward our movement to a more third world-like society. "And our 'faltering economy' Can be blamed entirely on the fact that we don't have enough wars going on. War stimulates economy, Car factories should be making tanks that can shoot nukes not automoibles. like they did in WWII." Any large government spending helps the economy, people just don't complain about it whenever it's spent on war. If the government spent as much on the economy as they did for war spending there would have had the same exact effect. War is not necessary and contributes to the death of hundreds of thousands of civilians and over four thousand of your brothers in arms. Why do you not weep for them and the losses incurred on their families? War is not the answer to our current economic crisis. "As for the fallout factor...we can use smaller nukes on areas closer to the USA to cut down on the amount of fallout near boarding states." So now that it seems that your actually not joking about all of this I will ask, you would actually condemn to death billions of innocent casualties because you think that they are in some way inferior to us? Also the fallout would be picked up by the winds and would kill millions of Americans no matter how far away. If you try to destroy the rest of the world it will surely backfire on you.
USA should nuke everybody.

Simple fact you are wrong!!! The USA is THE BEST! To say it isn't is just unpatriotic and stupid. Anyone can make a website saying USA isn't the best...hell i can make a website saying the USA is the best and put it on my debate.(but it is a known fact so it would be a waste of time) Clearly you are a democrat and prolly voting for someone that is a weak wimp...like Obma. And the reason why we have so many people in prison...is because we are so bad@$$. America is filled with so many bad@$$ that we had to lock up the most bad@$$ people. Once again, proving Americans are the best. And the fact that a CEO makes 500 times more money than an avg. worker is one of the things that make America so beautiful. Because someone can make 500 times more money than an average worker. I am sure you would be just so happy living in Communist China or Russia or North Vietnam, you Commie scum!!! And our "faltering economy" Can be blamed entirely on the fact that we don't have enough wars going on. War stimulates economy, Car factories should be making tanks that can shoot nukes not automoibles. like they did in WWII. And the reason why we don't have more wars going on is cause soft liberals/commies like yourself whine and complain when we do. You guys spread rumors and unpatriotic material like the terrorists do in Iraq. And if the euro is worth more than the American dollar then they should be first to go...that will fix there euro being worth more. As for the fallout factor...we can use smaller nukes on areas closer to the USA to cut down on the amount of fallout near boarding states. I win!
USA should nuke everybody.

The simple fact is that the U.S. is not number one in many respects. We have the more people in prison than any other country(http://www.reason.com...). We have large inequality between the classes. CEOs make about 500 times the amount of the average worker (http://www.kyklosproductions.com...). Our economy is faltering and the right now the euro is worth more than one and a half dollars(http://finance.yahoo.com...). Besides all of that the nuclear annihilation of every other country would cause massive casualties in the U.S. from the nuclear fallout. So one, we are not the best in many ways and two nuclear attacks on other countries would surely backfire on us.
USA should nuke everybody.

Well, Americans are clearly the best. Why should anyone else exist? All the other countries are just annoying and really don't help us much any ways. So, the only logical solution is to nuke everyone. I have the good ol' mentality of "If your not with us, your against us." And I just don't mean if they agree with us on SOMETHINGS. If our good ol' president says they will eat good ol' American Steak every night at 2000 Zulu time then everyone will eat steak. Cause if they don't that can be taken as a disagreement. Therefore they are not with us and must be blown off the face of this planet. Enough said, I win
Population Control

As a summary, I would like to conclude the following facts:1) Rerebuttal 1: 48% vote based on heritage is huge! It's almost an entire half of a population, similar to having 50 million people vote for something out of 100 million which is nevertheless a disproportionate voting system and further supports my 1st and 2nd argument. 2) Rerebuttal 2: "Immorality" is subjective. In addition, Con's new argument that people should have full rights to their body implys prostitution, drugs, and other illegal acts and shows what leads from his argument. 3) Rebuttal 3: The children stated by Con will never reach proper education levels as working adults if they can't survive admist high competition. Therefore, not enough money will come in with a country full of poor people struggling for survival. This supports my Argument 3 I have defended my stance, rebutted all of Con's arguments and fulfilled the BOP.
Population Control

R1: Pro, has disregarded my statement on that Democracy is based upon opinions; which means that people will vote based upon heritage and their own beliefs. The whole purpose of voting its self is so that individuals who satisfy the needs of others will be represented. According to Pro's arguments, more than 50% do not vote based upon heritage, which means that they will vote for those which will benefit them. Pro seems to misunderstand the concept of voting and Democracy in general.R2: Of course population control is controlling nature. Preventing people from reproducing in fear of conflicting with law is not only immoral but problematic. A person should have rights, especially in their own body. By allowing government control over human life, it is basically giving the government complete power over what one can do daily.R3: Success comes in numbers. More children will likely result in more people working as adults, therefore, pay more taxes.tiny.cc/9ddhdwtiny.cc/4fdhdwtiny.cc/epdhdw
Population Control

I thank Con for having this debate. His argument has flaws exemplified by concept errors. R1: Con disregards all of my statistics including that over 48% of people vote by heritage where no specific race was a target. Therefore his entire support is invalid because of the inability to grasp concepts. Link to Pro’s Support 1&2 In R1, certain populations had higher growth than others due to economic statuses, conceded by Con’s support 2. This shows the highly unequal distribution of votes. R2: Support 2 rests on allegations of “controlling nature.” Wrong. People decide to obey laws or not. In his example, unrest is from those who decide to disregard the law similar to convicts in California which shows the negative side of not controlling growth. R3: Con forgets that funds come from those with money to pay taxes. Based on Malthus’s model, increased struggles make people LESS able topay for funds. Sources: http://tinyurl.com... http://tinyurl.com... http://tinyurl.com...
Population Control

Population control the wrong answer.1) Democracy is opinionsEvery voter in a Democracy should vote based upon their own opinions. A greater population is actually more beneficial due to the different cultures that will be represented. My opponent seems to be prejudice towards specific races by indicating that minorities won't be represented, which is not true because they will also have children. In addition, intolerance is the decision of a person to not tolerate, which is unrelated to voting.2) You can't change human naturePopulation increase are cased by natural progression and response to the economic situation which poor and underdeveloped countries undergo. Try to inject population control and you go against human nature, you bring with it a whole basket of other problems such as war and social unrest. (ex. china: tiny.cc/ogjgdw)3) TaxesGovernment funds come from people, more people equals more funds, resulting in minimal difference.tiny.cc/rcjgdwtiny.cc/fdjgdwtiny.cc/3jjgdw
Population Control

3 reasons justify my argument:1. Populations Affect Voting In a Significant WayPopulations are each culture's wants. Although, individuals might vary, a specific culture generally votes for one thing as proven by the fact that over 48% of voters vote by cultural values. If certain cultures are too large, smaller minorities will be ignored. This is intolerance in an unfair voting system. 2. Uncontrolled Growth Thomas Malthus showed that as populations rose without control, competition rises among people. Eventually, we will face immense competition (as the future of today's society) where there will be those starving and dying because of oversized populations. 3. Government Funds As populations rise, the government has to divide less funds to each person. Therefore, if sizes are limited, there will be more financial support for each person, thus giving a country with higher intellectual levels.Sources: http://tinyurl.com...http://tinyurl.com... http://tinyurl.com...
Evolution

Before I begin, I would like to define some terms for the reader regarding the type of evolution that is being discussed: - microevolution refers to species adapting to their environment (this is a scientific fact) - macroevolution refers to common ancestry and is the topic of this debate I will counter my opponent by attempting to provide arguments against the points that he has raised. As I am more of a visual learner, the sources that I will provide will be videos more so than text 1) Vestigial Organs: As my opponent has already defined what a vestigial organ is, I'll just cut to the chase. Several of these so-called "useless" organs have actually been discovered to have a noticeable function in the human body. These include the appendix, tailbone, the whale's hind legs, and wisdom teeth. The links below address these body parts: My overall counter argument to vestigial structures is that one cannot assume a common ancestry simply because an organ or tissue seems to be useless. It does not prove anything. This is simply an interpretation of what is seen. 2) Fossil Record: Fossils need to be taken with a grain of salt. Similarly to vestigial organs, it is how we interpret the fossils. Just because something looks similar does not mean that it shared a common ancestor. Along with fossils goes with the process of calculating age. There are also examples of finds that contradict the idea that creatures are separated by time periods. I am not convinced by the numbers resulted by carbon dating or any of the others because they are too vague and one has to make several assumptions as well. These links below better explain the point that I am trying to make: https://www.youtube.com... 3) DNA similarity: We may be 98% similar to chimps, but that means MILLIONS of nucleotides are out of sequence! This percentage is not necessarily evidence for macroevolution for this reason. Once again, it is an assumption. 4) Embryology: Unfortunately, embryology is still used as evidence for macroevolution. Did you know that there was a whole scam regarding a man named Enrst Haeckel? He actually tweeked the drawings to make it convincing that embryos are similar. In truth, embryos of different organisms do not look that much alike at all. Here are some other links that I have found regarding this topic in general: To conclude, I believe that the "evidence" that has been provided is more philosophical than scientific. I have taken the con because ironically, evolution requires too much faith.
Evolution

I will begin presenting basic evidence for the Theory of Evolution and may add more points as the debate goes on, but will not add any new points in the last Round. 1) Vestigial Organs: Vestigial organs can be defined as "organs or structures remaining or surviving in a degenerate, atrophied, or imperfect condition or form." Examples of such organs are the eyeballs of the blind cave fish Astyanax Mexicanus and hind-leg bones on whales. These structures are clearly unnecessary for the survival of the organism and point towards the idea that the organism had an ancestor that DID use the organs. http://www.livescience.com... 2) Fossil Record: Evidence of gradual change over time can be seen fossils, such as those of ape skulls and equine legs. (Shown in links below). http://www.theistic-evolution.com... http://www.amnh.org... http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org... 3) DNA similarity: Essentially, we are very genetically similar to organisms like us, and this difference in DNA gradually increases as we go back in time or farther and farther away from organisms like ourselves (logical). We have 98% DNA similarity with chimpanzees, 92% similarity with a mouse, 44% similarity with a fruit fly etc. This pattern suggests that humans and organisms very similar to us (apes) share a common ancestor and that all of the organisms in the world share a universal, ancient, common ancestor. https://www.koshland-science-museum.org... 4) Embryology: There are many strange similarities between embryos of different organisms that show (temporarily) characteristics of foreign organisms. Some examples in the human embryo are underdeveloped gills, webbed fingers and toes as well as a tail. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... That is all for now. I am also curious as to why my opponent does NOT accept the Theory of Evolution. Is there any particular reason for such a conviction?
Reverse rap battle

WOLFY, WOLFY, WOLFY Ya stuck in the past Come at me, n il put you in a body cast Ya nuttin but a isolated loser Come at me, n il show why I'm the number 1 DDO user Ya just a fraud Come at me, n suck me on ya own accord Ya gonna die alone Come at me, I'm hard like Al Capone Ya thick Come at me O wait, you cant can ya, coward...
Reverse rap battle

ok mind, let me tell you something when you get triggered, your skills are nothing i have 39 freinds, hows your five? your bars more cringy than your debate archive so stop changing profile pics and sit there and choke becuse nobody gets your own jokes! Ive had enough! its time for my howl (whooooooo...) With your loss streak, you an sit there and scowl (hohohoo...) When i spit bars, people yell "holla" while you say unkown characters like mothra and laa-laa you look rather sad, so Let me tell you something You and your debates... AIN'T WORTH NOTHING
Reverse rap battle

Sup, Minddagga' still haven't seen your reply for the combat quiz if you were a wrestler, you'd be the miz all your debates you quit, you did Though half the Bryan saga, you were stuck in the mid If it was not for me you'd still be a bus driver Cant handle my pack, they can take a pile driver 2 brain wolfs fight, the one wins you fed but it seems you fed a dagger instead