BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
There is Observable Impericle Evidence that Allah Exists.

How can somebody be a creationist and not believe in God? An athiest and believe in science? Both of these things are contradictory. I am here to clear contradiction, and answer questions for these sets of people. The Quran has over 40 COMPLETE sciences, that no man, let alone an illiterate arabian sheepherder could possibly have known, therefore can't have been authored by man, therefore God exists. This is my claim. If my claim was true God would undoubtebly exist, because if no man could have authored the Quran, then who else could have other than God? In this debate I would prove my claim, using profound verses from the Quran.
Resolved: Tobacco use should be banned in the United States

Con may rebut my opening arguments in their first speech Rules 1. No forfeits 2. Full citations should be provided in the text of the debate 3. No new arguments in the final round 4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere 5. No trolling 6. No "kritiks" of the topic (e. g. justice is unknowable, rights don't exist, etc. ) 7. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add resolutional definitions 8. For all undefined terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate 9. The BOP will be shared 10. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a loss
Call of Duty 4 is better than Halo 3

You would be right to say Halo's multiplayer is good, but Call of Duty 4 has customizable weapons! see, i dont give a crap what I look like in Halo cauze i cant see myself. Forge isnt that fun, because after awhile, it gets lame. The weapon choices on COD 4 are amazing, therefore; the customizable option is better BOth are easy to use online, and both have good graphics online, but teh Halo servers shutdown a lot more than COD 4. Only one day that i am aware of COD 4 sever was down. Halo 3 servers have been going off and on since the beginning.
Call of Duty 4 is better than Halo 3

First let me just say, I agree with you, but am just debating for fun. You have a point when you say that Call of Duty has a better story line and better graphics. But both only apply in campaign. I've played the multiplayer mode, and I was pretty disappointed. Not only are the graphics a lot worse, but the gameplay itself is no fun at all. This is Halo's strong point, and is something that outweighs bad graphics and story lines. Halo multiplayer is easy to use and is never the same twice. You get your own customizable characters, and you get to pick just about all the settings you could imagine. They even let you edit the maps. That's pretty sweet. Even though Call of Duty has a few cool features, like airstrikes (which are also hard to use), Halo's easiness, accessibility, and flexibility make it far superior to Call of Duty. Multiplayer is what makes Halo better than Call of Duty. Don't get me wrong, the campaign is awesome for it, but once you finish, its just the same old thing. Halo's multiplayer is versatile and just more fun.
Call of Duty 4 is better than Halo 3

I am bored and no debates are available right now. I don't want to begin a real debate ( i will join one but I cant come up with topics ) SO FOR FUN Call of Duty 4 is better than Halo 3 1. Call of Duty 4 is more accurate I have learned more from paying COD4 than Halo 3. COD 4 utilizes real weapons, such as the P90 and A-130 Gunship. This is beneficial from an educational stance. I now know more. A battle rifle or pistol from Halo 3 has no educational value. Furthermore, the real impact of real weapons in COD 4 has a real impact on me. I dont care that an energy sword cutting a brute looks painful. I feel bad for the troops in Iraq who go through the urban combat that is correctly portrayed in COD 4 2. Call of Duty 4 is a better game Call of Duty 3 has better graphics, a better storyline, better sounds (not soundtrack, Halos is amazing) and better characterization. I hated the Halo 3 storyline. Once again, just for fun
Call of Duty 4 is better than Halo 3

Honestly, how many snipers do you need? I'm sure many of those weapons are redundant and didn't need to be remodeled. So, besides the weapons customizations, there isn't much else you can change. I mean, how many times can you change an AK-47 any way? Yes, I think that the COD campaign is much better. But once you've finished, it's not really worth playing again. Even if you up the difficulty (which I did) it's been way to hard for me to have much fun. But, yes, the first time I played it it was awesome. So my argument lies in the fact that, because you can do single-player once (and no Co-Op mode!), multiplayer is how you should judge the best game, and I think my previous statements show that Halo has the better multiplayer.
Call of Duty 4 is better than Halo 3

Um yeah its create a class well the menus in COD 4 are divided between single or multi player so i think that makes it easier there are more guns in COD than Halo. dont make me count please 5 assault 5 mini assault 5 light assault 2 shotgun 5 sniper plus add ons to each halo 3 has idk how many guns but you cant change them i say custom guns > custom looks, thus making COD 4 better in COD 4 multi player its SAS or Marines v Terrorists or Russians i think so you agree that COD 4 has better single player?
Call of Duty 4 is better than Halo 3

Maybe it's just me, but my experience is the reverse. I didn't even know you could customize weapons, which could be just me, but is more likely because of the difficulty of the menus. I also have found that the weapons are limited in Call of Duty, and I miss not being able to customize my character. And even though you can't see yourself, I think it's cool that other people get to see your sick designs. Call of Duty has always given me trouble (in multiplayer), while Halo has been perfect. Call of Duty is only fun in campaign mode. Because the game is so realistic it seems stupid to me to have present day Marines fighting other Marines. In a realistic war game, I expect to fight in a war; not to have some small one on one skirmish. Halo is totally make believe, so I could play however I want without a second thought as to whether this would really happen in real life.
British v Asians

First Pro says “UK is 2nd in Europe for crime” but what about an unseen crime, the crime of China’s communist government? People who hate the ruling party cannot speak it out because they will be sentenced to several years in prison or even killed. Chinese people actually have very little freedom. [1]At least in the UK people live freely without having to fear their own government :DPro then said “Japan has a low homicide rate. So at least they are not killing each other. But still killing yourself is bad.”Pro is not meant to just be arguing for Japan he needs to argue for china as well as Pro stated in the start of the debate that he would be for “Asians(China-Japan area)”. The results of china’s government is basically a high homicide rate, and Pro have not given any evidence that Japan doesn’t have a high homicide so my argument still stands.“British food is not healthier then Japanese food. The Japanese put less sugar and more veggie-tables. If people are skinny, if girls are skinny(not too skinny but healthy)”Instead of healthy food how about safe food? A lot of Japanese foods are dangerous because they may be poisoned. Such as Fugu which is a fish which contains deadly poison in different parts of the body. Despite the risk, Fugu dishes remain as special feasts in Japan. [2]So be happy that British food is safe to eat ;) Pro you say about 60% of UK adults are obese? How do you know that? You failed to provide evidence for that, so your argument is invalid. Pro says only 3% of Japanese adults are obese, well that is wrong. A 2008 report stated that 28.6% of men and 20.6% of women in Japan were considered to be obese. [3]Pro you should have researched your facts more :PPro finally said:“Therefore skinny girls tend to look better so if theres more skinny girls there might be more finer girls” (in relation to Japanese being so thin)Well that is a very silly argument. If it was true then surely Japanese woman would be more popular worldwide, but it seems they are not as popular as British girls. Also Japanese woman have smaller breast sizes than most other woman which could be the reason why and logically makes them less attractive. Conclusion of debate:I have rebutted all the arguments my opponent made, however for a lot of my rebuts, my opponent failed to rebut them back at all. Also my opponent was meant to arguing in favour of both china and Japan but towards the end of the debate he forgot about china and just focused on Japan. So my opponent is unworthy to win this debate therefore I must urge a Con vote.Anyway I thank you Pro for this fun debate, maybe we can debate again sometime ;)Sources:[1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://japanesefood.about.com... [3] http://search.japantimes.co.jp...
British v Asians

For Starters,. UK is 2nd in Europe for crime. Japan has a low homicide rate. So at least they are not killing each other. But still killing yourself is bad.British food is not healthier then Japanese food. The Japanese put less sugar and more veggie-tables. If people are skinny, if girls are skinny(not too skinny but healthy)about 60% of Uk adults are obeseJapan?about 3%Therefore skinny girls tend to look better so if theres more skinny girls there might be more finer girlshttp://en.wikipedia.org...http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
British v Asians

I have no rebuttal over your BP or Japan's low obesity rate? Well at least I rebutted everything else Fine if you want a rebuttal get a load of this... Apart from third world countries Japan has a very high suicide rate. It seems the most popular form of suicide is using a lethal, painless gas; many people leave notes in the windows of cars and drive somewhere quiet and secluded like the mountains, and gas out the car. In fact there is so much suicide that people do it in big groups. [1] Japan is one of the wealthiest countries, one of the most well educated countries in the world, but yet why do they resort to suicide so much? So my suicide rate argument outweighs your low obesity rate argument ;) And when you said BP are you referring to the BP company? I'll rebut this in my final round. And Japanese girls are much more fine then Brits you say? Then how come on FHM's 100 Sexiest Women in the World 2011 not a single Japanese woman made the list? Just take a look at the list: http://www.fhm.com... When I looked at the list I couldn't see any Japanese woman on the list but there are at least 5 Brits on there, such as Kelly Brook, Cheryl Cole, Emma Watson, Kate Middleton, Keira Knightley and Angelina Jolie. Our Brit girls must be more fine than Japanese girls then :D And finally Pro you say Japanese have much better food? Well that's down to opinion, but if you know much about food then you know that the full English breakfast is considered the best in the world. Watch the video and you will see that British have great food too. [2] Ok back over to you again Pro ;) Sources: [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.youtube.com... (see video 1)
British v Asians

Sake? Rice wine? Is that really the best you got? I don't think sake is all that popular outside Asia :/ Well we Brits have fish and chips!!! That's a worldwide liking ;) Fish and chips are a great dish and popular tradition associates the dish with the United Kingdom. The dish remains very popular in the UK and in areas colonised by British people in the mid 19th century, when the dish originated, such as Australia, New Zealand and Canada. Besides we Brits also invented the "pyramid tea bag," with the company PG tips... it has a unique design that addresses one of connoisseurs' arguments against paper tea bags; because it's three-dimensional tetrahedron shape allows more room for tea leaves to expand while steeping. [1] That is so intelligent isn't it? ;) Even Asians seem highly enjoy our tea and fish and chips, seems they want to be us. [2] And the Battle of Yorktown was lost because Lieutenant General Lord Cornwallis thought it was a good idea to watch for ships on a peninsula? One man's silly mistake doesn't prove a whole county to be like that, by that logic all Chinese people should think they can catch massive falling trees like this man in my 3rd video. [3] He just did an EPIC FAIL :L Finally Pro you said: "And the The reason the Brits had won the Opium war was because China could have been taken over the Americans. Japan was has a low obesity rate." That doesn't make any sense. If you want to use that for your argument Pro you better prove it :S Anyway yet again back over to you Pro Sources: [1] http://www.youtube.com... (see video 1) [2] http://www.youtube.com... (see video 2) [3] http://www.youtube.com... (see video 3)
British v Asians

Im American by the way. And Asians dont just make tea, they also make sake (or at least the Japanese do), Which is rice wine. And The Battle of Yorktown was lost because the entire British army was POW'd when Lieutenant General Lord Cornwallis thought it was a good idea to watch for ships on a peninsula. And the The reason the Brits had won the Opium war was because China could have been taken over the Americans.Japan was has a low obesity rate.BP
British v Asians

British are just Americans with an accent, and complain when they don’t get enough tea? Well British are indeed tea addicts, but a Brit drinks more tea than any person of any other nation (over twenty times more than Americans!). That’s an amazing record, so there’s no way we’re just Americans with an accent :P And Since when do British complain when they are not getting enough tea? They have kettles to make tea very easily... But Asians have to make their tea in a saucepan, so screw you! :P And British know how to end a war... in relation to the Siege of Yorktown? What’s that suppose to mean? The fact that we were defeated so well? The Americans needed the help of the French to aid them in the Siege of Yorktown and together they outnumbered the British 2:1 And Yes we Brits do know how to end a war... with a win!http://en.wikipedia.org... We won the First Opium War with just 69 killed, 451 wounded. The Chinese however had 18,000–20,000 casualties.Back over to you Pro :D
Crust or No Crust on Bread.

True the crust might not taste as good then the rest of the bread, but your health is what should come first. Some things might not taste good, but they might be essential to your health. In an article by www.onlymyhealth.com, they say that the nutrients in bread are essential for combating cancerous growth. Also, antioxidants can combat the harmful effect of free radicals that damage the blood cells and lead to cancerous growth. Dietary fiber also keeps your colon healthy as it helps in digestion.
In a democracy, civil disobedience is an appropriate weapon in the fight for justice.

Before you all simply go ahead and vote for the position you like, take into consideration the position of my case. -Any example that could be given supporting the affirmative case could not have taken place in a real democracy, because a democracy, by definition, can provide for plenty of legal options other than breaking the law. -There are plenty of negative effects that can be caused by it. (see previous case). -By definition, civil disobedience is in violation of justice by breaking the law. I urge a con vote from you. Thank you.
In a democracy, civil disobedience is an appropriate weapon in the fight for justice.

The Bill of Rights, within the constitution, protects the right to dissent through the freedom of speech, the right to peacefully assemble, and the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. The use of all of these tools is the prime distinction between a democracy and an autocracy. By placing civil disobedience over these normal activities, then it is impossible to be aligned with democratic processes. DEFINITIONS "Democracy:" Government by the people in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or their elected agents under a free electoral system. "Justice": Obeying the law. This definition is best because it is concrete and the same for all people. My main points: 1.) My first main point is that every person can participate in a democracy. In every possible example of civil disobedience, it never existed within a democracy. Gandhi was in an empire, and Martin Luther King was living under the undemocratic Jim Crow laws. In an ideal democracy, citizens would be able to easily participate in democracy, instead of being forced to break the law. In a democracy, laws are just. They protect life, liberty, and property (like in 1st and 4th amendments). An unjust law would then go beyond the realm of democracy. 2.) In a democracy, there are legal means to address unjust laws. Under an ideal democracy, citizens can use the courts, voting, as well as lobbying to fix unjust laws. This can better be done today than in the civil rights movement. For instance, legal assistance is available through the Attorney General's office, and discrimination is addressable in the court system. Civil disobedience bypasses all this, and seeks to use lawbreaking in order to achieve such goals. In short, the pro assumes democratic processes don't work. 3.) It's harmful for 3 reasons. First, demonstrators often break other laws unrelated to the injustice, such as refuse to pay taxes. Second, CD could be used against private parties, not just the gov't., which is an infringement upon rights. Third, non-violent protests can often lead to violence. In Gandhi's movement, there was immense rioting in Bombay, because of his arrest in 1942. To summarize everything, civil disobedience isn't appropriate because democratic processes work better. Violence now isn't necessary if it can be solved a better way.
In a democracy, civil disobedience is an appropriate weapon in the fight for justice.

Definition: JUSTICE MEANS WHAT IS RIGHT AND FAIR - Justice is generally understood to mean what is right, fair, appropriate, deserved. So let us go with my first argument then. This resolution can be rewritten as such: In a democracy, civil disobedience is an appropriate weapon in the fight for what is right. So your first question is inevitably going to be, how can we tell what is right? And by argument will therefor be, "it doesn't matter." We're debating the resolution and not the real world applications of it. Next on the same topic I present the idea that in the fight for what is right the means, being civil disobedience, easily justify the ends. The consequences of means only are against those using the means, society itself is not hurt. The end here, is what is right. Therefor society benefits from the ends and is not hurt by the means. You can then argue that society will be hurt by the means through the violation of the unjust law, but let us remember the law is what is not right, and therefor society will not be hurt. My next argument: Appropriate, and the varying degrees thereof. Example, when someone is threatening your child's life, with a chainsaw, what would be an appropriate response to said person? I would contest that the following options are all appropriate: talking to them, shooting them, throwing a knife at them, a throwing star, bombing them, sword, police, bargain. As we can see all of these options are appropriate, I would argue that some could work better than others, but all or nonetheless appropriate. The same is true of a democracy in the fight for what is right. There are many appropriate responses, all being varying degrees of effective in different situations, but nonetheless appropriate. For examples: petition, public law, civil disobedience, even outright disobedience can be appropriate if the wrong is truly atrocious. Would it have been right for the slaves in pre-Lincoln America to outwardly oppose the law on slavery. I would say yes. So onto my summary. Civil disobedience is a non-violent form of political communication in which the minority having wrongs/injustices committed against it gets the majorities attention. In the fight for what is right it is a very appropriate weapon, especially when compared to some other forms of appropriate forms of fighting that have societal backlash. Thank you.
god exists

Obviously Pro has the burden of proof to demonstrate that God exists. I will offer a few possible claims that he must, also, be able to rebut in order to win in addition to fulfilling his own burden of proof. C1: The universe could function perfectly fine without a GodThe universe is capable according to many modern physicists to self-create, which means that God is completely unecessary and another variable in the equation. C2: No evidence We have no evidence for God and no need for a God. We should, by Occam's Razor, reject this theory because we have another one, the one I offered in C1, that is more plausible, more likely, and with fewer -- no, actually -- assumptions. C3: Problem of Evil God is omnibenevolent and omnipotent by the definition of God. P1) Evil existsP2) Evil was created by God P3) This would require the capacity to create evil C1) Therefore, God cannot be omnibenevolent C4: Problem of SufferingGod is omnibenevolent and omnipotent, so he should be able to amelieorate suffering. Yet, people suffer.P1) If an omnibenevolent and omnipotent God exists, suffering doesn't.P2) Suffering exists.C1) Therefore, an omnibenevolent and omnipotent God doesn't exist.Back to Pro.
Ayza Wine and Chocolate Bar West Village

My opponent makes two claims: (my opponent holds the BOP, he is making a claim in his argunment) A. Wine and chocolate is good for you B. Ayza Wine and Chocolate Bar is the best/is good Let's rebut this, then show my case. A. Wine and Chocolate is good for you Hundreds of lives could be saved if we cut alcohol consumption. One glass of wine might be too much, if all of the UK switched to only half a glass a day 4,600 deaths would be prevented [1]. And really? Who drinks half a glass? A standard US drink is 5 oz. of wine, which is more then one glass [2]. If this is the case then many lives are being lost to alcohol. Other studies have been looking into wine and its effect on teeth, it has been found white wine is extremely bad for ones teeth. They concluded, "In the lab, adult teeth soaked in white wine for a day had a loss of both calcium and another mineral called phosphorus to depths of up to 60 micrometers in the enamel surface, which the researchers say is significant."[3] Now is even chocolate good? Many people, a surprising amount actually, are allergic to chocolate. And many of the effects of eating chocolate can directly or indirectly lead to death [4]. Even Dark chocolate is bad for you, even if your not allergic, only 1-2 square a day are recommended [5]. --> I guarantee this bar thing causes people to have more then 1/2 a glass of wine or 1-2 small squares of dark chocolate (less is recommended for other types, and I doubt the bar gives you less). B. Its the best!! I would like to note the way my opponent phrased his argument here is against the terms of service. The TOS states, "Will not use the Service to artificially generate traffic or page links to a Website or for any other purpose not intended for personal, noncommercial use of the Service."[6] The way he phrased it then put the link under is saying come to the bar and look at the website. This argument is illegal and should be discarded. => Case <= Look at rebuttals [1] http://www.independent.co.uk... [2] http://www.cdc.gov... [3] http://www.neatorama.com... [4] http://www.healthology.com... [5] http://www.dailymail.co.uk... [6] http://www.debate.org...