BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: I-am-a-panda is a Panda

Thank you for the swift response. The first argument, which involves the Prophet David being a false prophet, is hereby invalidated, due to the fact that the Prophet David is not the same person as David Beckham. The Prophet David is our (C-Mach and I-am-a-panda) age and the only relation he could possibly have to David Beckam is the sharing of a given name and the fact that they live in Los Angeles. So, this could only mean that your assumption that the Prophet David is a false prophet is false. And by the way, those videos dont't prove a damn thing. You ask, "Why don't the prove a damn thing?" They're from Family Guy. "Firstly, if I was Articus, Ireland would be a ghost town. I would have in fact eaten myself 5 years ago." I said that you MIGHT BE the Earthy incarnation of Articus, not that you ARE the Earthly incarnation of Articus. "I'll think you'll find a Chinese panda shares no qualities with Jesus." Grammatical errors are a b*tch, aren't they? When you said, "What's not more non-Jesus than a Chinese Panda?" in the first round, I was a bit confused (I knew what you meant to say, I'm just using grammar rules.). Since you used a double negative, one could only assume that you meant to say "What's more Jesus than a Chinese Panda?" Since there is something more Jesus than a Chinese Panda (Hence "I don't know... Jesus?"), I simply chose the correct answer to that rhetorical question. However, one could use it with an emphasis on the first "not," and still come up with the correct answer. "Ah, I Mahinda quite well..." One again, "Grammatical errors are a b*tch, aren't they?" I didn't know that you could "Mahinda" anything, assuming that "Mahinda" is a verb (Once again, "I knew what you meant to say, I'm just using grammar rules.)". "Yur dark eyes are due to dehydration... However mine are undeniably divine black holes circling my eye balls of all seeingness." Grammatical errors that will never stop. "Yur." I've never heard that one before. However mine makes absolutely no sense without a comma in between "However" and "mine." "Seeingness" is not a word. However (Correct punctuation!), I will argue my point anyway. Have you ever considered the possibility of the dark circles under your eyes are there for the same reason (Dehydration.)? Since I am in Westminster right now, I will have to walk a few blocks to 10 Downing Street and have a chat with the Scottish Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. Have a nice day!
Resolved: I-am-a-panda is a Panda

Not necessarily. In fact, Mary already sent down the equivalent of a second Jesus: The Prophet David, who is my best friend. His task is "to. .. spread the divine word of Mary. " - Line 9, Book II: Sins, The Holy Testament of the Prophet David, The Nerfarian Doctrine. " >> The prophet David is a false prophet. Firstly, any decent prophet wouldn't be materialistic, as seen here: . http://sports.popcrunch.com... That scarf was NOT cheap. Furthermore, a second Jesus would at least practice semi-abstinence. Here ar ehis 3 kids: . http://www.chinadaily.com.cn... And his wife doesn't look abstinence bound. As seen in this picture, that position is well practised : . http://casualkeystrokes.com... And, he's had an affair: . http://www.people.com... So, David is a false prophet. I am the second Jesus. See Videos 1 & 2 (Sorry for poor quality of video 2. Taken on a camera phone) for further confirmation. . http://www.youtube.com... . http://www.youtube.com... " In fact, you might very well be the Earthly incarnation of Articus, Glow-in-the-Dark Nerf Football Lord of the Planet Mars. Non-believers, sinners, and Roman Catholics "will have their brains eaten by Articus and spend eternity in his bowels. " >> Firstly, if I was Articus, Ireland would be a ghost town. I would have in fact eaten myself 5 years ago. "I don't know. .. Jesus? " >> I'll think you'll find a Chinese panda shares no qualities with Jesus. "I'll have to ask the Czech President of Sri Lanka for documentation of your presence in that area. " >> Ah, I Mahinda quite well, Mahi I call him. He can verify that with irrefutable evidence, a 30 euro bribe. "I have dark rings under my eyes, too. Doesn't mean that I-am-a-panda (Ha-ha! Wordplay! ). " >> Fair play on the wordplay (Further tongue twisting wordplay). Yur dark eyes are due to dehydration. Drink water. However mine are undeniably divine black holes circling my eye balls of all seeingness. I also hope the consultation goes well. I am currently talking to the German Nazi pope about Stem Cell research (and papally pwning), merely to distract him from Mahi's womanising ways with the nuns. I have an appointment with the Dictator of Russia, Putin, about if the sickle and hammer of communism is actually the structure of Marx's beard. Toodle Pip until then.
Resolved: I-am-a-panda is a Panda

Thank you, I-am-a-panda, for your quick response time (Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for myself.). I wanted to START OUT serious, but I wanted it to get humorous in the second round. "'God was making a 2nd Jesus: He was charismatic, intelligent, brash, bold, handsome, athletic and an all around moral conservative man.God was happy with what he had created. When the devil came for Gods 5,994th Birthday, he wagered God that the complete opposite wouldn't last 5 earth days. That's how I came along!' Of course, this means I am in fact a heavenly figure and the opposite of Jesus." Not necessarily. In fact, Mary already sent down the equivalent of a second Jesus: The Prophet David, who is my best friend. His task is "to... spread the divine word of Mary." - Line 9, Book II: Sins, The Holy Testament of the Prophet David, The Nerfarian Doctrine. In fact, you might very well be the Earthly incarnation of Articus, Glow-in-the-Dark Nerf Football Lord of the Planet Mars. Non-believers, sinners, and Roman Catholics "will have their brains eaten by Articus and spend eternity in his bowels." - Lines 10 through 11, Book III: Second Visions, The Holy Testament of the Prophet David, The Nerfarian Doctrine "What's not more non-Jesus than a Chinese Panda?" I don't know... Jesus? "I started as a Panda cub in the Shaanxi province of China." I'll have to ask the Czech President of Sri Lanka for documentation of your presence in that area. "...I keep minor Panda-like traits, for example, dark rings under my eyes..." I have dark rings under my eyes, too. Doesn't mean that I-am-a-panda (Ha-ha! Wordplay!). As for the other arguments that I left out, I will have to consult the Hungarian President of France and the Kenyan President of the United States (Wait a minute, I'm being serious... About the fact of their heritages.), and tell them that "...[Hitler] got the uranium from the Russian Prime Minister of Canada and with that uranium he ate a burrito." - http://www.debate.org...
Resolved: I-am-a-panda is a Panda

I would like to think this debate will be made for humorous purposes, so let's not get too serious, eh? Firstly, let's go to my profile. On my profile, I have this: "God was making a 2nd Jesus: He was charismatic, intelligent, brash, bold, handsome, athletic and an all around moral conservative man. God was happy with what he had created. When the devil came for Gods 5,994th Birthday, he wagered God that the complete opposite wouldn't last 5 earth days. That's how I came along! " Of course, this means I am in fact a heavenly figure and the opposite of Jesus. Now, because I am a direct creation by God, I have heavenly powers, one of which is to shapeshift. I started as a Panda cub (What's not more non-Jesus than a Chinese Panda? ) in the Shaanxi province of China. Being more aware and smart than your average Panda, I spotted poachers. Knowing my predicament, I transfigured myself into an Eagle and flew away. I caught a nice wind to Ireland, where a settled atop the rotunda hospital. I realised Humans lived the highlife, ergo, I took the place of the baby, Gary Swan. I can, at will, transfigure myself to most animals, however, my long time being human would cause me great pain to do so. Ergo, I cannot provide picture evidence. Now, the name is derived from the fact I keep minor Panda-like traits, for example, dark rings under my eyes, black hair and white hair in certain. .. .places. .. .. , hairiness and a longing to go outside and chew bamboo (Although Ireland lacks bamboo, the old bamboo rug was most delicious). I now leave the floor open to my opponent to refute my claims. Cheers, Panda.
Resolved: I-am-a-panda is a Panda

Panda defined - "Giant panda [Most common reference] - A black and white bear-like animal, Ailuropoda melanoleuca from the mountains of China." Red panda [Less common reference] - A small raccoon-like animal, Ailurus fulgens of northeast Asia with reddish fur and a long, ringed tail. A police car [in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland]. (All 1)" I-am-a-panda is definitely not a member of either the species Ailuropoda melanoleuca or Ailurus fulgens, and is definitely not a police car, as he is a member of the species Homo sapiens (Humans) (2). (1)._ http://en.wiktionary.org... (2)._ http://en.wikipedia.org... I am looking forward to a response.
Absolute Truth

"I am not talking in circles" "...Thus we are in a constant circle of yes and no." "Thus this debate is not going on in circles as I have negated the resolution." It's okay to concede; that would be better than blinding yourself by allowing your pride to force you into making more dubious claims. (Though I understand by saying so I have probably only fueled what I am essentially trying to put out). "...all truths are theoretical because all truths can be proven wrong with other truths." Yes, but only in a world of absolute truths mind you! Because you are claiming a truth by making that statement, saying it is a true statement. No, you cannot keep going in circles. You say I have not provided an example. Well how about the example you gave about the apple, but never really addressed? That apple, in that exact moment, is the color red. That is not a theoretical truth, though you may be able to add information to make it untrue, but that would be changing the circumstances. Truth by matter of definition cannot be theoretical, and no its definition does not depend on what someone says it means (saying truth is defined as such and such, does not actually make it so. Just as saying the apple is not red does not make the apple not red). What will it take for you to realize it is not only possible but required for there to be unchanging, concrete truths, and those kind only! Perhaps an example from history? Since I feel I must make this example relevant to you or else you may claim the event never really happened, let us consider your birth. Are you now willing to tell me that your birth was only theoretical, and perhaps it did not occur (for I imagine that not occurring is the only other option?) On the contrary, it is an undeniable FACT (facts by the way can only happen in a world of absolute truths) that you were born (unless of course I am really only debating with a computer, programmed with artificial intelligence, but as you know you are not a computer :-)
Absolute Truth

"Thus their is no such thing as a definitive truth" So does that mean that statement that you just made is actually not true, and can be proved false? I am kind of disappointed. :-( You are talking yourself in circles. If you believe what you are saying, than your whole argument breaks down, because none of it is TRUE, or at least can be false (which is the same thing). See what I'm saying? You are not really making a new argument, just adding more words to your first one. There has to be some sort of standard, a truth standard, if you will, that does not change; otherwise nothing in this world is for certain. For example, you may not really be 15 years old, because according to your argument that can be proved false. You may actually be a monkey! (Of course you are not a monkey, and I am willing to believe you are 15 years of age for that is what your profile says). Without an absolute truth, truths that do not change all statements are irrelevant and so is any debate on any topic.
Absolute Truth

I appreciate that you are taking this topic on, and willing to discuss with me the attributes of what we call truth. However, I feel you may have only succeeded in proving that some people are willing to accept a truth can depend on opinion. Lets use your example. "Everybody breathes." While the statement may sound convincing, convincing enough for you apparently, it does not alone make it a true statement. Actually, you were able to provide an instance that it is not true, for dead people certainly do not breathe! (Well done! :-) The fact is, the statement "everybody breathes" is not a truthful statement. What I am claiming, is that truth does not change. The color pink cannot be pink for me, and green for you. Our perceptions of what the color may appear to be may change, but the fact of matter is the color, in reality is what it is (in this case pink). How about "everything is in the universe." Here again, this is a false statement, and in no way contradicts my original claim. Perhaps everything is in the universe. Perhaps, some things are not. But in reality, those things have always been or not been in the universe. Merely stating a false claim does not disprove an absolute truth. If it did, than every statement one purports would have to be truthful. As we are aware however, not everything is true, for we have learned not everyone breathes.
Absolute Truth

To clarify I will use the following definition of absolute from wordnetweb. princeton perfect or complete or pure The following definition of truth from wordnetweb. princeton a fact that has been verified; conformity to reality or actuality; accuracy The only way my opponent can win this debate is if he can prove their is a fact that has been verified and it is complete. Meaning he has to prove that it is not relative to opinion or situation. He has to prove their is a truth that can apply to every single situation regardless. I will offer up some common misconceptions of truth to show my opponent this is impossible "Everybody Breathes" Not dead people, you have to be talking relative to the living. "Everything is in the Universe" It hasn't been proved, for all we know their might be a Heaven or Hell outside the Universe, this idea would depend on who you are talking too. I challenge my opponent to come up with a single "absolute truth" that is not relative to the people or humans that agree with the truth. Essentially, a truth that will be universally accepted on by every little thing which would complete the ideas of a "Complete fact that has been verified". If I can find even one way to prove his truth wrong by showing a group of people that disagree or do not accept this fact, than it is not a complete truth. Further more their is an extra burden on the Pro; if I do not accept a single one of his truths as a human myself than he has already loss as of right now, because he has a truth that is not accepted completely by all people, because I disagree =]. So my opponent to win this debate, has to prove an absolute truth exists without me successfully refuting it and it has to be a truth that I am willing to accept, or else he has not proved that their is a truth that is not relative to a person.
Technological Unemployment exists in aggregate

" In domestic as well as foreign trade, it is in the interest of "the great body of the people" to buy from the cheapest source and sell to the dearest. " -Milton Friedman This was referring to Free Trade. However, as I previously stated, free trade and technological innovation are perfect parallels. My opponent has listed several examples of people who will become unemployed as a result of technology. This may, in fact, happen. However, I utilized the phrase "in aggregate" for a reason. This means that if you were to take the sum of jobs lost and jobs gained, you would not see a decrease in overall employment. My argument is that as the computer and robotic industries will grow dramatically. Furthermore, we will see a shift in employment from the service industry of today to the research and management industries. These fields will become more efficient. Furthermore, there is always something to research. People will go into studying space, cancer, and other forms of research. Thus, this field will dramatically expand and will provide employment for the educated individuals. So, what about the less educated people? Well, education will be a more important post innovation. However, not everyone can be expected to get higher education. Thus, the possibility of liberal arts rising into popularity is higher. With people not as concerned about sustenance, they are more likely to move up the hierarchy of needs like I previously stated. My opponent has simply conceded that technology is more efficient. He never once said that it will lead to an aggregate decrease in employment.
Technological Unemployment exists in aggregate

Interesting prospective on the matter Con. I will build my case as follows: 1. Technological Convergence/Evolution [1] In today's world more and more processes are being replaced by machines (automated). Ranging from manufacturing implementing such machines as PLC's (Programmer Logic Controllers) who in essence act as a brain, having a percentage error far lessen than that of a human, with increase of productivity [2] have successfully replaced some of the manual work in industries such as the automobiles and operator controls. Medicine, which is one of the trailing industries that heavily relay on the human knowledge and intuition, usually performed by specialists and seniors in the field, to do complex tasks such as a Craniectomy (removal of the a part of the bone from the skull), gastric bypass and even the lessen ones that a medical graduate is able to do such as a suing a tissue after a Appendectomy are starting to move towards robotic control. [3] 2. Rise of the AI AI (Artificial Intelligence) as some scientists predict that by year 2040 robots will be as smart as humans [4] and will be able to reenact and imitate the procedures that have been hard coded into their system by the creators with little to no error. Such a machine, if it were to be implemented in the field of medicine will drive the cost of surgeries, increase the percentage of success, eliminate human errors (due to fatigue) such as the one of Gertrude L [5] after she spend 96 hours in a surgery. As you can see, the advancements in technology or the technological evolution will promote a job change such as people will feel more assure knowing that in the case of a complex surgery, if done by a human doctor the odds of success are 8% vs the 60% of a robotic/AI doctor. In the end, it will not be a fight over the jobs, it will be a fight over success. Who gives more and how easy it can be replaced. With less errors come more $$. This is what drives the automation industry today. Switch from human operators of machinery to robots, being able to do the job in a fraction of the time a human will do, more precise and with better outcomes. I will go in more detail in the rounds to follow. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.mathworks.com... [3] http://www.nlm.nih.gov... [4] https://intelligence.org... [5] http://www.quora.com...
2001: A Space Odyssey is the greatest Sci-Fi film ever.

I am 100% completely new to this site, so please excuse me for any mistakes I might make. I believe that Stanley Kubrick's 1968 film, 2001: A Space Odyssey, is perhaps the greatest Science Fiction movie of all time. My opponent, which will be whoever accepts, will argue for the opinion that 2001 is not the greatest Sci-Fi film of all time. Great, defined as: 3. remarkable in magnitude, degree, or effectiveness 5. a : eminent, distinguished 9. markedly superior in character or quality; especially : noble (. http://www.merriam-webster.com...)
2001: A Space Odyssey is the greatest Sci-Fi film ever.

Thank you for accepting, and this should be fun. Stanley Kubrick's 1968 epic film, 2001: A Space Odyssey, is one of the greatest Sci-Fi films ever for a variety of reasons. It has had a major influence in pop culture from Star Wars to The Simpson's and from Steven Spielberg to Kanye West and it's a beautiful work of art. 1. Major Influence There is no doubt that 2001 has had a major influence on pop culture. Directors such as Steven Spielberg, George Lucas, and Ridley Scott have recognized how the film has influenced their own films, and how without 2001 there would be no market for films such as Blade Runner, Star Wars, or A.I. (Which was actually an unfinished Kubrick project). It has had a major influence on Matt Groening, who has invented the Simpson's and Futurama. 2001's influence can be seen in Futurama in episodes like: Love & Rocket, The Sting, and Future Stock, and in Simpson's episodes like Deep Space Homer. Kanye West has also stated that 2001 has been an influence on some of his music videos. 2. Art 2001 is not a traditional film in many ways. It throws out the idea of a traditional narrative with the cinematography and music carrying the film. It's beautiful imagery, cryptic theme, and it's ambiguous and somewhat surreal ending has inspired countless essays and debates by guys on websites. Hey I'm kinda busy, so sorry for its short length.
Resolved: In the United States, steroid usage should be permitted for all sports.

In my opponents first contention he says that athletes that take steroids don't show their symptoms on the field, but that doesnt mean that they don't have symptoms. The rest of my opponents first contention is saying that there is already steroid use and that it doesnt cause death basically. My response to this is simply that if steroids were allowed, then more athletes would use steroids, which means that more athletes would be subject to serious, but not always life threatening symptomes. Simply because something isn't life threatening doesn't mean that it isn't detrimental. Some more side effects of steroids are trembling vomiting, nausea, hallucinations, paranoia, mood swings, and increased blood pressure. Although these symptoms don't cause death, these symptoms should not be promoted throughout professional sports through the instigation of steroids. As I stated in my first contention, athletes will essentially be pressured into taking steroids because if they refuse, they simply wont have the ability to play professional sports since their competition will be taking steroids. In my opponents second contention, he is basically saying that professional athletes arent telling kids or teenagers to take steroids. They aren't DIRECTLY telling these kids to take steroids, but if all or most athletes are taking steroids then children will be incentivized to take steroids because they will feel that it will be their only way to make it to the professionals. My opponent also says in his second contention that sports are for entertainment, and steroids enhances that entertainment. Basically he is advocating that athletes should purposefully destroy their bodies for entertainment. This argument is obviously morally wrong for several different reasons. It is inhumane. According to my opponents logic, dog fighting should be allowed because it is for the entertainment of the viewer.