BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Earth is Flat... very flat

My opponent has forfeited the final round and has not provided a rebuttal. Therefore, all of my premises have passed unscathed. Unfortunately, all of his arguments are irrelevant to my resolution. As I established in my argument, flatness is a measure of the surface condition of the earth and has nothing to do with the earth's 3-dimensional shape, as Con attempted to establish. However, for the sake of rebuttal I will examine his arguments a little further. 1) We can see the shadow of the Earth on the moon every lunar eclipse. This would only prove the earth is circular in two dimensions. It is perfectly possible for the earth to be a flat disk and produce an identical phenomenon. 2) The force of gravity is roughly the same everywhere on the globe, so the Earth must be spherical! Actually, the earth's gravitational pull varies depending on where you are on the earth. This further strengthens my premise, that the surface of the earth is irregular. Gravity is proportional to 1/R^2, where R is the distance to the center of the earth. This means that if you climb a mountain, or descend into a valley, gravity's affect on your will increase or diminish respectively. [6] 3) You can't see past the horizon ... you can not fall off the side of the earth. Flatness does not determine the 3 dimensional shape of an object. Walking around the earth only proves that it is a 3-dimensional object but does not speak to the flatness of that object. 4) You can use Pythagorean theorem Actually, the Pythagorean theorem is a relationship between the 3 sides of a triangle. It can not determine if something is round (although it could perceivably use to determine flatness). [7] 5) Night and Day The fact that a night and a day doesn't provide evidence for anything related to this resolution. Even a flat disk that rotated on it's own axis would have a night side and a day side. Very good attempt and thanks for the debate. [6] http://curious.astro.cornell.edu... [7] http://en.wikipedia.org...
The Earth is Flat... very flat

DEFINITIONS: Flat: (1) having a smooth, level, or even surface (2) not having curves or bumps (3) having a wide, smooth surface and little thickness [2] (4) having less than 1 cm elevation change over 30 square cm, much less than the human perception of flat [5] INTRODUCTION It is actually a common misconception that the earth is truly round like a circle. At a remote distance it actually appears like an oblate spheroid. However, as you explore the earth from a nearer vantage point you"ll find that it actually has an extremely irregular surface. The earth is uneven, stony, rugged, pitted and in some places even flat. In many ways this vantage point is more important than from a remote location. This is our vantage point as human beings. We see the pits and the stony places. We may live in or around them. Until the 20th century, no human being had the chance to view the earth remotely. The near vantage point is the view we have every day of our lives and the view that nearly all of our ancestors have had back to the beginning of man. ESTABLISHMENT OF ARGUMENT As Pro, I have the burden of proof. My resolution is: The earth is flat, very flat. We are not debating the shape of the earth since "flat" is not a shape. Instead, this resolution pertains to the surface conditions of the earth, as the definition of "flat" indicates. At a near-earth vantage point we can observe the surface conditions and we can see that it consists of some rough areas and some flat areas. I only need to provide a single example of a surface condition that can be described as flat in order to meet the resolution that the earth is flat, in at least one place. I present into evidence: Salar de Uyuni, the world"s largest salt flat. [3] It is located in southwest Bolivia and is 4,086 square miles in area. That is roughly twice the size of the state of Delaware. Over the entire area, the variance in elevation is less than 3 feet 3 inches. Since this is the flattest place on earth, it can be considered extremely flat; very flat. It is actually so incredibly flat that satellites orbiting the earth sometimes calibrate their instruments using this salt flat since it is 5 times better than using an ocean. CONCLUSION I have upheld my burden of proof in establishing that the salt flat at Salar de Uyuni (on the earth) is not only flat but very flat. Therefore, The earth is flat, very flat. Thanks very much Con. I look forward to our rebuttal. [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://www.cntraveler.com... [5] http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org...
The Earth is Flat... very flat

Here we go. Well, am just going to throw arguments at my opponent rapid fire style. (Deep Breath) We can see the shadow of the Earth on the moon every luner eclipse! Pow! The force of gravity is roughly the same everywhere on the globe, so the Earth must be spherical! WaPow! The fact that you can't see past the horizon but obviously you can not fall off the side of the Earth. Don't say that you just can't see that far because you can see farther from high up, so if you use math you can use the pythagorean theorem to tell that Earth is round. Bap! The fact that I could take about and go around the world and end up in the same spot where I started. Boom! There are also different time zones so if the Earth were flat how could it be night on one side and day on the other side. Unless you are suggesting that the Earth is millions of lightyears long so that we can not see the sun and then somehow in just one day the sun travels millions of light years to the other side of the Earth. BaBam! Ok, you can go and try to prove your side.
The Abortion Debate

I would like to state that a fetus is most certainly not a "person". Science defines life, And a zygote/fetus is life sure, But this life does not differ from plants and bacteria despite the fact that it could potentially become a human. Potentially being the key word here. Despite the zygote having distinctive characteristics, It is not at all equatable to a viable, Living sentient human being. In fact, Not only does it rely on someone"s body to continue on, But it also does not have the brain development or central nervous system to feel or think anything at all. So while I agree that a zygote is not simply a cell, I disagree that it is a person or human-being by your terms Many things are alive, So? A fetus is NOT a person. There are many situations in which the person carrying the fetus deserves to make that choice and not be forced to carry. Therefore your second argument is irrelevant Abortion takes away no rights from a person, As a fetus/ zygote has no rights nor personhood. Abortion is not homicide. .
Yo Momma Jokes (NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY!!!!!!!!!)

Hmmm. .. .Well I think I won all the other rounds lets see. . This might be hard to come up with. .. hmmm Yo momma reminds me of a jet plane, she takes off smoothly, gives cabin service at cruising altitude, and she always has a rough landing; of course don't forget the occasional turbulence. (An event at the local meat fair) Yo momma: Ooooo sausages I want one! Friend: Geesh you can fit that whole thing in your mouth. Yo momma: Well I got some experience eating sausages. Friend: Aight, but stop licking it so much your drooling. Random Little Kid: Mom! !! that lady's pants are wet!
Yo Momma Jokes (NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY!!!!!!!!!)

OH SNAP u relize this is just a game right? Dang. I wish to post some jokes that won me the Yo Momma Contest on the game called www.habbo.com. Yo momma is like a hardward store-only 10 cents a screw. Yo momma is likea Bowling Ball - she gets picked up, fingered, thrown into the gutter, yet she still comes back for more.
Yo Momma Jokes (NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY!!!!!!!!!)

Well I was trying not to actually say what "much" was because I'm sure some whiner was going to hold it against me. Seriously..round 3 and your making hair jokes? Just for that going to have to take it up a notch. Yo momma is so ugly that at the strip club they payed, I'm sorry begged, her to keep her clothes on.
Steve Harvey is a better host than Richard Dawson

Thank you, isaiahkelley.Counter-Case"Steve Harvey is a better host because he is more funny and keeps the show running and also Family feud has not brong that many audience since forever. I think steve is the best host and I know that Steve will be at the family feud very long."There are several problems with this argument:1) None of it is sourced, leaving all of it a massive bare assertion, which is a logical fallacy [1].2) My opponent shows no calculations in reaching these conclusions. For example, via what method can Steve Harvey be considered "more funny?" Is there a unit of funniness that my opponent has used to assert this conclusion? Is it merely an intuitive assertion? How about "has not brong that many audience since forever"; how has this conclusion been reached? My opponent merely has statements instead of arguments, due to lack of calculation and/or analysis provision.3) "[Steve] keeps the show running" is false, as there are many factors which keep a show running (such as the directors and the audience; the show could exist with another host that is not Steve, hence he does not keep it running).ConclusionMy opponent provides statements that are in no way backed by evidence or sustained logic (in fact, the entire argument is logically fallacious). Thus, they cannot affirm the resolution in the required way. As it stands, the resolution has yet to be affirmed.Reference[1] http://fallacies.findthedata.com...
People are born good

//"Okay, with your definition what arguments do you have to support that people are born good? "// //"good can be viewed as subjective so how do we know what it is. "// Even though you have the burden of proof I have shown that with my definition of 'good', a child can be born 'good' if it is born healthy. Also, your point that 'good' can be viewed as subjective helps to show my point. If goodness is subjective then my guess is as good as yours and if I view children to be good at the moment of birth then that in itself negates the resolution. //"Also, are you saying that people are both born good or bad or that the majority of people are born good. "// While the majority of people born are not disease ridden I would say that the majority of people are born 'good'. //"People are born with mutations that lead to things such as sociopath-ism etc. etc. "// This proves that there are exceptions. However you did not state that some people are not born good or even that the majority of people are not born good. You stated in round 1: //"Man was not born good. "// This implies that all people are not born good and as my definition of good, which my opponent did not dispute, goodness is subjective and thus if I believe that a baby is desirable in nature then it is and my opponent's resolution is negated. The resolution is negated.
People are born good

Okay, with your definition what arguments do you have to support that people are born good? Also, good can be viewed as subjective so how do we know what it is. What is good for you may be bad for me vise versa. I could agree that people are both born bad and good if you provided me with argument as evidence. Also, are you saying that people are both born good or bad or that the majority of people are born good. I know for fact that people are born bad. People are born with mutations that lead to things such as sociopath-ism etc. etc. What I wonder is if people are born good, how can a newborn comprehend between right and wrong? Do you think that people are born with a blank slate tabula rasa as John Locke said. That are environments and surrounding influence us to be good or bad. This is where the nature vs nurture comes to mind.
People are born good

As my opponent did not define what it is to be good I will take the liberty to do that now. Good: Being positive or desirable in nature[1] According to this definition, someone may be either born good or bad. Like a baby might be born with birth defects and thus not fit the definition of 'good'(desirable in nature). However, a baby may be born completely healthy and thus be born 'good'. My opponent generalized claim that all babies are born bad does not take into account what the definition of good is. I contend that some babies are born good and some are not but certainly not all babies are born bad. [1]http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
People are born good

Man was not born good. Newly born babies do not think of anything else, but themselves and their well being. They wish to survive, but can not do that so they depend on their parents for nurturing. This in result will give the children admiration for their parents who have helped them survive, which can be mistaken for compassion. Compassion is learned later on when humans begin to see the value of life and develop sympathy. Philosopher Thomas Hobbes argued that people are born evil. Can you define good, a good person?
Humans Share a Common Ancestory with other Primates

As I am taking the Pro position I will assume the BOP. Though you are more than welcome and encouraged to present arguments for the Con position if you wish. The first piece of evidence that supports Humans share a common ancestor with other primates is mitochondrial DNA (mDNA). The mitochondria within our cells have an entirely different DNA sequence than the DNA that carries the genetic information for our development (nuclear DNA). Another unique factor of mDNA is it can only be inherited from the mother and not from the father. This allows for testing the mitochondrial genome of two individuals to see if they are related through maternal lines from a common ancestor. If they share mDNA they are of common descent. If they don't share mDNA they don't have common decent. When human mDNA is compared with other mammals we find a match. Our closest non-human relatives are Chimpanzees - followed by Gorillas and then Orangutans. To test common ancestry on the fathers side we can look at the Y-chromosome as it, conversely, is only passed on by the father. When human Y-chromosomes are compared with other mammals we once again find a match. The Y-chromosome shows that our closest non-human relatives are once again Chimpanzees - followed by Gorillas and Orangutans. A third piece of evidence that supports humans share a common ancestry with other primates are endogenous retrovirus'. A normal retrovirus' is a virus that attaches itself to a cell and rewrites a specific portion of the nuclear DNA of a cell. After the retrovirus completes this task every cell that comes from that initial cell will carry that rewritten section of DNA. If the retrovirus rewrites the DNA of a sperm cell or a woman's egg then it becomes an "endogenous" retrovirus - as that creature grows every single cell in its body will have that rewritten section encoded in its DNA. And every single one of its offspring will have that rewritten section in their DNA. And it turns out we share endogenous retrovirus with every species on our planet. But the animal with which humans share the most endogenous retrovirus' are the Chimpanzee - followed by Gorillas and then Orangutans. The genetic evidence that humans share a common ancestor with other primates is overwhelming. We have parallel lines of evidence that are all pointing to the exact same conclusion: mDNA, Y-chromosomes and endogenous retrovirus' all show that Chimpanzees are our closest ancestor followed by Gorillas and then Orangutans. And while there is a great deal more evidence I could provide I think this is more than enough to get the discussion going along. I eagerly await your reply Con. (All sources cited are peer reviewed scientific papers published in academic journals) The Evolution of Mammalian Gene Families . http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... Genomic Divergences between Humans and Other Hominoids . http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... Comparative Nuclear and Mitochondrial Genome Diversity in Humans and Chimpanzees . http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org... Dynamics of DNA Methylation in Recent Human and Great Ape Evolution . http://www.plosgenetics.org...
Is T.V. and music negative or inappropriate influence

Not everything can be solved with peace. There are a lot of terrible people out there and unless you say no T.V at all then there is no way you'll be able to stop it. The entire middle east is ravaged with violence and destruction and all they do is show it on all the major news networks. 30 years ago if you wanted to shield you children from T.V violence you shut it off and went outside. Now you shut it off they go to their rooms and play Call of Duty. It does nothing but show how sheltered they want to make everyone. But they know the can't fully shelter you so instead of watching ISIS videos on the news they will go play GTA and COD.
The best race in Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim

My opponent said that there aren't really any areas too dark. Obviously, he and I are never going to agree on this, but I would like to say how much easier it is with Night Eye for the reasons I discussed. He did say that candlelight was easy, but I have already said how candlelight can't provide all the perks of Night Eye. In addition to this, Night Eye is only light for the player, so he just helped my point. Khajit sell these dangerous products because of their natural instincts and immunities and curiosities. Skooma is actually part of their culture. The Daedra are considered evil by the people who do not worship them because you aren't going to call those you worship evil. "Azura is actually considered one of the better princes," so the other ones are still really evil and Azura is considered one of the better princes, so still pretty evil. Then he went on to say that skill buffs are fairly useless "in even the short run," but they really aren't. Really the Daedra are like the devil, if there were multiple devils, making the Dunmers super-satanic. This isn't really something to boast about. If you had a higher skill in one-handed than any other skill, you would want to use it. Using it more increases the skill, spiraling up much faster than no boost at all. Also, Dunmer aren't completely fire-resistant, they are only 50% fire resistant, which can be enchanted onto most apparel items. I will not pay any more attention to the werewolf-vampire conflict here, I may start a new debate of vampire vs. werewolf though. The Thalmor are not COMPLETE arseholes, just fairly annoying. Talos wasn't that important to people before the Imperials banned it, but then the Stormcloaks got all worked up. He made fun of the moons a little bit, but didn't actually refute that the moon phases are a huge part of Khajiti culture. Necromancy may just be frowned upon, but for good reason. It is coinciding with the evilness of the Daedra worship. The Khajit did not stop at skooma, they have a 5 boost in alchemy, and as my opponent said earlier, they sell lots of potions and poisons. I leave fate to the Aedra, like a good little Tamriellic citizen.
The best race in Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim

Rebuttal rebuttal time. There are little to no areas too dark for vision in Skyrim (the aetherium forge is the only dark area that comes to mind), and candlelight is so cheap a spell that any build can learn it, and you'll only be requiring full vision once threats are gone, removing the need to remain hidden. If you're a stealth based character (like a Khajit or Dunmer) then you'll obviously be taking the light step perk which negates trap triggers for your character. There are selective types of merchants; blacksmiths will only sell arms, armor and ingots. Mages will only buy magical items. But misc. dealers will have a large variety. A few potions, a weapon or cuirass and maybe some lock picks. But Khajit? They sell poisons, lockpicks, moon sugar and skooma in quantities larger than any other merchant group. Immunity only comes from their frequent usage of skooma. The Daedra are considered evil by people who do not worship the daedra, and define themselves as spirits of change. Azura is actually considered one of the better princes, which you'd know by seeing any loading screen from Skyrim. Skill buffs themselves are near useless in even the short run; when I played vanilla Skyrim, every character I had reached 100 in sneak. The greybeards "trained" me well, so it's only the powers and active effects that matter. Dragons breathe fire or ice. Dunmer default to being fire resistant. Khajit default to being stronger in contextual brawls. Oh, a small stab at the vampire-werewolf thing; Dawnguard. Vampire Lords get way more powers and start off with an enhanced skill drain before moving into force choke and mist form. Werewolves just get better at meleeing things. The khajit became Thalmor lackeys, and the Thalmor are complete arseholes. Unapologetically so. The Dunmer were allowed to settle in Windhelm, they were just given a smaller portion of the city because the Stormcloaks are racist. The moons decide the physicality of newborns, but that would only apply to Khajit considering a kitten. You might be confused with fourth era tradition, but necromancy isn't banned anymore, just frowned upon. Black magic isn't really considered wrong, and conjuration is more purple magic if you ask me. The Khajit ventured in to alchemy, discovered skooma, and then stopped venturing there, wherein they built a resistance to skooma through usage. Sheogorath's beard, this site's spell check hates Tamriellic nouns. I would wish you luck, but I leave fate to Azura. Duncan.
The best race in Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim

Time for the rebuttal round! My opponent said that Night Eye is selective in its use, but this is actually not true. My opponent may not have played Skyrim in a while, because although torches provide enough light to see where the tunnel is going in a dungeon, there is so much more to see. Extra light may mean the difference between life and death if you don't see the pressure plate or tripwire for a trap, or if you can't see where your opponent is shooting at you from. He said the Khajit caravans sell skooma and lockpicks, but really every vendor sells lockpicks, and skooma is the popular trade in Khajits because they have some immunity to its negative effects. The Dunmer are in contact with the Daedra, which is actually not a good thing. The Daedra are the evil spirits of the Elder Scrolls, so those who worship them are more or less satanic. He finally said that Khajits have nothing to show for their natural thievery, but they start with a +10 skill boost for sneak and +5 for lockpicking and pickpocket. This really encourages you to go into the thief field. He said that Dunmer can play any way they want. Well, that's the point of an RPG and no race is standing in the way of that. Also, vampires are much worse than werewolves, although that is a separate debate that I would not like to get into right now. He said Khajit lost their empire through gullibility and hypocrisy, but the Mane actually lives on. When the Dunmer left they had nowhere to go because nobody likes them. They tried to settle in Windhelm, but they weren't allowed to. The Khajit are obsessed with the moons because it actually affects them physically. Depending on when a Khajit is born, they are fit into the 4 archetypes of Khajit with respect to number of legs and size. It seems like it would be legitimate for them to be interested in their moons and biology instead of just going with black magic like the Dunmer. They ventured into chemistry enough to discover skooma, which they, again, are partially immune to.