BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
everyone is gonna die!!!

You have completely ignored and mixed up what this debate was even supposed to be about. You requested to take the place of my former opponent who forfeited and it's quite clear that you didn't even read the debate you said you wanted to take on. "I agree with my opponent, that I think, "We're all eventually going to die". However, I must disagree with his observation that humanity is going to destroy itself (global warming, war, ect.). Double is going on the premise that humanity is going to go extinct; but that premise is incorrect. The topic is that everyone will die, it is not necessary for humanity to be wiped out for that to happen." I am the CON in the debate that humanity is going to destroy itself, I *disagree* with the premise that we're all so bad (to each other and in general) that we're eventually going to cause our own mass extinction... That was what my other opponent was claiming and that is the debate you said you wanted to take in her place. Understand? That it wasn't pretty black and white to you and that you seem incapable of understanding my first rebuttal is pretty amusing. So what now? Hmm, I propose that it is impossible for you (especially you) to know what sort of progress humanity is going to make toward a sci-fi like world in which the concepts of "Bicentennial Man" are capable of being realized. Therefore, we may troop forward into a world where the substantial extention of human life is possible and we may keep building upon that until it's possible for a single human to keep achieving successful scientific modifications into eternal life... (Now, I should really think of ways to modify that incredibly long run-on sentence, but since I have no evidence that you'll understand what I'm saying anyway, why bother?)
everyone is gonna die!!!

I agree with my opponent, that I think, "We're all eventually going to die". However, I must disagree with his observation that humanity is going to destroy itself (global warming, war, ect.). Double is going on the premise that humanity is going to go extinct; but that premise is incorrect. The topic is that everyone will die, it is not necessary for humanity to be wiped out for that to happen. I am saying that eventually, every human being will die. The circle of life is quite adamant on that fact, were all born, and we all die. Will it happen en masse (perhaps a hostile dinosaur takeover of the world)? possibly, but more then likely it will happen as each of us dies from disease, accidents, or old age. Therefore, we are all going to eventually die. As per doubles points 1- Irrelevant, us (hopefully) nullifying the effects of global warming has nothing to do with the fact that all humans eventually die. If we cant then our quality of life will take a nose dive (http://securityandclimate.cna.org... warning: that's a very realistic and depressing report, prepared by the pentagon. you'll have a better day if you don't read it) but we'd still be here. 2- again, irrelevant. Wars might speed up the death process, but we will still die without it. I accept your wager, whoever has the more votes 3 days after voting starts gets to keep the monkey, and whoever looses has to get a new pic. best of luck :) Only way global warming will kill us: (http://www.thedailyshow.com... go to 2:20-250).
everyone is gonna die!!!

In my other debate entitled, "We are all going to die!" you stood by while my opponent never returned and left the comment, "wow, pro fofited. i thought *this* would be interesting to." I never responded in that other debate and then I get a challenge from you entitled "everyone is gonna die!!!" with no indication in your opening statement that you wanted to divert from the former topic. On the contrary, your opening statement reads, "Double had a debate about *this*, but his opponent forfeited. i think *this'll* be interesting to debate so i decided to challenge her to it". Every time you say "this" when referring to the topic of my former debate it can't be taken any other way than "humanity is going to destroy itself" because that, after all, was indeed the former topic. Then you go on about how the unavoidable misunderstanding on my part is only one-sided, when you respond to the rebuttal I had no reason to abandon by saying, "I agree with my opponent, that I think, "We're all eventually going to die". However, I must disagree with his observation that humanity is going to destroy itself (global warming, war, ect.). Double is going on the premise that humanity is going to go extinct; but that premise is incorrect…" Lol, your interpretation of my first rebuttal and your manipulation is clearly the only thing here that's incorrect. Past that, since "we're all eventually going to die" is included in my first rebuttal, what leg do you have to stand on when disagreeing with me anyway? You've created a debate where this none in a very slimy and intentionally deceitful way and have no merit in any opposing sufficient and intelligent way that is praiseworthy. Since you've already displayed this incredible incapability to conceptualize the topic of death, destruction and preservation, I still stand firm with my insertion that you, of all people, aren't qualified to speak as to the future of human life and death and the possibilitis involved. SO, I think the audience should vote for me so I can keep my monkey if nothing else ‘cause this debate is lacking to say the least. Come on now, if you were my monkey wouldn't you rather stay with me as apposed to Sweetbags? Especially since he's proven nothing else here but that he is untrustworthy and with less than notable intelligence at that? *Pets her monkey yet again*... well, whatcha think?
rap battle

Son, you think your good, get it out of your head, you keep continuing your gonna end up dead, Should of known a dog as parent was a bad crossbred, unlike you ima real purebred, Boy, you better run, cause you on deathbed, After im done with you, you be bleeding red, Now everything, i dont say be left unsaid, So before you post better think ahead, Cuz no matter what you do, i own this thread, To, whoever fights back, I'll be here, Im just waiting for a volunteer,
rap battle

Haha that's pretty amazing, Ill give you a clap, I guess its time to put my hood in the test, no snap back, there's a reason why I'm undercover, call me grim reaper, I'm so mythic and legendary, imma make you a believer! Cause no one believed because I was a legend, now I'm up to the top this aint no pretend, I see plastic everywhere, no one I see true, I enjoy rap battling even if its with you, and I don't wanna fight, no punch lines bro, I just wanna say I wanna be your friend though.
Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web sites have a positive impact on the United States.

Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web sites have a positive impact on the United States. Social Networking Web Sites defined: http://jcmc.indiana.edu.... (Indiana University) Boyd & Ellison in 2007 The criteria for social networking Web sites are as follows: 1) Construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system 2) Articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection 3) View and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within the system. The nature and nomenclature of these connections may vary from site to site. On Balance defined: Net benefits versus disadvantages Social Networking Sites Are Neutral And Simply Mirror Society. Boyd in 2008, Danah Boyd. [Fellow at Harvard University Berkman Center for Internet and Society]. "Is MySpace Good for Society? A Freakonomics Quorum." Freakonomics – New York Times Blog. February 15, 2008. http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com.... Accessed November 5, 2008. Social media (including social network sites, blog tools, mobile technologies, etc.) offer mechanisms by which people can communicate, share information, and hang out. As an ethnographer traipsing across the U.S., I have heard innumerable stories of how social media has been used to bring people together, support learning, and provide an outlet for creative expression. These sites are tools. They can and have been used for both positive and negative purposes. For homosexual teens in rural America, they can be tools for self-realization in the battle against depression. Thanks to such tools, many teens have chosen not to take the path of suicide, knowing that there are others like them. For teens who are unable to see friends and family due to social and physical mobility restrictions, social media provides a venue to build and maintain always on intimate communities. For parents whose kids have gone off to college, social media can provide a means by which the family can stay in meaningful contact through this period of change. This is not to say that all of the products of social media are positive. We can all point to negative consequences: bullying, gossip mongering, increased procrastination, etc. Our news media loves to focus on these. Even the positive stories that do run often have a negative or sensationalist angle, such as those who used Twitter to track the California fires. Unfortunately, those who do not understand social media look to the news, see the negative coverage, and declare all social media evil. It's easy to look at a lot of elements of today's society and cry foul. It's equally easy to look at the new technology that we don't understand and blame it as the cause for all social ills. It's a lot harder to accept that social media is mirroring and magnifying all of the good, bad, and ugly about today's society, shoving it right back in our faces in the hopes that we might face the underlying problems. Technology does not create bullying; it simply makes it more visible and much harder for adults to ignore.
wind turbines are bad for the enviroment

i'm sorry, i cant agree with your statement, firstly you have altered your statistics and secondly you cant ignore the facts that humans are more important than birds and thousands of human deaths are being ended to quickly to the impacts of nonrenewable energy. i speak at seminars every week discussing the issue that non renewable energy has on the environment, and i still am shocked at how many people don't believe that wind turbines are doing far more good than bad, and that they will protect us from the fate that will soon come if we are to continue with non renewable. there is roughly 40 years left of oil to use, once that time is up, what do you think future generations will say, obviously they will say how ignorant and how useless our generation was, in not providing in viable source of energy, which will leave them in a undeveloped world.
wind turbines are bad for the enviroment

i hope my opponent realises that infra-sound is created when wind blows naturally and the sound made from waterfalls, it doesn't cause health problems, listening to music causes more health problems than wind turbines ever would. as for the birds, they are birds, i'm not saying they are unimportant, but millions are being born everyday. and thousands are being killed every year, what about hundreds of thousands of humans being killed every year due to mining collapses and smoke inhalation from coal mines. what about the millions of animals that die from oil spills. your argument while has facts, doesn't have important facts. wind turbines save more lives than they destroy, by a long shot.
wind turbines are bad for the enviroment

The consequences for ignoring the real problem here will lead to a disastrous future for mankind, if the renewable energy that we have is halted and replaced with filthy non renewable energy, in years to come, they will regret it because we know now that renewable energy will save earth. Coal oil etc. is destroying the earth, it can"t be re used it is dangerous for our health. But renewable energy can be re used and the emissions coming for this are nowhere near the levels coming from non- renewable energy. The arguments that are used to support wind turbines causing health risks are that living near wind farms cause health risks such as raised blood pressure, stress, nausea, motion sensitivity and apparently the worst of all sleep deprivation. THIS IN FACT HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN!!!. Wind turbines are a very efficient way of creating renewable energy, and we can only gain from wind energy. wind turbines are providing a safe and humane way of producing energy from humans to use. fracking and coal mines are digging up carbon dioxide and poisonous gases and toxins that are effecting organisms living on this earth , while wind turbines don't. some claim that wind turbines create unbearable noise while in fact, its just wind and it not harmful at all, (and honestly doesn't make any noise).
Buddhism is not for Vikings

I'm broke but I'm viking I'm viking but I'm kind I'm short but I'm viking, yeah I'm viking but I'm grounded I'm sane but I'm viking I'm lost but I'm hopeful viking What it all comes down to Is that everything's gonna be vi-viking 'cause I've got one hand in my pocket And the other one is holdin' a battle-axe http://www.youtube.com...
Buddhism is not for Vikings

The Pro writes, "just because the buddha wasnt dont mean other can bloody idiot get a life". While it is painful to dishonor such eloquence with disagreement, I must point out that I did not claim Buddhism was not a viable religion for some. I only claimed it was not appropriate for Vikings. A Viking and the common lot of humanity are two different things. Buddhism is a religion of the farmer, the monk, the shop-keeper. However, I claim it cannot truly touch and accommodate the intrepid, restless and ever-adventuring soul of a Viking. I invite the Pro to explain why Vikings should consider the Dharma of Lord Buddha --- the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path. Of what benefit is this to Vikings? I await the answer.
Buddhism is not for Vikings

The burden of proof is on the Pro. I say Buddhism is not for Vikings, and has nothing to teach Vikings at all. The true Viking way is opposed to Buddhism, and a real Viking wouldn't be a Buddhist. Buddha was not a Viking. He was from Nepal. The Vikings never went to Nepal, nor would they even want to. Vikings and Buddhists are two different things. To try and make a Viking into a Buddhist is not natural. Again, the burden of proof is on the Pro to demonstrate that Buddhism has ANY validity for Vikings. I started this debate because my other Buddhist debate Pro keeps forfeiting. Some say that I am actually should be the "Pro" in this debate, but I am clearly only Con because I am saying Buddhists CON-not be Vikings, whereas my opponent PRO-fesses that there can be such a thing.
L is more intelligent than Light but Light is more efficient at using his intellect

Option a was not that L was more intelligent than Light, it was that L was NOT more intelligent than Light.I shall now explain why L is more intelligent than Light.L being more intelligent is apparent in that he has torn down many master criminals in the past. Don't deny this, we both know it's a stated fact in the anime. Not only this but he finds out who they are, how they do it and plans every move... in his head! Not at one point in the anime (unless for recording purposes) does L ever type or put pen to paper regarding his thought process. He only ever writes to record what has happened or has been found, not ever to form plans themselves or to take record of who may or may not be Kira.I defined intelligence as displaying, or characterized by, quickness of understanding, sound thought or good judgement. IT is blatant that both L and Light has intelligence levels (I won't say IQ since IQ's validity is debatable) are far superior to the average human, that's just how the characters are portrayed from the beginning of the anime. Light is the top of his entire year group in grades and yet is able to also maintain the killing process while maintaining top grades! However, what Light is good at is memory, as is L. Memory and retention of information is only related to perhaps the 'good judgement' since if one can remember everything about an event or person they can judge it 'good' or 'better'. On the other hand, in terms of quick understanding and sound thought L thrashes Light. Quick understanding is displayed where L notices Kira was standing on the train when the FBI Agent Raye Penber dies on video and a mere shadow comes at the last second. To interpret the situation in an instant of viewing the video indicates EXTREME speed of understanding. Additionally, as an orphan L was the smartest in his orphanage, an orphanage where all genius children were taken to be turned into detectives, this is proven by the fact that out of all of them Watari (the former head of the orphanage's selection process chose L to be his accomplice in the world of fighting crime). In fact Watari begins to see L as his superior, shown by how willingly he brings L cakes, ice cream and offer L any assistance at any time, instead of leading L the teacher becomes led by L (teacher being Watari). Light Yagami never seems to surpass any of his superiors in terms of talent at something.
L is more intelligent than Light but Light is more efficient at using his intellect

If you have not seen the anime series Death Note, please do not debate. This is based on the anime, not the manga comic books. I believe that L is more intelligent than Light Yagami but that Light is able to use his intellect to a greater extent than L. Con has to take ONE of THREE stances, if you can't pick one, don't accept the debate: a) L is not more intelligent than Light. b) Light is not more capable of using his intellect as L. c) Both I shall state definitions. More: in greater quantity, amount, measure, degree, or number. [1] Intelligent: displaying or characterized by quickness of understanding, sound thought, or good judgment. [2] Efficient: performing or functioning in the best possible manner with the least waste of time and effort. [3] Intellect: the power or faculty of the mind by which one knows or understands, as distinguished from that by which one feels and that by which one wills; the understanding; the faculty of thinking and acquiring knowledge. [4] Sources: [1] . http://dictionary.reference.com...... [2] . http://dictionary.reference.com...... [3] . http://dictionary.reference.com...... [4] . http://dictionary.reference.com......
The Church did NOT need to be reformed.

"There is a difference between the church which are the people, and the church which is the institution. Christ founded a visible and hierachial church. We the members of the Church are also considered "the church" but this is a whole different debate topic. " My opponent is shifting definitions. The first definition introduced into the debate is the definition to be used, unless an appropriate challenge to that definition is present. To be generous, I used the definition of the Church that is found in the Catholic catechism, yet my opponent still challenges it. The simple fact is that the Church, as defined by official Catholic Doctrine issued under John Paul XXIII, is the collected people of God. To reform the people of God is to reform the Church. Unless my opponent can successfully show that this definition is deficient, it stands. The remainder of my opponent's argument is based on this artificial split between the Church as the people of God and the Church as the magisterial empire of the Roman Catholic Church. Since the definition of Church provided does not recognize this split, his argument is irrelevant. My opponent then claims that "the council of Trent was NOT necessarily a reformation. " He stands contrary to sources provided from both Secular (Wikipedia and Boise State University) and Catholic (Newadvent. org) which claim that Trent was primarily a reform movement centering on reforming the clerical abuses that had crept into the institution of Pope Leo X's Catholic Church. Unless my opponent can show that these sources are not correct in their assertion, then the resolution stands unproven and therefore Con wins the debate. Thank you.
The Church did NOT need to be reformed.

I am sorry for not responding, I had lost track of time that day but I'm here now. Anyway, There is a difference between the church which are the people, and the church which is the institution. Christ founded a visible and hierachial church. We the members of the Church are also considered "the church" but this is a whole different debate topic. My opponent stated "However, this is an inaccurate understanding of the word "reform." According to dictionary.com (based on the Random House Dictionary) the noun reform means "the improvement or amendment of what is wrong, corrupt,unsatisfactory, etc." I agree with this definition and what I am saying is the Church (the visible/hierarchical structure) did not need to be improved because it was NOT wrong, or corrupt. The Church (the visible structure) is the Pillar and ground of the Truth meaning it is without err. (1Peter 3:15) The gates of hell cannot prevail against the church(Matthew 16:18) so if the protestant reformation was right to say these teachings are wrong in the church and should not be taught, then that is a denial that the church is the pillar and ground of the Truth and the gates of hell obviously prevailed if the church is corrupt. Jesus promised the Holy Ghost will guide the church and the church is still guided and will always be guided. If the Catholic Church is the original Church then this is the Church that Jesus was referring to therefore this Church can not be in or teach any error or become corrupt. Now, the church (the people) can fall away and the gates of hell can surely prevail against the people if they allow it to but the Church (the visible/structure) cannot ERR which the Protestant Reformation claimed it DID ! Martin Luther made 95 Thesis were on some issues regarding the abuses of the church(the people) BUT it also were on some issues which the visible structure taught. Examples are absolution and indulgences. Martin Luther was right to say that indulgences were abused BUT he was NOT right to take the whole practice of indulgences ALLTOGETHER. He didn't believe in indulgences, transubstantiation, absolution which were all CATHOLIC TEACHINGS ! This is why is was wrong. It attacked Catholic Teaching and NOT the bad Catholics ONLY which should have been his goal. On June 15, 1520, Pope Leo X issued a rebuttal to Luther's objections. He made a papal encyclical titled Exsurge Domine ("Arise, O Lord"). This document outlined the Magisterium of the Church's findings of where the pope believed Luther had erred. Also, the council of Trent was NOT neccessarilly a reformation but it can be called that because like you have shown in the definition of "reform" ("the improvement or amendment of what is wrong, corrupt,unsatisfactory, etc.") The council of Trent "improved" the Protestant reformation by not rejecting Catholic Teachings, it "amended what was wrong" because it was wrong to try and change any Catholic Teaching. It improved what was "corrupt" which was not the Church but the teachings of Martin Luther which was not the Teachings of Christ.