BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
A limitless god is impossible.

Because the title of your previous challenge is not specific enough, I had thought it best to challenge the instigator (Donkey) to a formal debate with a more fitting title. In this debate, I will (yet again) present my mathematical proof that a limitless god is impossible; and will give the instigator a chance to see that it is indeed a proper mathematical proof. Beyond this, there aren't any more rules to this debate; and so I wish my opponent good luck, for he will need it. Here it is, in proper form: 1) For something to exist beyond the level of notion, it is necessary for it to be objective, i.e. independent on human (or otherwise) perspective; because if it isn't, then it cannot exist independent on the level of notion, and hence be meaningless beyond that level. 2) By definition, it is necessary for an objective term or concept to be fully and hermetically well-defined (though not necessarily a definition known to us); because by definition, an objective concept or entity is one that is dependent on a timeless means of predication, or in other words definition. It must be well-defined, because if it isn't, then there are no predicated qualities given to the concept, and hence no meaning beyond what a subjective perception will give it. 3) Well ordered definitions can and must be manifested in the form of a well-ordered expression, identical to those used in mathematics nowadays; which come, in every case, in the form of some well-ordered, formal, objective, mathematical language, such as set-theory, etc. Moreover, such definitions must be non-paradoxical, because when a paradox is present, the concept loses any and all objectivity, and hence meaning. 4) To prevent a common paradox, a slightly different form of Russell's paradox; it is necessary for the concept to be completely limited by the language it is defined within; meaning that it cannot predicate over its own predicator. 5) God is commonly defined as an unlimited being (if you define him as limited, this proof is irrelevant). 6) By these necessary standards, i.e. those presented in 1)-4), a limitless God is ill-defined. 7) Following from 2) and 6); A limitless God cannot exist objectively. 8) Following from 1) and 7); A limitless God cannot exist beyond the level of notion, and hence has no effect beyond psychological.
Megadeth is better than Metallica

I will begin by rebutting your statement that Ride The Lightning and Kill Em' All were Metallicas best albums, which is inaccurate if we go by terms of record sales. Metallica's album, bluntly named "Metallica", also known as The Black Album was their best selling album with 21.2 million worldwide sales, which is nearly half of Megadeth's recorded total worldwide sales of 50 million copies, keep in mind that is one Metallica album compared with Megadeth's total sales from all of their albums. As far as you talking about the best metal instrumentals and lyrics, that is all objective opinion of which there's nothing to really debate. As far as Metallica not being the first Thrash Metal band on the planet, I agree fully, but neither was Megadeth, remember Megadeth was founded 2 years later and was actually inspired by Metallica. Metallica had it's own special style of Thrash music, which brings me to my last point. You haven't given me much to debate, the first round consisted of your objective opinion about the subject and I'm sure plenty of others agree with you. Many others, including myself, however, don't.
Megadeth is better than Metallica

Metallica sucks, and Megadeth is better. At least Megadeth never made a Lulu or St. Anger, and even Risk or Super Collider are better than most of the songs that Metallica has made since 1991. Metallica's Kill Em All and Ride The Lightning were their best albums, and Master of Puppets was ok. Dave Mustaine wrote some of the best songs from those first two albums, which include The Four Horsemen, Jump in the Fire, Phantom Lord, Metal Militia, Ride The Lightning, and The Call of Ktulu. That last song I mentioned, the final track of Ride The Lightning, was one of the greatest instrumentals in metal history, and Metallica's best instrumental. Megadeth's songs also have better lyrics than Metallica's, and each of the members have more talent. Looking Down the Cross, Good Mourning/Black Friday, In My Darkest Hour, Rust In Peace... Polaris, Countdown to Extinction, Promises, and Poisonous Shadows are just 7 Megadeth songs that are better than some of the songs from Kill Em All and Ride The Lightning, most of the songs from Master of Puppets and ...And Justice From All, and pretty much every song after that. At least Megadeth still has good music today. Metallica will just make a bunch of crap albums like Hardwired and Lulu and will end up selling out. Megadeth however makes good music, and later albums like Endgame and Dystopia still have the roots of their classic thrash, and other albums like The World Needs a Hero, was more experimental compared to the other albums, and they did a good job, unlike Metallica who tried too hard with Load and Reload. Metallica's music is just thrash metal. Nothing special about it, just plain thrash. They also were not the first thrash metal band. Venom, Exodus, Overkill, and Anthrax were all formed before Metallica. They did get a little progressive with And Justice for All, but besides that, there is nothing special about them. Megadeth, however, was a better band, playing faster and heavier, while keeping the roots of punk rock. Megadeth's earliest music from Killing is my Business and Peace Sells, would be technical thrash metal. Metallica's Kill Em All, regular thrash metal. I could go on and on about why Megadeth is better than Metallica, but I'm running out of time so I'll end here for now.
Same-sex only public events hinder gender equality. Debate.

Thank you for answering too. I was of the same mind as you, I only encountered this issue recently whilst on campus at my university. Still I'm not sure how I feel, I was just curious to see what other people may think about the topic. So, on your first point: I agree both genders should be able to have same-sex events if they choose. But my only issue with this is: I'm not sure if it is 'constitutional' (I'm English, but I'll still the term) to exclude any person from a public event on the basis of their gender, race, sexuality, etc. If we were discussing private events then I agree with your point. I have already touched on the constitutional factor. But, to address your second point, I think the best way to achieve large-scale gender equality would be to include both genders in debates. To build bridges, rather than block them off. For example, how would a sexist person ever see differently if they are excluded from public events on gender issues from the first off? I also agree with you that there may be very legitimate reasons why an event is gender specific. The case may be that the debate is on sexual abuse or a discussion group for victims of rape and sexual assault. I totally agree, having the offending gender present at these events would not be conducive to gender equality, or personal well-being. Though my point is, these types of discussion groups would always take place in private settings, e.g. a clinic, or a care centre. So I'm sticking to public events, say lectures on a university campus. All should be able to have access to these public events. I can't see why someone who has a right to fight for gender equality also has to be excluded from public events due to their gender. Thank you.
Same-sex only public events hinder gender equality. Debate.

I am as of yet undecided, though I lean more towards the notion that same-sex only public events hinder gender equality. My initial thoughts are: - They only mirror and reinforce the gender divisions that impede gender equality. - It is difficult to justify same-sex public events, they should theorectically be open to all. - They exclude women/men who support gender equality issues. - Collaboration between genders in key to large-scale gender equality. P.S. I am of the opinion that there is a distinction to be made between public/private events.
should kids be allowed to play video games on the weekdays

Fantastic, contact the debate.org police hahahahahha you weak imbecile. I am the debate.org police I run this site, among others and you can report me as many times as you want nothing will happen. Look at you, you're pathetic. Someone calls you a name and you run away like coward. I was actually guessing that you were a child and a virgin, and all your response did was prove my suspicions. You probably even got a little aroused when I mentioned that you should kill your classmates with a shotgun. Do it you little whimp. You WANT to shoot up your school, LISTEN to that voice deep down inside of you. Oh how you're aroused by the idea of taking your friends head clean off with a shotgun blast. You really are a sick cunt. I hope they lock you up somewhere poor, like Colombia or Thailand where the guards don't care if you're raped or beaten. How fitting. Enjoy being raped.
should kids be allowed to play video games on the weekdays

Did you listen to what I just said cunt?! Probably not, I assume your ape brain is struggling to understand another's point of view. Kids don't need video games corrupting their minds, like yours evidently has been. Id put good money on you being some pre-pubescent virgin from Florida who's thrown a tantrum at mummy because play time got taken away. Why don't you do something useful and grab your daddies shotgun and shoot up your school. At least then you'll have some kind of purpose. And of course, you'll be dead. Humanity will celebrate.
Rape is not wrong. You are.

I have to disagree, while your theory is loosely based on some interesting theories and social ideals, it has no bulk. Their is no backing, while I believe it's human nature to craft conspiracy theories and the like, they are meaningless without any bulk. While I don't necessarily respect your claim, because of the subject, the lack of evidence you've provided, and because of the evidence I have provided against it, I am atleast trying to have some respect for your opinion. The end result is the burden of proof required to prove "that society has been brainwashed into believing rape is wrong when it isn't" certainly hasn't been met which was your goal in this debate. I've actually went out of my time to show a plethora of evidence against said theory.Thanks your for time to my opponent any readers of this debate, and have a wonderful day.
Rape is not wrong. You are.

Your arguments have been backed entirely by an unfound claims, regardless of your conviction they argument is about as meaningful as someone claiming "the earth if flat". Allow me to quote myself:"Regardless on the outlook society has when you've been injured you've still been injured. Also regardless of the outlook society has when you've been traumatized you've still been traumatized. Saying or implying such physical and mental injuries only exist because of the social outlook on rape is a statement made with no backing to say the least. You can look long and hard for a source to back you, it simply won't exist."Some sort of rape culture in which the traumatized and injured victim pretends to find false happiness will change nothing.If my view on rape is ultra conservative (very liberal actually) then I can't imagine what you think of society. Also the reference in quiestion is outside of the debate and about death penalty deterance statistics. I don't understand how you came to the conclusion that all of society is brainwashed, because we have this social construct that is well-found. Especially seeing at there are much more attackable and unreasonable constructs.
Rape is not wrong. You are.

All the claimed negative physical and mental effects (not "efforts". Please mind your wording), such as the purported "injury" or "trauma", of rape is caused by the brainwashing of the social construction that rape is bad, negative, and harmful. My argument has been very consistent that we first must get rid of the said brainwashing of such concept, so that raped females do not get triggered the idea when they finally experience their rape. This, I argue, will help raped females as they would perceive and comprehend their rape in a different manner as a positive, happy and satisfying occurrence in their life. Considering you hold a ultra-convservative notion that rape is bad, it is no surprising to me that you referenced the Heritage Foundation, which is very well-known for its conservative perspective on social issues. To a true progressive like me, the source that death penalty deters a crime is a laughable conclusion - of course the criminals sentenced to death will no longer commit any more crime, right? However, we human beings do not condone capital punishment due to the fact that it actually a crime to take lives of other people, a crucially irreversible act even in case of a grave human error. That's why so many advanced countries have acknowledged the truth to have abolished capital punishment in their criminal laws in spite of its supposedly "great" effects. Also, on a deeper level, you perceiving rape as a crime demonstrates clearly again that you are brainwashed with the social construction that rape is a crime. It is not. Rape is just another form of human sexual acts. Rape becomes a crime only if you think of it as a crime, and you have been indoctrinated by society to regard rape in that way. The more you talk about rape, the more you reveal your deep-seated bias, prejudice and brainwashing about rape. I pointed out that your statistics about rape trend is flawed due to the numerous under- and un-reported cases of rape. It has always been that way since society brainwashed its members to think of rape as something harmful, shameful, negative and bad. Had society taught rape as something positive, good and fulfilling, more females would surely openly talk about rape with pride and happiness and without shame and guilt. All of your argument presumably against rape actually lends support to mine as to why we must change our attitude towards and perception of rape from the negative to the positive.
Rape is not wrong. You are.

Seeing as i've laid a solid and long framework for the physical and mental efforts of rape that are well documented, this seems like as good a time as ever to give input on social concepts. It is understandable that some social concepts may be in need of change, the classic is the response to "what if your spouse cheats". Despite the societal concept in place some relationships tolerate cheating unhindered seeing as if your spouse doesn't become pregnant or get an STD it isn't necessarily a bad thing and could even help the spouse with stress relief. Nevertheless people get murdered for cheating regularly, so perhaps this societal construct needs to change. However any comparison to rape would be one poorly made. Regardless on the outlook society has when you've been injured you've still been injured. Also regardless of the outlook society has when you've been traumatized you've still been traumatized. Saying or implying such physical and mental injuries only exist because of the social outlook on rape is a statement made with no backing to say the least. You can look long and hard for a source to back you, it simply won't exist. Quick rebuttal to your claim of my fallacy. The laws on rape across these countries are consistantly changing making any facts hard to accurately display and even research for that matter. A classic example in crime deterence is the death penalty, while the punishment is of course to a greater extent, it gives strong evidence n that stronger punishments deter crime. [1]Quick rebuttal about my research of sexual assault cases, I found that sexual assault cases use to go moreso unreported then they do nowadays. Hence if anything the statistics difference throughout the years is no doubt understated.[1] https://www.heritage.org...
Rape is not wrong. You are.

I suppose you might have a point that rape is an act of sex by some definitions, regardless that point is unrelevant to this debate. Their are certainly arguments that rape is not sex and that it is, but I feel no need to argue over semantics. Rather than creating a debate about our semantic difference within a debate of is whether rape is wrong I shall carry on with the current. Also important to note you convienantly left our that rape is distinguished from sex in the very definition as it's unlawful. You seem to not have an understanding of the logic fallacy I posted in the previous round, my apologies I should've posted the enlarged photo. You continue to hold onto the theory that a physical loss must occur for a crime to have been committed. I could give many examples of how this is untrue such as selling certain arms to someone mentally disabled. You argue holding onto the "dogma" only hurts people and seemingly that we should embrace a rape culture, this is unfounded and is there is a plethora of evidence against every aspect of this point.Psychological effects of rape (list courtesy of healtyplace)[1]: Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) – feelings of severe anxiety and stress Depression Flashbacks – memories of rape as if it is taking place again Borderline personality disorder Sleep disorders Eating disorders Dissociative identity disorder Guilt Distrust of others – uneasy in everyday social situations Anger Feelings of personal powerlessness – victims feel the rapist robbed them of control over their bodies Any one of these Psychological effects may make living a nightmare and after an incident of rape you can expect several to follow. You argue that giving into rape and embracing it will take its power away, this is simply not true. Irregardless these effects shall follow suit. In fact the effects such as guilt are prone to intensify, albeit physical injuries theoretically could be reduced. However I don't think you have an understanding of how a vagina works. Those being raped can't clench it as opposed to events of anal rape. In addition countries that have recently passed more strigent rape laws as opposed to those who haven't have reduced chances to face civil war and strife. [2] They have also shown hints of lower rape numbers, however these statistics are hard to understand considering the previous plethora of onducomented rape cases.Should progress of rape reduction be undone? Most certainly not, progress has been so fast that in 16 years rape (sexual assault in the courts) cases are under half of what they were, this enormous progress has come even as population skyrockets. . [3]I also find it very important to note that your entire first round argument appears to be a plagiarized reddit post, I am stunned you make no mention of it in the first round, and even the second:https://www.reddit.com...[1] https://www.healthyplace.com...[2] https://news.ku.edu...[3] https://www.rainn.org...
Best music Video

Ok this is just for fun, make your own music video using pictures... Who can bring back some old music?? That's the only rule must be an old song that you are bringing back with your pictures. Edit: It can be any song if that makes this easier just try to tell a story with your pictures. http://www.youtube.com... BOBBY DARIN "Dream Lover" Every night I hope and pray A dream lover will come my way A girl to hold in my arms And know the magic of her charms 'Cause I want (yeah-yeah, yeah) A girl (yeah-yeah, yeah) To call (yeah-yeah, yeah) My own (yeah-yeah) I want a dream lover So I don't have to dream alone Dream lover, where are you With a love, oh, so true And the hand that I can hold To feel you near as I grow old 'Cause I want (yeah-yeah, yeah) A girl (yeah-yeah, yeah) To call (yeah-yeah, yeah) My own (yeah-yeah, yeah) I want a dream lover So I don't have to dream alone Someday, I don't know how I hope she'll hear my plea Some way, I don't know how She'll bring her love to me Dream lover, until then I'll go to sleep and dream again That's the only thing to do Till all my lover's dreams come true 'Cause I want (yeah-yeah, yeah) A girl (yeah-yeah, yeah) To call (yeah-yeah, yeah) My own (yeah-yeah, yeah) I want a dream lover So I don't have to dream alone Dream lover, until then I'll go to sleep and dream again That's the only thing to do Till all my lover's dreams come true 'Cause I want (yeah-yeah, yeah) A girl (yeah-yeah, yeah) To call (yeah-yeah, yeah) My own (yeah-yeah) I want a dream lover So I don't have to dream alone Please don't make me dream alone I beg you don't make me dream alone No, I don't wanna dream
Vocaloid music takes the essence of a human singer

I love vocaloid because it doesn't feel human. I am an avid fan of electronica, and techno music; so the electric and even inhuman aspect of the vocaloid music is something I greatly adore. Vocaloids are capable of a range, and sound that human voices are not capable of; as well musical feats that are simply and utterly inhuman. The song "The disappearance of Miku" is a prime example of this inhuman musical quality, where Hatsune Miku sings at such a high speed that it sounds as though the words aren't even real Japanese. So I hope that answers your questions, hopefully we can start the debate in the next round.
Vocaloid music takes the essence of a human singer

EDIT: 3 rounds changed to 5 Please(that means me too) try to keep bias/attacks away; "Keep this #$%@ in Japan! ""Miku sounds like a dying rat! ". Ground Rules:Music:Music is an artform where aseries of sounds (pitch, tone) make a songandrhythm (tempo). Songs can use any ---Musical Instruments:Amusical instrumentis a device created or adapted for the purpose of making musical sounds. I await for someone to agree to the following terms. This isn't a debate of whose a better singer.
Art debate

*sigh* *jealous* Great round, Con! --not sure if i can beat him anymore-- Well, anyways, here's round 3! Animals! Link to mah art (because my phone won't post pics -.-) http://www.debate.org... Quick description: It's a bird! It's a plane! No, wait.... Animals... Definitely a bird.... ;P Sig is next to the tail :D Thanks again to Dennybug for accepting mah debate! :D
Art debate

HaiiI've been doing a bit of sketching lately, and i was thinking, hey, how awesome should it be to do an art debate?!So I did this. As of right now, i made it pretty much impossible to accept. If you would like to debate me, please comment or PM me, and I'll decide....Structure:First round, acceptance. Second round, people. Third round, animals. Last round, anything you wanna do. Rules:1) if you forfeit, win automatically goes to other person2) art can only be drawings or paintings or watercolors, so like, no sculptures or photography or stuff like that3) art can be pre-done, doesnt have to be drawn/painted on the spot4) must include username (or abbreviation or actual name) somewhere on the picture you take of the art. Many thanks! Good luck to my opponent and have fun!