BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Reeses peanut butter cups are better than snickers

I thank you Rasinbran for asking me to do this with you. Normally I'm not excepting debates right now, but seeing that this is 1 round I will make an exception. First I will start off with my case and move down to my opponent's arguments. Then I go into voting points. You travel miles to find a quiet place, a place to eat your candy. But when you reach into your bag you find two bags, Resses and Snickers. If Reeses are good and Snickers are good, how will we ever decide what to choose? When faced with this tough decision, I say both. Both are amazing so why don't we have them together? Reeses and Snickers make people happy, they give us joy. Sometimes it's just good to sit back and be happy. 1: peanut butter and chocolate were made to go together Response: This is true, peanut butter and chocolate were made to go together, but peanuts, chocolate, and peanut butter need to go all together, that's why we choose both. 2: without Reeses, how would we be able to enjoy life? That's also true, that Reeses help us enjoy life, but if Reeses help us enjoy life, then how much more would we enjoy life with them together? 3: Reeses saves lives. There is no proof on this point. VOITING ISSUES: 1) You need to have both to be happy. 2) If you only have one this will lead to not being happy. 3) If you aren't happy then you will be come depressed. 4) If you become depressed, then you will start to cut. 5) When you start to cut you won't be a useful member of society. 6) If you aren't a useful member of society you will not help when needed. 7) If enough people don't help with society then we will become even bigger bums. 8) If we are big bums then the safety of our countries will go down. 9) If the safety of our countries goes down World War 3 will start. 10) If World War 3 starts people will die. 11) If people die, then people will go to hell and lose loved ones. 12) If people lose loved ones then people will become depressed and commit suicide. 13) If people commit suicide then more people will go to hell. 14) If people go to hell, then hell will be filled. For all these reasons vote negative so that we can have Reeses and Snickers together.
Romantic infidelity is not necessarily immoral.

There are many conceptions of morality, so to simplify the discussion, a working definition of "morally good action" will be used. Two conditions must be met in order for an action to be morally good. 1. The action must not harm another person. 2. The action increases the wellbeing of at least one person. Infidelity can satisfy both conditions. First, infidelity does not necessarily harm another person. Infidelity is harmful only when the other person is cognizant of the cheating. As long as the other person is ignorant of the cheating, he will not feel upset and will happily live his life as if there were no cheating. (This is called the Tinkerbell effect, for those unfamiliar with the concept.) In order for infidelity to meet the first condition then, it is necessary for the cheater to keep his partner ignorant of any indiscretion. Second, infidelity must make at least one person better off. This condition is easily met. The cheater can be better off due to his romantic involvement with two people rather than only one person. If those conditions are met, then based upon the working definition of morality, no one has been harmed and at least one person is better off.
There is a God.

First off as always, which god? Certain proposed gods could be plausible with the right conditions/attributes. But there is no reason to believe there is a god, because none of the gods proposed have ever been demonstrated physically, logically, or contingent on reality. If god were demonstrable, his supernatural abilities may be questioned, because being detectable crosses you over into the realm of normal everyday nature. Furthermore, supernature (beyond time and space, beyond matter and energy) hasn't been demonstrated. The burden of proof for this debate topic is on the claimant so, I'll respond to them.
There is a God.

Well, this is my first debate, so please excuse any errors in argument, dialogue, or format. This question is open to all. I am hoping to really explore the details of a question that has as much relevance today as it always has. I do not want any opponents who will not be taking this debate seriously. Format: Round 1: Acceptance ONLY Round 2: First presentation of arguments, no rebuttals. Round 3: First rebuttal, second presentation of arguments. Round 4: Second rebuttal, third presentation of arguments (if necessary) Round 5: Final rebuttals, and conclusions. I do not see the need for any definitions for this debate, as it seems self-explanatory. As this debate is highly philosophical, I do not wish for there to be an emphasis on external sources. Referencing and quoting sources is, of course, allowed, but please try to restrict arguments to the use of logic and rhetoric, rather than simply quoting lots of famous people or reliable texts. Also, the premise of the question is that there is a God. This debate is not to turn into a question of which religion has the correct view of who God is, what He wants, and how that affects us, or any other 'true religion' debates. These terms above must be agreed with, no changes allowed. If any arguments throughout demonstrate a breach of the above terms, it will be pointed out. If not corrected in next round, then the debate will be forfeited. Any breach in Round 5, which cannot be corrected, will constitute an immediate forfeit. That's all, I look forward to what happens next!
Yellow Notebook paper is better for the eye than white notebook paper

my name is a reference to scrubs, and you're just a 15 year old kid. I'm 16, and a time traveler. i can prove it if you press for it. The topic is of this debate is: Yellow Notebook paper is better for the eye than white notebook paper you just said white notebook paper added to bad eyesight, so that really just goes hand in hand with my arguments.
Yellow Notebook paper is better for the eye than white notebook paper

First off, I believe that emotional sucess leads to overall sucess, going on the theory that optomism and pesimism are contageous, so white paper+people=sucess=good eye sight On to your Bill Gates argument, I will base my argument on 1)Negative presumption, so unless you bring up evidence on his being the anti christ, we can presume that he is not, and 2) I question your credintials, you claim to be a doctor, prove it.
Yellow Notebook paper is better for the eye than white notebook paper

I answered your colorblindness argument, and you brought up no significant numbers regarding successful color blind people. That leads me to believe that most successful people, want to look professional, and use yellow legal pads, rather than white ones, that make them look like students. In most debate rounds in real life, yellow legal pads are used for flow charts, because they look professional. It's the vibrant-ness. Sure, they may be unpopular for students, but they are noticeable when the professionals use them, and they want to be noticed, that is the reason they use them. You have yet to refute my claim that Bill Gates is the AntiChrist, and if we go buy your example of Gates using white paper, we can see that the minute amount of individuals that use it end up having eyesight problems, which is the basis for this whole debate. White paper=eyesight problems.
Yellow Notebook paper is better for the eye than white notebook paper

Bill Gates is the Antichrist, did you not know that? His initials, on some magical scale, add up with 666. I'm sorry, but I don't believe he holds weight here. But, just for the heck of it; On closer inspection of that picture, it seems the white papers are all business jargon, not notebook paper. I don't believe he spent his timing writing on those. But, when you magnify the picture, you can see a small bit of yellow poking out, which also has a few blue lines on it. It leads me to believe that Bill does all his non computer work on Yellow legal pad paper. Probably because they don't have holes :) It also seems that those white papers aren't notebook paper, but, you will also notice that both of them are wearing glasses; they probably look at white paper a lot, because they only write on yellow legal pad paper, and barely do that, because they work mainly on computers. Staring at that mass of white paper that they can't work on, makes it seem that white paper causes eyesight problems.
Yellow Notebook paper is better for the eye than white notebook paper

I find it amazing that you have no sympathy at all for color blind individuals, also, you have yet to show proof that yellow paper leads to sucess http://techrepublic.com.com... Here we see Bill Gates with a pile of white papers beside him http://www.thealarmclock.com... And here, we see Paul Allen looking at white paper, this clearly shows, that white paper is infact used by sucessful people, as Bill Gates, is the first, and Paul Allen the third most wealthy men.
Yellow Notebook paper is better for the eye than white notebook paper

Please, the reason they created yellow paper was to distinguish the professionals from the prettyboys. Plus, it doesn't matter how expensive it is, there are some investments needed to be made for success. Not to mention, it'd be like wearing wal mart clothes in paris. Colorblind individuals...well, their eyesight is already messed up, and there isn't a significant number of successful businessmen, so that argument really doesnt hold any ground.
Yellow Notebook paper is better for the eye than white notebook paper

First off, I would like to press for evidence that yellow paper is in any way relevant to life success. Next I would like to make not of that fact that yellow paper is not easily used by colorblind individuals, as certain colors do not distinctly contrast to the yellow background, making it difficult for them to read the letters, where as all dark colors contrast to white paper, and are easy to read on white paper. Thirdly, yellow paper is a waste of money, a white "Rapid Supplies" name brand legal pad can be bought for the same price as the same notebook in yellow.
Yellow Notebook paper is better for the eye than white notebook paper

I'd like to open with saying that my eyes are fine, whenever I look at yellow legal pads. But when I look at white notebook paper, I can't focus on it, because it's not vibrant, there for, I look at the blue line, getting fuzzier, and fuzzier, as I strain my eyes trying to keep them straight. Although it is bright, it's easy to focus on a large amount of yellow, than a small amount of blue. Plus, businessmen WITHOUT glasses, tend to use it for their whole careers. I've never seen a successful businessmen, who normally studies a lot, with glasses on. His eyes are fine. But I look at other unsuccessful people, and always see them with notebooks. The majority of them were glass. Vibrant is the way to go.
It is impossible to disprove any religion/god that has enough breathing space.

Hmm...that's a good argument. Though it could be said that the text (Matthew 19:26/Mark 10:27) didn't really mean all things are possible, since God cannot lie (Hebrews 6:18) It could also be said that God made those concepts seem impossible to us, though they are not (2 Thessalonians 2:11). The former does not necessarily mean that God would not be a god, and, as far as I know, it never says that God is not restrained by anything. These also use the gaps to solve a problem.
It is impossible to disprove any religion/god that has enough breathing space.

I accept. My opponent has mainly used the omnipotence of God as an excuse. However, omnipotence is not logically coherent. Premise One: God is omnipotent. (Definition of God) Premise Two: Omnipotence is the power to do all that is logically possible. (Definition of omnipotence) Premise Three: A logically possible feat is any coherent action one can speak out loud without contradiction. (Definition of logical possibility) a. Any feat that has been done before is logically possible. Premise Four: It is logically possible to create a finite mass of rock that cannot be lifted by its own maker. (From #3) Premise Five: Therefore, an omnipotent being can create a finite mass of rock that cannot be lifted by its own maker. (From #2-4) Premise Six: Therefore, an omnipotent being can create a finite mass of rock that cannot be lifted by an omnipotent being. (Definition of "maker" by an omnipotent being) Premise Seven: For any finite mass of rock, it is logically possible to generate a force that will lift it against a uniform gravitational field. (Newton's 2nd Law of Motion) Premise Eight: Therefore, an omnipotent being can lift any finite mass of rock. (From #2 and #7) Premise Nine: Premise Six and Premise Eight are contradictory. Premise Ten: Therefore, it is logically impossible to be omnipotent. (From #3 and #9) Premise Eleven: Therefore, God is logically impossible. (From #1 and #10) (Argument taken from ) Note that this proof dismantles not only omnipotence, but God as well.
It is impossible to disprove any religion/god that has enough breathing space.

Considering that many religions have a god(s) that is powerful and capable of many things, if there is enough room for interpretation, it could be said that they are impossible to disprove. Though the power and capability of their god(s) is not a main tool for the explanations, and what is more unassailable is the capability of the followers to interpret the texts' meaning, and the gaps in the texts' information. Take for example, Christianity, the god of this religion is God (which seems to be usually comprised of YHWH, Jesus the Christ, and the Holy Ghost) God is said to be capable of doing all things, and as such, when an area of the texts concerning the religion is questioned, God's ability to do anything can be used to resolve the problem. One example of this appears in chapters 7 and 8 of the book of Genesis, where the earth is flooded for around 8-10 months, yet a tree grew again after around several weeks or months, though it doesn't say exactly how long it took for the tree to grow. The explanations for this seem to usually be that either God protected the tree, or that God made the tree grow, though there are many other explanations. However, they are not said in the book. As such, the fact, that it was not explained in the book, and God's power were used to explain the problem, which seems to make this indisputable, though not necessarily true.
It is impossible to disprove any religion/god that has enough breathing space.

If God cannot lie, this only creates internal inconsistency with the verses supporting omnipotence, which actually strengthens the case against God. Matthew 19:26 Mark 10:27 Luke 1:37 Jeremiah 32:27 Job 42:2 In any case, the idea that our own logic cannot be trusted because we might be being deceived into thinking it denies us even Descartes' First Certainty, meaning we can literally not know anything for certain. In order to have a reasonable debate, we must accept some basic knowledge as first principles, meaning that apparently valid logic should be accepted as valid unless proven otherwise. Also, these don't really answer my argument. Can God create a rock so heavy that He Himself cannot lift it? I would mention other paradoxes like the Epicurean Problem of Evil or the conflict between spacelessness and omnipresence, but I think my point is made.
I am way cooler than you

1. Trust me. There are many people who would disagree that being in an aweful band is better than being in no band. It's actually quite embarrassing and degrading. And the reason you only play to the beginner level on Guitar Hero is because you are too cool, and have better things to do with your time than us uncool nerds with nothing better to do. 2. You know what, I think Microsoft Word is cool! Besides, by saying that this website is for nerds then I must be a nerd for using it too, which contradicts your original argument. 3. The Hot or Not defense was a clever one, however, I KNOW I've seen better pictures of you than the one you chose to post. Seems to me that you purposely chose that picture to swing the votes my way, which is a very cunning and cool idea. Besides, even if you had proven that I was 'hotter' than you, that still supports MY side of the argument; after all, isn't 'hot' the opposite of 'cool'??? 4. Unfortunately I have not communicated with most of the people on my Facebook account for years. I am not cool enough for them to keep in touch with. There are even several people on my 'friends' list that I don't even know. How uncool is that? Most of the people I've talked to say they are annoyed that Tom automatically adds himself as your friend on MySpace, and I agree. It is so cool that you don't have to put up with his crap! 5. Yes I will admit that it is pretty cool that I wrote a book. However, considering that the only reason the book was cool was because it was about you leads me to believe that my coolness in this case was totally dependent on YOUR coolness. My coolness would not have existed without yours. Your coolness ENCAPSULATES mine, making mine ever more inferior to yours. **Here is my grand finale. Much of this debate has been based on speculation and opinions. So I made a goal to do some research and find some facts. I just so happened to find a website that demonstrates the extent of your coolness. Some of the coolest, well-known people in America pay homage to you on this site. Case closed. This piece of information alone proves that you are without a doubt, extremely cooler than I. http://207.192.236.216:8080/dw/index.php
I am way cooler than you

1. The fact that you have a band beats the fact that I do not. My musical talent extends to the beginner level of Guitar Hero 2. Me being good at debating would make me a nerd. (I have dominated no one on this site) My skill at risk also makes me a nerd. The fact of the matter is that, everything I put on this site, I run through Microsoft word first. 3. You are also rated higher than I on hot or not. As of 12/17 at 4pm you're an 8.3 where as I am but a 5.3 making you truly cooler than I. http://scoreboards.hotornot.com... 4. If you look at face book, you actually have way more friends than I do. I also got a Myspace account, and I was not even cool enough for Tom to accept me as a friend, and he is friends with everyone. 5. When the F did you write a book? That is so cool. Not only are you a musician but an author too. Man you are truly cooler than I originally thought.
I am way cooler than you

On the contrary. You are way cooler than me, because you THINK that I am so cool. To dispute your specific arguments: Our band is not that rocking. We've played less than 10 gigs and after our last one we were cancelled because the owner feared we would hurt business. This is not a stupid debate. It's actually quite compelling. If I were as cool as you, I would have thought of it first. You are REALLY GOOD at debating. And you have pretty much dominated people on this site. You are also da bomb at Risk, which I've yet to conjure the brain power to accel at (<- and that was a poorly constructed sentence, you wouldn't have made that mistake because you are too cool to do so). Others must think you are cooler than me too. You have a lot more friends than I do and as we work together, you make a lot more sales than I do. That's because customers see your coolness. The only uncool thing about you is that you haven't realized your coolness. That in itself is cool though, because modesty is very cool. Here is a quote from a book I just read, "When you put David's name in into a Cool-o-meter, the readings are off the charts." That is from a book I wrote, called "David is Cool". It is only one page and one sentence long, but it's still a cool book because it's about you. As cool as you are, I think I've got you beat on this one.
THBT Earth Hour is useless

very interesting i must say. first off, i would like state that again, what do you propose to stop this? Its not like we can fine people for turning there lights off and using candles. And if they want to turn out there street lights, we can recommend against it and maybe force a light or two to stay on for safety, but in the end what is the point of this? Besides of course debating which i am perfectly fine with. And also, as far as the man that was hit by the bike, that is his own fault. He should never have been in the road. And although maybe having light on would have saved him, or could also not have. In the end, it does not matter if someone votes for or against this, in the end it does not matter. We cant stop people from turning there lights off and using candles. No matter how hard we try. Thank you :)
THBT Earth Hour is useless

Thank you for your questions. I will focus on your question as to why earth hour is useless. Firstly, I recognize that Earth hour has good intentions in changing the attitudes of the people towards climate change. But those intentions are not actually realized. According to Jeremy Clarkson, host of the BBC motoring programme Top Gear, confessed to switching on all electrical items in his home as a protest against the perceived impact of Earth Hour, claiming the event would have little to no effect on attitudes towards climate change.[1] Secondly, there is an increase of carbon dioxide emission because of people using candles instead. In fact The Christian Science Monitor said that most candles are made from paraffin, a heavy hydrocarbon derived from crude oil, a fossil fuel, and that depending on how many candles a person burns (if one uses candles during Earth Hour), whether or not they normally use compact fluorescent light bulbs, and what source of energy is used to produce their electricity, in some cases, replacing light bulbs with candles will cause an increase, instead of a decrease, in carbon dioxide emissions.[2]Also, In March 2010, the Daily Telegraph quoted electricity experts that "it could therefore result in an increase in carbon emissions" due to complications related to rapidly lowering then raising electricity generation.[3] Lastly, accidents often happen during the celebration of earth hour. During the 2010 Earth Hour in the city of Uusikaupunki in Finland, a 17-year-old female motorcyclist hit a 71-year-old man, who was walking on the street instead of the sidewalk for an unknown reason. The man died from his injuries, while the motorcyclist and her passenger were uninjured. At the time of the accident the street lights had been turned off as part of the Earth Hour. The police stated that the lack of street lighting may have played a part in the accident, while the mayor believed the city's street lights would have been too dim to prevent it even if they had been on.[4] I am not here to prove that Earth hour does not have a single benefit, rather I am here to show that even if it has good intentions for the environment, it has not been materialized and that it creates more problems. Sources: 1 ^ The Times (London)http://www.timesonline.co.uk... |url=missing title (help). 2 ^ McKitrick, Ross (2009). "Earth Hour: A Dissent". Retrieved March 31, 2012. 3 ^ "Earth Hour 'will not cut carbon emissions'". The Daily Telegraph (London). 2010-03-27. 4 ^ "Kaupunki sammutti katuvalot Earth Hourin ajaksi – Mies jäi moottoripyörän alle pimeällä tiellä ja kuoli". Aamulehti (in Finnish). 28 March 2010. Retrieved 2010-03-28.
THBT Earth Hour is useless

I would first like to say, is this hurting anyone? And also, what is the point? You say this is useless, but do you know that for sure? What are your facts? Your prof that this is pointless? I would like to say that at this point anything to help the environment is worth it. Though this may be "useless" it helps, and thus is worth it. Plus, what harm is it doing to others? Is it hurting anyone? No. Is it insulting people? Bringing riots? No. So why get ride of it? If people want to do this, then i say let them. We have no right no matter were you are in the world you simply just cant make someone do something when it is not hurting you or anyone else. Thank you