BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Big Bang is a fact

Theory vs Guess My opponent confuses the scientific term "theory" with the layman's term "guess." The theory of gravity does not mean that gravity is uncertain. It means that there is a collection of ideas organized in a collection that result in gravitational theorem. This is a significant blunder and should be looked at with all due diligence. Theory vs. hypothesis A theory is an explanation. The validity of a theory rests upon its ability to explain phenomena. Theories may be supported, rejected, or modified, based on new evidence. Gravitational theory, for example, attempts to explain the nature of gravity. Cell theory explains the workings of cells. Evolutionary theory explains the history of life on Earth. A hypothesis is a testable idea. Scientists do not set out to “prove” hypotheses, but to test them. Often multiple hypotheses are posed to explain phenomena and the goal of research is to eliminate the incorrect ones. Hypotheses come and go by the thousands, but theories often remain to be tested and modified for decades or centuries. In science, theories are never hunches or guesses and to describe evolution as “just a theory” is inappropriate.[1] Mainstream ScienceThe value of science has become incalculable. Everything that a person uses beyond water, and even including running water, comes from science. "A few smart guys" is actually 10s of 1000s of individuals working for the betterment of mankind.My opponent has evaded the evidence given by NASA, ceding this point to me.Spelling and GrammarCon, Round #1Well let my explain (grammar)Due to you having no proof at all of this (grammar)arguement (spelling)Con, Round #2ect (spelling)Its (missing apostrophe)I request the point for spelling and grammar, for reliable sources, and possibly for convincing arguments and conduct.Sources[1] http://evolution.berkeley.edu...
The Big Bang is a fact

As much as I enjoy your credibility, (NASA, ect.) It still can't be PROVEN per se. You stated that it is "a fact." Just because a few smart guys think that its true means nothing. There are tons of other theories out there that scientists think "are true" also. But the truth of the matter still remains, you have no proof. You can go on telling me theories all you want, but the big bang theory cannot be proven. Its called a "theory" for a reason....
The Big Bang is a fact

The Big Bang is a well-tested scientific theory and is widely accepted within the scientific community[1] and by NASA.[2] To begin, let's start with the Doppler Effect. As a car goes by, the perceived tone of the movement goes from high pitch a lower pitch. So a higher tone means it is moving towards us, and a lower tone means it is moving away. Starlight has visual differences. If a star is moving towards us, the color is tinted blue. Moving away, it is tinted red. Red-shifted stars are moving away from each other. "Beginning with observations in 1912, Vesto Slipher discovered that most spiral nebulae had considerable redshifts."[3] Going forward in time, the galaxies move away from each other. It is obvious that, at some point, they were closer together. Galaxies right next to each other, stemming from a huge explosion. This is an overview of the Big Bang. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Al Pacino is better than Leonardo DiCaprio

This whole debate is between Al Pacino's long legacy spanning more than 50 years and Leonardo's entire career lasting thirty years and still going. Al Pacino was one of the first truly great actors, but saying that he is still better than Leonardo DiCaprio is you being simply blinded by this long legacy. You refuse to let go of the old, back in the 70s acting was different, what was good then may not be as good now. Leonardo DiCaprio has always been improving, always been trying new things, and he has much more time to create a lasting impact. You see the nostalgia in Al Pacino's acting and that blinds you. Al Pacino is not as talented as Leonardo DiCaprio, but the nostalgia of movies like "The Godfather" gives people this impression that no one today is worthy of being better than him. Al Pacino plays the same type of role everytime, he does it good, but it doesn't show that he is challenging himself. Leonardo continues to take risks, he slept naked inside a dead horse, that takes commitment and bravery. Al Pacino clearly doesn't take risks and therefore doesn't care for his career as much. Leonardo is an amazing actor, every performance he brings on screen is arguably some of cinema's greatest. With this said, Leonardo is certainly the better actor. I would like to thank my opponent for a thrilling debate and giving me a great introduction to debate.org.
Al Pacino is better than Leonardo DiCaprio

As this is the rebuttal round, I will be taking my opponents arguments and add my own thoughts to them and will be attempting to prove them wrong. To say that Leonardo DiCaprio is the greatest actor in the 21st century, is subjective. COMMERCIAL AND CRITICAL SUCCESS: My opponent has provided evidence that DiCaprio had more commercial success than Pacino. This is true, however, commercial success isn't the only type of success that is important. Critical success matters and is more important than commercial success. Pacino has had way more critical success than DiCaprio, which counts more than commercial success. Critical success make you one with the elite, not commercial success. AGE AND OSCARS: I'll be straightforward with this. Age does not matter at all. Age does not make you a better actor. If anything, DiCaprio got a good head-start by being a child star. He could of been a horrible actor into adulthood. Age doesn't really mean anything. And as for the Oscars, both had horrible droughts, now matter how many times they failed to win. COMPETITION AND OTHERS: Pacino had way more competition during his time, than DiCaprio. Pacino had actors like De Niro, Nicholson, and Hoffman around him. DiCaprio doesn't have anyone close to those people around him. If anything, it was harder for Pacino to win an Oscar for this reason. DiCaprio had his chances before his first win. Also, Pacino had better nominated performances such Michael Corleone from the Godfather Part II and Sonny from Dog Day Afternoon than DiCaprio. Furthermore, Pacino is also diverse in roles. DiCaprio maybe more diverse, but Pacino has had his fair share in roles. He played a lawyer (..And Justice for All), a blind, old soldier (Scent Of a Woman), a sports consultant (Two For The Money) and had to play to Spanish people (in the films Scarface and Carlito's Way), something DiCaprio has never done.
Al Pacino is better than Leonardo DiCaprio

Al Pacino is certainly a great actor, but Leonardo DiCaprio is the greatest actor in the 21st century. He was nominated for an Academy Award for his fourth film "What's Eating Gilbert Grape" at a young age of 19. Al Pacino was nominated for the first time for "The Godfather" at the age 32, not to mention Marlon Brando stole the show and he won the Best Actor award. This proves that Leonardo had a natural talent for acting at a young age. Leonardo can play many types of roles, a poor adventurer (Titanic), a cop (The Departed) an insane person (Shutter Island) , a survivalist (The Revenent), a con artist, (Catch me if you Can), and a villainous southerner (Django Unchained). Al Pacino only has one role he is good at, being a crime lord, he literally plays the same role every single time, it doesn't show true acting ability. Leonardo's movies also are way more successful, on BoxOfficeMojo.com, Leonardo is ranked the 25th highest grossing actor of all time with a lifetime gross of 2.5 billion dollars. Al Pacino ranks in at 39 with 1.4 billion dollars. Finally, lets talk awards, we infamously know and make fun of Leo taking a long time to win an Oscar, but Al Pacino took just as long and failed more times. Leo was nominated for an Oscar six times, winning once, Al Pacino was nominated 8 times winning once. Pacino may be a good actor, but clearly Leonardo DiCaprio is better.
Al Pacino is better than Leonardo DiCaprio

I will show Pacino's strength in three categories: roles, movies, and impact on the film industry during and after his time. ROLES: My opponent can make the argument that DiCaprio is more universal in terms of roles. This is true. I can't imagine someone like Pacino playing a French man with a heavy accent. However, the type of roles Pacino chose fit his style and he is regarded as one of or the greatest actor to play crime roles, on either side of the law, as a gangster or a cop. His top roles included Michael Corleone (The Godfather Trilogy), Frank Serpico (Serpico), Sonny Wortzik (Dog Day Afternoon), Arthur Kirkland (...And Justice for All), Tony Montana (Scarface) Frank Slade (Scent Of a Woman) and others within that status. These roles help signify Pacino as the best actor for a crime film. DiCaprio can not beat Pacino in crime roles at all. He simply wasn't made to act out these type of characters. Also, as another note, Pacino chose serious roles, ones that have deep meanings and played them in a divine manner. DiCaprio chose roles that weren't as serious such as the roles in Titanic, The Beach, The Man in the Iron Mask, Poison Ivy, and others. They weren't terrible roles, but not as meaningful. Newsweek has described described his performance in The Godfather Part II as "arguably cinema's greatest portrayal of the hardening of the heart." https://en.wikipedia.org... MOVIES: The movies Pacino played in had more impact and meaning than all of the movies in DiCaprio's career combined. Movies like The Godfather, The Godfather Part II, Dog Day Afternoon, Scarface have captivated film critics, fans, and fellow actors alike. These films are all influential in their own right, partially because of Pacino himself. DiCaprio has had many great films, but none of them are as influential as The Godfather itself. Pacino have made these films special. His contributions to his films are timeless. IMPACT on the film industry: Pacino became one of the biggest, or the biggest actor of the 1970s. He had a comeback in the 1990s, but the 1970s was his peak. The films he starred in defined the decade in the 1970s. He gained instant stardom. An absolute unknown became a star, just like that. Every actor in the 1970s wanted to be Pacino, or at least wanted to have the same success. DiCaprio is very similar to Pacino. Both are decade defining stars and both have had Oscar droughts. Pacino is notably regarded as one of the greatest actors and always will. DiCaprio is not far, but not better.
Protect the American People from its Government Takeover (Gun Laws)

The thought that the government is trying to remove the second amendment is a gross misinterpretation of government reactions on the recent shooting tragedies. Such thinking can be likened to those NRA spoon-fed crazy conspiracy theorists who believe that the Sandy Hook shootings were a hoax. (. http://theweek.com...) Contentions:The second Amendment states, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. "The right to bear arms is a constitutional right, however, like with all amendments, the second amendment is not omnipotent like gun advocates such as the NRA believe. The Second Amendment perceived to be the defender of the US constitution is not in fact the defender of the US constitution under the interpretation of the ninth amendment which states, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. " The second amendment states a basic right like that of the other first 8 amendments. In addition, nothing in the text under the interpretation of the 9th amendment does the US constitution state, refer to, or imply that the second amendment is the defender of the US constitution. The gun laws we have at the federal level are mainly common sense type laws such as the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act passed in 1993 during the Clinton Administration. Here is a basic excerpt of the law courtesy of Wikipedia, "Section 922(g) of the Brady Act prohibits certain persons from shipping or transporting any firearm in interstate or foreign commerce, or receiving any firearm which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, or possessing any firearm in or affecting commerce. These prohibitions apply to any person who: Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year; Is a fugitive from justice; Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance; Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution; Is an alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States; Has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions; Having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced U. S. citizenship; Is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner, or; Has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. Has a record of being a felon" (. http://en.wikipedia.org...) For the full text of the law visit (. http://www.gpo.gov...)The stricter gun laws proposed under President Obama do not attack the Second Amendment since it only states the intention of regulating the sale of guns and ammunition to prevent homicidal maniacs to legally purchase guns (Holmes) or acquire guns from irresponsible owners (Lanza).
Protect the American People from its Government Takeover (Gun Laws)

I do not believe myself to be a crazy conspiracy theorist. I do not believe myself to be unrealistic. I do not believe myself to be a gun slinging cowboy either. But hey, I could be wrong... With that said, I would like for someone to explain their thoughts to me. Educate me. I believe it is plausible to think the government is using recent tragedy to induce fear, to suit the agenda that the government is trying to take away rights given in the 2nd Amendment that protects "The People" from the government. I believe that this issue is much larger than Hunting and Self defense Rights. The government can only go so far over the top before people would revolt. And this fear is why they are trying to disarm Americans. This argument is intended to shed lite on possible reasons for the changing of gun laws that might not be directly related to the current mainstream media. *This will be my 1st Debate. I do not intend to change anyone's views on the subject, but only to peek into the mind of someone with an opposing view. I thank you in advance for the opportunity! -Bill Pro- would be for the protection of rights given in the 2nd Amendment for Americans to keep the Government in check Con- would mean I am a total whack job for this notion, and that more strict gun laws would be justified
Is marriage a gay rights issue.

I have yet contracted my self. Oh yeah black value system dose this bother you? If not then this link will have no affect on you. http://sweetness-light.com... that a tad racey no? Yet obama prays there if what I read says anything. I need a sec,,, http://www.washingtonpost.com... http://www.forbes.com... broke obama look like goanna beat mic Romney... People are sheep. the NDAA kill the 2cnd amendment so nice like yet the president that we love so much is going for another term? Sheep baa bahhhh. If my augment is contradictory because of my thick anti government augment that is only because Sadly it true. people like to let the gov to think for them self, this country is a shadow of what are for fathers wanted, are freedoms are restricted with nice over acachuratid lies and we let them. the gove3rment woks like this. do as we say not as we do. So if they sad yeas to gay marige and that can have kid's there own kids and they won this cases in court then we the people would follow like the good little sheep we are. and last my aponit has yet to make any augment ageist me he wasted his last slot to make a stamen in the hops that I would fumble or something he cant ague against me, he calls my augment contradictory but he wont show were they are at or any thing he just beat it with a stick in the hops that I will shut up vote for me I may be a a$$ but hay I admit this totally I may have used a ant government type augment for a government type augment but I supported that the government should be involved well with this augment so at least I am smart anuffe to ague it he on the other hand has nothing to fight me back with atlas any thing good
Is marriage a gay rights issue.

okay, give it to me straight. I know I am new to this website and all, so am I being hazed? I can't debate you. Why would you a accept a debate you know nothing on? Why would you debate a topic in which you cannot make a coherent thought on. ADHD and head trauma is tragic, but if you can see the problem clear as day, but you can't make your voice heard; I have a solution. Ask someone to help you get your voice heard. This isn't productive for anyone.
Is marriage a gay rights issue.

Okay I know that about the cherstins okay I was saying that people like me don't care not the government they have there head up churches back side. 2nd is that I am anti government at the moment I lost a lot of faith with them the fact the people don't see it makes me be live this fact people are sheep. Fox 2 new for instance is there to scare the paint out of you if you car to watch more then a day of there crap. Know why scare people for? To shift power or to get more ratings and maybe money. now the sheep this you need evidence about how sheep the Americans are (yeas I am a American and English is my primary adhd ad close head injury means that my grasp on spelling ant to good) sheep. And yeah reverluchins are mad not by the sheep but by pp like me who end up pissed at there ruler and grab arm. That why the 2cnd amendment allows me such access to guns in the 1st place so if the gove gets to happy we can shoot back. Now back on subject. Let me go look in the inter net for you give me 20 minsl........... http://en.wikipedia.org... also when weed was mad illegal it had a other uses such as the hemp plant now I will move away from weed. They gave the racist Wright man fear to control them and they obeyed. http://www.druglibrary.org... okay lets see what ells is there out there one minint... for now ill let this drop but that because I need to call my ma later on. now why ells would government held gay rights marige whachma call it be help full for? Well most of the time the states that form this union lessen to the Wright house and they do as told so is obama sad gays can truck like rabbits and wed, the other stats cant say no to it. And I agrea with you the gov need to pull there heads out of the churches but and need to be sterile in that regard but it dos not need to go around ripping crossed of graves and tacking away whit is are syimballs in some of are more old grave yards... Ill get you more link about ship once I talk to mah mother to get some stuff to Google I am not to deep in the area so at the moment all I have is weed and that only because I am toker and a lover. But yeah I will brush up on more of this dark hallway. And sorry for the spieling I spell check but sometimes it breaks it so sorry ps O do have a basic idea of what gos on out there but most of what I now is not relive4nt here
Is marriage a gay rights issue.

I'm not sure you understand what the word recherch" means. I honestly don't want to be rude but is English a second language? I am notorious for having terrible grammar but this is just silly. Truth be told, I am a little dumbfounded by your argument. From the top, "okay this is where I make others believe stuff I don't believe in yeah!" What? This makes zero sense. It either invalidates everything you said, not that you said much or I'm not sure you know what you wrote here. "1 most people are sheep if the government say something they fall in line like cattle, you don't believe me?" <- Sure prove this to me. Given there is even an ounce of validity to that argument of which I am sure there is not. Look at the revolutions that have taken place throughout history <- no citation necessary, common knowledge. Let us say for one moment there is an ounce of validity though. Are you saying it is a good thing the empower the state to control freedom? If the state gains the ability to redistribute freedom, by taking from one and giving to another does this not leave the door open for it to swing both ways? "the sheep let the tack away are freedom's" - You just said they are sheep, they fall in line. If this is the case how can they take away freedom, if they have already given up all freedom to the state by becoming "sheep"? "But down to the matter in my belief is that if the government sad it okay to be gay and you can marry like genders Id guess that a little more then have the usa would be like okay the gays won. The only sid that may not back of or thos crishtins but they dislike every thing so who cares." - I really hate to troll but what? From what I can figure out here, it sounds as if you are saying. [ If the government regulates marriage , and sanctions it between homosexuals it must be just. Someone in government may loose the support of the Christian voting block but who care, they are ignorant and will hate regardless ]. If this translation is even close, then I would say you are ignorant to politics in the United States of America. The Christian Values voting bloc is huge in the United States of America. "Christian right organizations sometimes conduct polls to determine which presidential candidates will receive the support of Christian right constituents. One such poll is taken at the Family Research Council's Values Voter Summit.[35][36] George W. Bush's electoral success owed much to his overwhelming support from white evangelical voters, who comprise 23% of the vote. In 2000 he received 68% of the white evangelical vote; in 2004 that percentage rose to 78%"- http://en.wikipedia.org... I would like to point out, you're not arguing anything stated above. You are arguing should two people regardless of gender have equal legal counsel should a union form. The question involves the purpose of government in a religious union.
Is marriage a gay rights issue.

okay this is where I make others believe stuff I don't believe in yeah! okay here why the give should put there hands in this subject... 1 most people are sheep if the government say something they fall in line like cattle, you don't believe me? weed has been eligall cents the 30s because the government told the sheep that it bad for you and it make white woman fornicate with black men. hmmm I might be able to dig up more on this if you want me to add other time when the sheep let the tack away are freedom's. But down to the matter in my belief is that if the government sad it okay to be gay and you can marry like genders Id guess that a little more then have the usa would be like okay the gays won. The only sid that may not back of or thos crishtins but they dislike every thing so who cares. okay I now need to do more recherché cuss that al I have for now, cant what to see what you have to say till later toodles
Is marriage a gay rights issue.

To be "Pro" is to say you believe marriage is a gay rights issue where government intervention is needed. It is needed so homosexuals can be fairly viewed by the government. You disagree with the resolution that government should have no influence on a religious issue. You could also disagree with anything specific therein contained. I stated I have a direction I'd like to see the debate go, but I don't care which part is debated. There is a lot of room in my statement to be debated.