BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Twin tower was demolished

PRO:"Who and how and Why the did it is a topic that could last several years on a debate forum, that is why I wanted to have a debate about just the technical collapse of the building itself. "Yes, the debate about "who" and "why" could last several years indeed, because the conspiracy would grow and grow and make it more unlikely. So far, my opponent has argued the the USA conspired with the Mossad, Osama bin Laden, the Saudi government, and the mainstream media. If this debate had continued for some more rounds, he probably would have implicated the NYFD and NYPD as well. PRO:"There is no precedent for a top down demolition that is true. "Which makes it very unlikely that such a demolition was used here. PRO:"Why did they make building 7 look like a controlled demolition ? good question but they didn't and still don't show the collapse of that building on mainstream TV. "My opponent doe not have an answer for why they would make building 7 look like a controlled demolition, and throws in a red herring. I am not arguing that Von Buelow is not qualified. But he has no proofs and he does not claim to have proofs. According to him, the burden of proof is with the USA government. All he does is say that certain things are possible, not that they actually happened, or that it is even likely that it happened. Could theoretically the USA government use technology to remote control Boeing 767? Probably. But did they? Probably not. I conclude with:Occam's razorThe application of the principle often shifts the burden of proof in a discussion. [a] The razor states that one should proceed to simpler theories until simplicity can be traded for greater explanatory power. The simplest available theory need not be most accurate. Philosophers also point out that the exact meaning of simplest may be nuanced. . http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_razor(if the link doesn't work: this is the wikipedia page on Occam's razor)We have 2 theories:Theory 1: We say two planes fly into the WTC. The towers came down. The collapse was caused by the planes flying into the tower. Theory 2: The USA put explosives in the two towers and building 7. They conspired with the airlines to put remote controls in the planes. Then they used remote controls to make two passengers airplanes fly into the two towers, but not into building 7. The explosives in the two towers were placed such that the demolition looks top down, even though such a demolition is unprecedented. However, they made the demolition of building 7 look like a regular demolition. But they also conspired with the mainstream media, so that they would not show the demolition of building 7 on tv. Then the USA put the names out of Saudi terrorists, so that the American public would blame Afghanistan and Iraq. Then the USA government conspired with Osama bin Laden, so that he wouldclaim the blame. Theory 1 is simpler than Theory 2. Theory 1 explains better what happen than Theory 2, because Theory 2 has more inconsistency and unexplained details than Theory 1. By Occam's razor, Theory 1 is the best. VOTE CON! !!
Twin tower was demolished

Ok thanks Con for having the guts to challenge this sensitive debate topic. First off the topic was of debate was whether the Twin tower was demolished not who or how they did it .Why did I keep it to that?Because people get emotional or sensitive talking about who did it.How they did it is too broad a topic to be discussed online but we should start a new criminal investigation into the matters.By the way im sure most people know the official story of 911 and have seen the planes hit the towers on TV repeatedly. Back to the debate:1.You make a good point the tower does not look like a classic controlled demolition.The building had to be demolished from the top down, otherwise it would be too obvious. Building 7 which was not hit by a plane however was the classic controlled demolition. The explosives were likely in the core 47 columns and elevator shafts of the tower protected from the explosion of the plane.The explosives were likely all throughout the building .The planes were likely remotely hijacked via remote control Former German Minister Von Buelow Already Knew About Remote Control. In his interview with the German daily "Tagesspiegel" on January 13th, former German Secretary of Defence Andreas Von Buelow made the following statement: "There is also the theory of one British flight engineer: according to this, the steering of the planes was perhaps taken out of the pilots' hands, from outside. The Americans had developed a method in the 1970s, whereby they could rescue hijacked planes by intervening into the computer piloting [automatic pilot system]. This theory says, this technique was abused in this case..." "As long ago as the early nineties, a major European flag carrier acquired the information and was seriously alarmed that one of its own aircraft might be "rescued" by the Americans without its authority. Accordingly, this flag carrier completely stripped the American flight control computers out of its entire fleet, and replaced them with a home grown version. These aircraft are now effectively impregnable to penetration by Home Run, but that is more than can be said for the American aircraft fleet..." The European flag carrier which completely stripped the American flight computers out of its aircraft was Lufthansa, the German national airline. Bearing in mind his former posts as Secretary of Defence and Minister of Science and Technology, Herr Von Buelow would have known all about this mammoth but secretive task. Why fly the planes into the towers?For pychological warfare purposes, 'shock and awe'. Also to cover up the demolition of the towers.(1)http://911review.com...Rebuttal -I would expect that as a progressive collapse is when the weight progresively builds up and causes subsequent failures of the steel columns below it.Really ? Dust is in the air, the dust is in the air and obviously not piliing up.How fast did you expect it to implode? Can you show some calculations and give us the assumptions you base these calculations on?Good question, and the answer is no one expected it to implode, so I and no one else can give you such a calculation .
Twin tower was demolished

I argue for the hypothesis of a controlled demolition vs the official version in which fire weakened the steel , the official version states the planes only removed the fireproofing of the steel causing the fire to weaken the steel which caused a initiation of a 'global collapse' NIST however do not explain how this global collapse occured. I argue that it had to have occured with the help of explosives or incendiaries. Based on two simple observations.1. The material of the twin towers is ejected outwards from the collapse zone and is not piling or stacking up like you would expect from a progressive collapse.The ejected material cannot create a gravitational force on the building below it as its no longer above the building below it.The building self implodes from top to bottom , all the material is turned to dust so where does the energy come from to crush the building below it while self imploding into dust in an outward manner.IE Dust cannot crush concrete below it causing it to turn into dust which in turn crushed the concrete below it into dust.(1) A simple explanation for these observations however is the use of explosives.2.If gravity caused the collapse of the building sending shockwaves down the building pulverising material outward then how come in you can see the sections of the building self imploding themselves at a faster rate than gravity as would be expected from a gravitational collapse.Notice the right hand side of the building Seconds 29 -35 (1) http://www.youtube.com...
The Dark Knight will pass up Titanic on the all-time grossing list

Ok, one detail that will effect EVERYTHING: I'm talking about DOMESTIC Box office. By Domestic, I mean the box office in America, only. Ok, so in domestic cases, Titanic is yes, number 1, and the Dark Knight is third. Titanic made 600,788,188 dollars domestically (http://www.the-numbers.com... is my source) while the Dark Knight in FOUR weeks, has made 441,541,000 dollars. Also, another important point, Titanic made $28,638,131 opening weekend, while the Dark Knight made$158,411,483. Any comparison? My opponent, however, does make a great point. That a movie can open well, and people will stop seeing it after the first week.(Spiderman 3 is a great example of this) HOWEVER, The Dark Knight is an exception. It has been number 1 in the box office for FOUR WEEKS. Also, he makes a point that people won't want to see it more than once, BUT, I know people who have seen the movie 3 times now, and even CRITICS say the movie is worth seeing more than once. This is because of the great directing, great acting, and of course, the EXCEPTIONAL performance by Heath Ledger. SO, as the film is being added to international theaters, more and more people will see it two, three, and mabye even four times. And not only that, but will bring other friends to see it for the first time, and then THOSE friends see it another two, three, or four times. (This is actually how I was brought into seeing the movie) And even IF we talk about global box office IN ADDITION to domestic, The Dark Knight will be seen over, and over, and over(As I pointed out in my last statement) SO, I ask my opponent to bring a few facts into the debate 1) Opening week for Titanic box office 2) Opening MONTH(or the first month of release) of Titanic box office Thank you for an EXCELLENT debate so far, and I can't wait for the next parts!
The Dark Knight will pass up Titanic on the all-time grossing list

No. It'll make the top 10 (~900 million) but were you around for Titanic when it came out you'd know the difference between blockbuster and "why won't this movie die already". The trending was astounding. Titanic made $1,835,300,000 world wide gross followed by a distant Lord of the Rings (TTT) at $1,129,219,252. Titanic was months upon months in the theater at #1 time after time after time, without losing much viewership as time went on. Dark Knight opened huge with $155.3 million and $72.2 million it's second weekend, and this last weekend it made $26.1M (Titanic made more than 30 million dollars 9 weeks in). I loved the film and highly recommend seeing it, but it doesn't have Titanic's staying power as Titanic made 10 million dollars even 15 weeks after the debut. Dark Knight's $704,728,497 is going to go up for a while, especially after it starts showing completely globally. But it isn't going to go up 1.1 billion dollars. http://www.imdb.com... --- Great film but guys aren't going to go watch it week after week after week. I just watched it that once and can't wait for the sequel (showing has been big enough they are fast tracking it). Here's a good article to read on the subject: http://www.the-movie-times.com... It tracks Titanic against the Phantom Menace (#7). Phantom Menace just like The Dark Knight starts off amazingly strong but dwindles. Titanic just keeps putting up profit week after profit week. Slow and steady wins the race.
The Dark Knight will pass up Titanic on the all-time grossing list

Dark Knight Primed to Topple Star Wars 'Dark Knight' stays on top with $26M 'Dark Knight' tops weekend again Fourth No. 1 helps make film the third-biggest of all time What do all these titles mean? The Dark Knight has made money, and lots of it. The movie has been number 1 in the box office for 4 weeks strait, and is showing almost no signs of slowing down. Even new movies, such as The Mummy, Sisterhood of The Traveling Pants, and Pineapple Express have failed to take the Number 1 spot. As of now, the Dark Knight is the 3rd best grossing movie of all time, with over 441 Million dollars made. The record it needs to beat is 600 Million, which is only 200 Million dollars away, and the movie has been out for only 4 weeks. Its pretty predictible, that the Dark Knight can, and will be the best grossing movie of all time. Another thing worth noting: It took Titanic a whole 4 weeks to earn just 400 million dollars, while it took the Dark Knight only 10 days. The Dark Knight makes lots of money, and it makes it fast.
There are no arguments for God that cannot be refuted.

I propose a challenge! I am taking that stance that there are no good arguments for god that cannot/have not been thoroughly refuted. I challenge anyone but preferably a theist. This first round will be for the contender to post his/her arguments and I shall respond to them. If I can successfully refute said arguments I win. If I cannot, the contender wins. Definitions: Refuted: I would consider refuted if I can prove a key premise in the argument for god to be false. God:"The creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being"[1] [1] http://www.google.com...
Same sex marriage.

Round three rebuttals"I.Obligation of Marriage:There are no rights denied a Gay man by marriage he could not obtain himself." John_C_1812""There are 1,138 benefits, rights and protections available to married couples in federal law alone" [4]"I have proven you wrong and have a source to back up my claim. " Liberties granted marriage are only united under order of basic identification to promote a type separation for public record." JohnThis statement is either a non-sequitur and/or a red herring. [8][9] I don't percieve how this statement is related to the debate in anyway. The burden of proof is on my opponent to show how this statement relates to the debate."A Gay man that is married to a lesbian woman can in fact obtain all right pertaining to the most basic Union description MARRIAGE. " JohnYes, this is true but a red herring. [8] The debate is about same sex marriage, a gay male and gay female are different sexes."There is however a basic principle bound to the "Title "of private contract named as marriage, Man and Woman. Marriage is the TITLE which is given to officially recognized and witnessed by a governing process. When a man does not want to be with a woman, refuses, it is saying we a will to accept new TITLE." JohnAgain, I don't follow the logic of this statement nor do I understand how this is related to the debate. [8][9]"II. Governed Separation:Asking to be seen/recognized by a governing process is not the same as a petition for grievance filing to obtain Liberty"s that are derived by others in response to public service. It is demanding for a Constitutional separation to take place, a separation based on basic principle only with or without precedent if any exists. A liberty can not successfully be directed unless a basic principle is established on behalf of any public person asking to have others bear-witness on their behalf is satisfied." JohnAnother red herring. My opponent must show how this impacts the debate. Are we even having the same debate here? The topic is same sex marriage, more specifically should the USA federal government recognize same sex marriages? "III.Registered Citizen Ship:" JohnAnother red herring. "IV. Binivir and Unosmulier:" JohnThis is a red herring."V.Shared Precedent between Gay Marriages Via Lesbian Marriages." JohnRed herring.The rest of my opponent's argument seems like one large red herring. Thanks for the debate. Sources.8. http://www.fallacyfiles.org...9. https://www.logicallyfallacious.com...
Same sex marriage.

Con will contend that the United State of America must declare Binivir"s or UnosMulier"s. As they may or may not see Marriage as a witness and are bound by oath and precedent to truth and fact. In the Defense of the United States Constitution Con will providing relief as the challenges presented by Pro, are/due pertains to a religious test now cast on all who may wish to hold political office. Gay 1. Of, relation to, or being a sexual orientation to a persons of identifiable gender. Burden of proof Lesbian " A Homosexual woman. Homosexual " A person sexually attracted to people of one"s own sex. Gay " A homosexual man. Upon agreeing on this meaning we are acknowledging that the act of sex is being used as a public identification in a witness account for all people, both minor and adult to both understand and see. Acknowledge " 1. to recognize the rights, authority, or status of 2. to disclose knowledge of or agreement with. Marriage " A marriage performed by a government official, as distinguished from a member of a clergy. Was a Constitutional definition of the visible witnessing of a man and woman with no sexual expectation placed on any witness, though sexual conduct was presumed to occur as part of a consummation of marriage only? Which is in fact why it was most popular among many religions not just one religion as personal property. Civil Union - was at some point a legal Constitutional adoption and interpretation to this definition to a verbal contract adopted by religion for legal representational purposes only. Constitution " A basic principle and/or precedent. Separation " a: a point, line, or means of division. b: an intervening space. Witness " 4: one who has personal knowledge of something. 3: one who is asked to be present at a transaction so as to be able to testify to its having taken place. Binivir " an individual term used for two men who are entering a new form of public explicit contract. Unosmulier " an individual term used for two woman who are entering to a new form of public explicit contract. United States Constitution. www.merriam-webster.com http://www.dictionary.com...
Same sex marriage.

I will contend that the USA federal goverment should reconize gay marriages.My opponent will contend that the USA federal goverment shouldn't reconize gay marriages.Burden of proof will be upon Con, my opponent 51%. This is due to the nature of morals, actions are considered moral until proven otherwise. Just as a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty.StructureRound one Acceptance and definitionsRound two arguments, don't respond to opponent's argument yet.Round three rebuttals respond directly to opponent's round two.Round four defense respond directly to opponent's round three.Definitions, use common definitions unless otherwise agreed upon.Sex"2.a. Either of the two divisions, designated female and male, by which most organisms are classified on the basis of their reproductive organs and functions: How do you determine the sex of a lobster?" [0]Gay "1. Of, relating to, or having a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex." [1]Marriage "1.a. A legal union between two persons that confers certain privileges and entails certain obligations of each person to the other, formerly restricted in the United States to a union between a woman and a man." [2]Thanks in advance for accepting the debate. Previous debate for reference. [3]Sources.0. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...1. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...2. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...3. http://www.debate.org...
Same sex marriage.

It looks as though there is an apology due. Pro was in fact "cited as a source" for the information that had been provided in regard to the debate. It was felt unnecessary to cite outside when writing is part of the debate. "I have proven you wrong is a false statement and can be questioned at any time as this is a shared public claim made by many that is not a proven fact at all, without proper or clear "cite." Backing the introduction of fact, discrimination is far less likely when the person who is be unjustly treated is playing a direct role in the discrimination. Is not violation, though it might appear as such. Yes, you could have indeed responded to the Con argument of "Title" and its authority without breaking structure of debate after being cited. Simply starting with the rest of all other non-religious pertinent facts. Then moving on to provide some kind of fact that can prove that a Gay man would not be telling a lie. The Obligation of Marriage was being describe with Pro as the "Cite." The Gay Man or Lesbian Woman is not described in a same Sex Marriage together, why? They could be, this has a legal responsibility linked to a physical cost of liberty to the public. A proper response by Pro, I recant on my misleading innuendo of religious persecution being the cause, with discrimination and abuse replaced with legal concern on behalf of Marriage and a Constitutional Separation. The problem is understanding the introduction of Rank or Job made by Con addressing Marriage as Title anyone can Start. The facts here show even a Gay Man and Lesbian Woman could do so, if they alone so choose. Con would like to conclude this debate with a response to structure to stipulation of Con"s own Structure. Gay and Lesbian are not just a choice of a form of liberty it is an accusation that some-one may need to defend themselves from. These are all legal reasons and not religious ones that become relevant to the description of a proper Title of work. http://dictionary.cambridge.org...
Same sex marriage.

My opponent has violated the round structure. My opponent has responded to a round three rebuttal in round three, which should have been saved for round four defense. My opponent should have responded to my round two argument via rebuttal in round three. "StructureRound one Acceptance and definitionsRound two arguments, don't respond to opponent's argument yet.Round three rebuttals respond directly to opponent's round two.Round four defense respond directly to opponent's round three." stupidape round one"I have proven you wrong and have a source to back up my claim. " stupidape round three"I have proved you wrong and have a source to back up my claim.""No. You have not proved that anything has been denied. By any-one accept the Gay man or lesbian woman who wishes not to be married to a lesbian woman or a gay man. The same sex couples would in fact be responsible for achieving any right of the any 1,138 possible benefits claimed lost. The fact that a Gay man is not in some way allowed to be married to a lesbian woman has never been actual established, here, in your argument, or in writing by a cited source, in whole this is a failure in fulfillment, the judicial Obligation of marriage is not to blame for the couples inability man or woman. " John_C_1812I can't respond to my opponent's round three defense without breaking the structure myself and becoming a hypocrite.
Why the Corvette is superior to the Mustang

The mustang is very different from the corvette. Not just in class but in purpose and function. My opponent is not wrong to say that the corvette is an international competitor. The mustang has a different purpose. Its a car for the consumer. Every man has the possibility to own a mustang. Its a car that's aggressive and has a rich history. Its was the best selling car in american history when it was released in 1964, and countless models have come forth since from the fastbacks to convertibles; Shelby GT 350 and 500 to boss 302 and 429. lets also not forget that of all the american automakers ford is the most successful on the international level. winning Le Mans against the might of Ferrari with the cobra Daytona and ford GT. Ford then took that experience in racing and put it toward there production cars like the mustang. A light and well handling frame with a fast V8 powertrain created a new breed of car. Only something that can be done by a company that knows how to race can do that like Ford has. since ford has continued to make the mustang the american icon of motoring. Carrol Shelby, the greatest sports car maker in Americas history and a legend of the industry cane to ford to contribute to the mustang like he had with the cobra's because knew the mustang was the greatest american car to ever be made.