BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
WW2 would not have been won without USA Involvement (official and unofficial)

First I'd like to say to my opponent, ABC123TT, that even though the U.S did help a lot in WW2, that they weren't the only reason that the Allies won WW2. And I'd like to tell my opponent what would happen if the U.S never got involved in WW2. Say, Japan never bombed Pearl Harbor. First, U.S would never go to war against Japan or Germany obviously. And if The U.S never went to war against Japan, Japan would probably instead invade Russia. Which they would probably lose against. And meanwhile, in Europe, Germany would still lose against Russia as U.S involvement didn't really affect this. Though something that would change is that without the U.S leading D-Day, the Allies wouldn't get as far into Nazi territory, they would still land in France eventually, but not with the amount of manpower they did if the U.S was in the war. But Germany would still be in trouble and probably lose against Russia. In the end, what would happen is that Russia would own probably all of Manchuria, Japan, most of Eastern Europe, Belgium, The Netherlands, and all of Germany. Which they would probably turn most of this into puppet states. But the Allies would probably still win WW2 in the end. AlternateHistoryHub talks a lot about this scenario in his video What if Japan Never Bombed Pearl Harbor? Which is where I got my information.
Without God, There Could Be No Science

Without God, there could be no science: Without God, the believer in atheist Dogma could have no rational expectation of constancy over time in any of the Laws of Nature, nor could he have any rational expectation of uniformity over time, anywhere in the universe -- both of which would be required in order to perform the scientific method and reach any rational scientific conclusions about the universe. If God did not exist, then all of the Laws of Nature observed in the universe could change overnight, and all of the uniformity observed in the universe could also be lost forever, overnight. The only rational explanation for the fact that such changes in the Laws of Nature and in the uniformity of the universe cannot and do not occur is that God is personally upholding all of the Laws of Nature, and God is also personally upholding all of the uniformity that we observe throughout the entire universe. Here's a short related video:
Art Challenge

This is an art challenge/ debate between NiamC and Abdab.To my opponent:For each round (except the first), you will be required to paste a photo of your art (or paste your digital art ) on each argument round. In the event of the pasting of the photo/ digital art failing, please include a link of the photo in a photo album on your Debate.org page.Any media can be used.Digital art can be used (if this is the case, please include a signature in your digital work to).The art pieces can be any size.The art pieces can be on any them. The opponent must clearly state if the art piece that he/she has provided was created before this debate and was not created for this debate. I will follow all of these rules as well as my opponentTo the voters:Please vote fairly and please take into account on whether the opponent's art was created for this debate or whether it was created before this debate. First round is acceptance.GO NUTS!
Vampires will easily kill Werewolves

It may be a mistake for me to agree on something in the midst of a debate. But I will agree to one thing. I lost some of the specific wordings during my last argument. But still, this only proves me to be a little less caring on the semantics than Con is. I care about the subject matter and the fact that STILL, Con can't see that a statement made has to have truth in it, otherwise it is pointless. Even with my elaborate example, I am sure that Con has to disagree, as that is his job. But deep down I trust that Con knows where the truth lies as do our voters. My conclusion: Con has argued that Vampires will not easily kill werewolves as they don't exist. A unique argument based on the fact that what we know now is what we will always know. Evolution has disproved prior beliefs on multiple occasions. They thought the world was flat. That was a conclusion derived from ignorance. But aside from the flaws in the argument, this was never about proving or disproving any existence. Therefore Con should have a disqualification. As entering an argument with a do not exist claim is absurd. Any debate can be supported by such a claim. If I'm color blind, then that color isn't Green. Green doesn't exist. If I don't feel the cold as much as others, then it's not cold right now therefore cold doesn't exist. I'm sure you all could think of some yourself. I'm sure that we can all see. Con should have entered a different argument and therefore should lose. Now for Con's last words
Vampires will easily kill Werewolves

Pro's Claim: Con is persisting with the existence argument which is actually adding rules himself. No, you're the one adding rules. You never said that this debate would assume that Werewolves and Vampires exist. Pro's Claim: For con to be truly con, they have to be arguing the opposite of my statement. Which would be. Werewolves would easily kill Vampires. No, the opposite would be that Vampires wouldn't easily kill Werewolves. Pro's Claim: That would be like starting a debate wit the following statement. A guy with 5 arms on both sides of his body would defeat a man with 2 arms that were both the size of 5 arms all together in hand to hand combat. It's pretty easy to believe that those two guys don't exist. But the content of the sentence assumes that they do as there is the claim, would defeat. And in my argument it was, will easily kill. Based on the standard rules of the English language, I have clarified that it should never have been a question of existence. Considering that Con has entered a gun fight with a knife, he would have never been allowed access into the battle zone. Con has failed to meet the requirements of the argument. But the resolution isn't 'Vampires would easily kill werewolves', it's 'Vampires will easily kill Werewolves'. Extend all arguments.
Vampires will easily kill Werewolves

Con is persisting with the existence argument which is actually adding rules himself. For con to be truly con, they have to be arguing the opposite of my statement. Which would be. Werewolves would easily kill Vampires. I ask voters to see the true subject matter of the argument and vote accordingly. I am yet to see an argument that supports what the true con should be arguing. After all why would someone make a statement if the subject wasn't believed to be in existence. That would be like starting a debate wit the following statement. A guy with 5 arms on both sides of his body would defeat a man with 2 arms that were both the size of 5 arms all together in hand to hand combat. It's pretty easy to believe that those two guys don't exist. But the content of the sentence assumes that they do as there is the claim, would defeat. And in my argument it was, will easily kill. Based on the standard rules of the English language, I have clarified that it should never have been a question of existence. Considering that Con has entered a gun fight with a knife, he would have never been allowed access into the battle zone. Con has failed to meet the requirements of the argument.
Vampires will easily kill Werewolves

Again I bring attention to the very statement of the argument. Vampires will easily kill Werewolves. In no way would a statement such as this be made, if it was believed, that the subjects in question didn't exist. The comment would be redundant. And therefore a complete waste of time. I move that I didn't add a rule in the middle of the debate. It was assumed from the very start that they exist. Therefore Cons argument is irrelevant. If I had ignored a good portion of Cons argument then I would have never addressed the motion that they don't exist. And in fact that is cons only argument. This was never a question of existence. It's assumed. I know I am repeating myself but Con has failed to argue within the parameters of the statement.
Vampires will easily kill Werewolves

ArgumentsIt appears that Pro has ignored a good portion of my arguments. Pro has also changed the Terms and Conditions of this debate by adding in a rule that assumes that both of these things exist. Changing the rules in the middle of a debate is very sneaky and such rules should be clarified BEFORE the debate. I think that because of this, we shouldn't count the rules that Pro introduced half-way through as that is cheating.Extend all arguments.RebuttalsPro has failed to meet his burden of proof to establish the existence of werewolves and vampires.
Vampires will easily kill Werewolves

First of all to answer Arbitrary. Yes I did mean to come to a conclusion of what is accepted and what is not. For example there are many different stories about what both sides can and can't do. I knew this would be hard and I am a little glad that my opponent has gone down the "don't exist" road. To say something doesn't exist is a little ignorant. We can look back to past generations where they didn't understand basic chemistry and physics. Therefore they would never accept that a 300 to 400 thousand kilogram object such as a 747 could ever fly. Then we can reference any religion. Do you believe in God? Many don't. But many do. Yet no one can actually prove the existence of a benevolent entity. Such things as this can be seen as legend and folk lore. The argument that they don't exist has to be proven with some form of factual reference. I fear that this debate will transform into a, do they or don't they exist argument. The topic assumes that they do exist by the very statement. Lets clarify the powers or prowess of the supernatural beings in question. And also their weaknesses. I claim the following. Vampires. Mind control, supernatural strength and speed, fangs, can't go into sunlight, Don't need to sleep, cringe from a crucifix, Holy water burns, Can't enter the home of a living residence unless invited, Silver burns, need to drink blood for sustenance. Can be killed by the following. Sunlight/UV rays, wooden stake to the heart, decapitation. Werewolves. Now while not in wolf form are pretty much a steroid fueled human. No real supernatural strength or speed. But I am thinking that this is a battle to the death in hand to hand combat. While both opponents are at their best. So I would say that werewolves also have fangs, Supernatural strength and speed. Can be killed by decapitation or a silver bullet. And here are the real negatives. They are basically a pack animal that has no real cognitive decision making skills. they have the intelligence of a dog. A werewolf is not as fast as a Vampire but is stronger. Considering that the vampire would be much older and more knowledgeable with an intelligent mind they would use the speed advantage to quickly dismember the werewolf assailant before it even knew what was going on.
Vampires will easily kill Werewolves

I will be arguing that Vampires can't easily kill Werewolves. Here are my arguments:Argument #1: The argument from Logic (P1) For one thing to kill something else, they need to both exist.(P2) Vampires don't exist.(P3) Werewolves don't exist;(C) Therefore, Vampires cannot kill Werewolves. Argument #2: The Myth argument(P1) Myths and Legends are not backed up by evidence.(P2) Werewolves are myths; [1](C1) Therefore,Werewolves are not backed up by evidence. (P3) It is reasonable to not believe something when there is no evidence.(P4) There is no evidence for Werewolves;(C2) Therefore, it is reasonable to believe that Werewolves do not exist.Argument #3: The Impossible argument (P1) If it is impossible for something to exist, then it does not exist.(P2) Vampires existing is impossible; [2](C1) Therefore, Vampires don't exist(P3) Something that does not exist cannot kill anything.(P4) Vampires do not exist;(C2) Therefore, it is impsossible for a Vampire to kill a Werewolf.The burden of proof is on Pro to show that Vampires and Werewolves both exist and that a Vampire could easily kill a Werewolf. Sources [1] http://www.bbc.co.uk...[2] http://io9.com...
Vampires will easily kill Werewolves

I have read a previous argument and am new to this site. I believe that this argument is flawed in many ways. I wish to create a new one where any one can put forth their opinion. But please give references or the opinions have no strength. All lore and any view of entertainment counts. In the first 2 rounds I wish to create a standard of agreement. This will be hard I am sure but lets see how it goes.
Prostitution should be legalized in the United States

For the purpose of this debate the definitions in the resolution will be accepted as follows.Prostitution - the practice or occupation of engaging in sexual activity with someone for payment.Legalized - make (something that was previously illegal) permissible by law.Rounds will follow this structureMERound 1 : RulesRound 2 : Opening arguments and contentions Round 3 : Rebuttals, rebuilding points, and closing statementsAdversary Round 1 : Opening arguments and contentions Round 2: Rebuttals, rebuilding points, and closing statementsRound 3 : Shall type "no round as agreed upon"Rules(1) Failure to type no round as agreed upon by my adversary will result in a full 7 point drop due to him/her having an extra round(2) 10k character limit(3) No sources may be posted that would extend that debaters arguments. (ie posting a link would extend your argument past 10k words)(4) FF shall result in the loss of a conduct with multiple FFs possibly leading to a full 7 point drop at the discretion of the judges.(5) No trolling or semanitcs. This will result in the loss of conduct and possibly a 7 point drop. This is a serious debateI have made this impossible to accept. Post in comments If you are interested and I will pick someone
The Christian god's existence is just as likely as the invisible pink unicorn's existence

My opponent's rebuttals for (1) and (3) are valid, but his rebuttal to (2) doesn't work. The Christian view on omnipotence is the first view, in which the deity only has to do the logically possible. . http://www.ccel.org... They get to define their own view, not you. Therefore, he can be omnipotent without being able to do the logically impossible. "Also, let me throw another one at you: can an omnipotent, all-loving god hate somebody? " Well, he could, by using his omnipotence to override his omnibenevolence, but he chooses to be omnibenevolent. So, the answer is yes, he could, if he chose to no longer be all-loving, but rather, most-loving. "Keep convicing[sic] yourself you're correct. You are incorrect. " You say that I'm incorrect, but you don't say why. "The resolution is affirmed. " Wrong. The Christian, omnipotent god could exist, as long as omnipotence is defined in the way the Christians choose, which is only appropriate. ":)" (: "Vote PRO. " The Invisible Pink Unicorn cannot exist. The Christian god can exist. Therefore, the resolution is negated.
The Christian god's existence is just as likely as the invisible pink unicorn's existence

:) To rebut your arguments 1) . http://en.wikipedia.org... 2) Your source gave a number of different VIEWS on omnipotence. . http://en.wikipedia.org... "6. A deity is able to do absolutely anything, even the logically impossible. " 3) If the rock is too heavy for him to lift, he cannot lift it period and he is not omnipotent. It doesn't matter if he used water; as long as he could lift the rock then he failed to make a rock too heavy for him to lift. My goodness I love all of these excuses people keep making for defending their extremist views. Also, let me throw another one at you: can an omnipotent, all-loving god hate somebody? Keep convicing yourself you're correct. You are incorrect. The resolution is affirmed.
The Christian god's existence is just as likely as the invisible pink unicorn's existence

My opponent concedes that the Invisible Pink Unicorn cannot exist. "Also, a god cannot be omnipotent because he cannot create a rock too heavy for him to lift." 1. Where exactly is it said in the Bible that the Christian god is omnipotent? 2. http://en.wikipedia.org... "1. A deity is able to do anything that is logically possible for it to do." 3. God could create the rock that he cannot lift, and then use his omnipotence to flood the surrounding area with water, allowing him to lift the rock due to water's ability to make lifting things easier. http://wiki.answers.com... So, the Invisible Pink Unicorn cannot exist, but the Christian god can. This negates the resolution. "Oh well, I will probably lose to religious bigots but what the heck." No, you will lose because of the three reasons above. "Vote PRO." Vote CON. "Thank you." Thank you, as well.
The Christian god's existence is just as likely as the invisible pink unicorn's existence

There are several reasons why the resolution is affirmed. First of all, because both equally lack evidence for their existence, yes they are just as likely to exist. Also, they are both contradictory. A unicorn cannot be both invisible and pink. Also, a god cannot be omnipotent because he cannot create a rock too heavy for him to lift. I guess you can say they're both non-existent. :) likelihood of existence = 0 Oh well, I will probably lose to religious bigots but what the heck. Vote PRO. Thank you.
Softball and baseball are different

You should be showing proof and not correct me. Now, on to my argument. Youth baseball programs, particularly at the advanced levels, feature a pitching mound that the pitcher throws from (the younger levels may call for hitters to hit off a tee or from a ball pitched from their coach). That isn't the case in softball — at any level. The pitcher delivers balls on level ground with the batter. The other major pitching difference is that softball pitchers deliver the ball in an underhand motion; baseball pitchers can throw overhand or even sidearm if they choose. The game of fast-pitch softball puts a greater emphasis on pitching, because the pitcher throws from a distance much closer to home plate than in baseball. At the beginning levels of youth softball, pitchers generally deliver pitches about 35 feet from home plate. At the higher levels of play, pitchers throw balls from 40 feet. The base paths in softball are several feet shorter than those in baseball. When pitchers throw from 35 feet, the bases typically are 55 feet apart; when pitchers deliver balls from 40 feet, the bases usually are 60 feet apart. The smaller base paths in turn create a smaller infield area, which affects the defense of the infielders. Outfield measurements vary greatly. A common distance from home plate to the outfield fence in softball is 150 feet for the younger kids, while for the older kids it extends to 225 to 250 feet. A regulation softball is significantly larger than a regulation baseball. A softball measures between 11.88 and 12.13 inches in circumference and weighs between 6.25 and 7.00 ounces; a baseball measures between 9.00 and 9.25 inches in circumference and weighs between 5.00 and 5.25 ounces.Sometimes, leagues for the youngest softball players use smaller and softer softballs, because a girl's hand at the beginning levels of play isn't big enough to grip and throw a regulation softball. At the youth level, bats used for baseball and softball are interchangeable. At the advanced levels of play, players use softball-specific bats, which come in a variety of different materials, such as graphite, carbon, Kevlar, and liquid metal, to name a few. Many softball programs only allow specific types of bats to be used. I've played softball before, and we were taught about this.
Softball and baseball are different

Keeping in mind the definition of the verb “to be” that my opponent has effectively conceded to, it is astounding the extent to which she just attacked against her own case: “In Softball, the ball is [not] bigger [...] The bats used in Softball are [not] smaller.[…] In Baseball, the ball is [not] smaller [...] The bats are [not] bigger than in Softball.” It is obvious that the bulk of her argumentation is actually in favor of my position. Vote Con! Thanks everyone.
Softball and baseball are different

http://www.youtube.com...In Softball, the ball is bigger, but less dense. The pitching rubber is 43 feet away from Home Plate. The bats used in Softball are smaller. The bases are 60 feet apart from each other. You cannot take a lead before the ball is released by the pitcher. The infield consists only of dirt. The Corners play up by the pitcher. Softball consists of running slaps from the left side. The fence is 200 feet from Home Plate. Softball uses an underhand pitching technique called a 'Windmill'. A softball pitcher can start and finish a game, or even pitch a double header because the pitching technique is more of a natural motion than in Baseball. In Baseball, the ball is smaller, more dense. The pitching mound is 60 ft and 6 inches from Home Plate. The bats are bigger than in Softball. It's 90 feet to each base. You can lead off the bag before the ball is pitched. There is grass in the infield and dirt in the infield. The fence is typically 300 feet from Home Plate. Baseball uses an overhand pitching motion. A baseball pitcher usually does not finish a game and is relieved by another pitcher, and requires rest after a game since the pitching motion is not as natural as the pitching technique in softball.
Softball and baseball are different

Is Softball different than Baseball? http://www.youtube.com... That depends on what the definition of “is” is.(1) Let's clear out some more definitions: Within this debate, “is” shall mean “isn't” when comparing or contrasting Softball and Baseball; “are” shall mean “aren't” in the same context. The legal precedent I've provided trumps your sourcing of “freedictionary.com”. Thusly, the resolution is negated. “Softball is supposed to be baseball for girls and baseball is for boys, but there is a mens' league for softball. They are the same for the number of players and the arrangements.” False. Also, your sources for these claims are not valid, since they cite Wikipedia which can be edited by anyone (including myself!). (1) http://jurist.law.pitt.edu...
Softball and baseball are different

In softball, there is a larger and softer ball and a smaller field than baseball. Let's clear out some definitions:Softball- http://www.thefreedictionary.com...Baseball- http://www.thefreedictionary.com...Softball is supposed to be baseball for girls and baseball is for boys, but there is a mens' league for softball. They are the same for the number of players and the arrangements. http://en.m.wikipedia.org...http://en.m.wikipedia.org...;