BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
There is no specific date to verify the birth of Jesus Christ.

and i expect my questioned to be answered, and if u cannot answer my questions? OK done deal, I would like for u to say i would have to get back to u on that question. OK History has a big part in Identifying who Jesus Christ is,'the Proof of the birth of the Lord Jesus Christ was Mentioned The year numbering system now in use was developed about AD 525, the intent being that year of Christ's birth would Be 1 AD, and the years would be numbered before and after. An error was made in assigning AD 1, but by the time the Error was discovered, The numbering system was widely used and could not be changed. so the correct year of Christ's birth according to the Numbering system is approximately 6 BC, Some of the other dates are also approximation, particularly the very earliest Dates, but they are based on the best available evidence.
Spiderman Reboot

Thank, you visheshk.Affirmative CaseMy opponent has attempted to counter my argument by arguing that "[Spiderman is] not what we need again". On what grounds do we not need it? You see, once again, my opponent has provided a bare assertion without any argument or evidence to support it. Hence, it is a logical fallacy and should be discarded. Thus, I extend my affirmative argument from the previous round.To solidify my original claim that there is an audience who enjoys the movie, there are countless pages on the internet that discuss Spiderman. Here is a poll that discusses which actor should be the next Spiderman [1], discussions about why people enjoy Spiderman [2] and people arguing as to why Spiderman is the best superhero [3]. Spiderman is quite clearly relevant to a lot of lives.Syllogistically, my Affirmative Case thus far: 1) Spiderman is well liked by many people2) There would be a large audience for another Spiderman movie3) There would almost certainly be a lot of revenue generated from the Spiderman movieC) Therefore, making another Spiderman movie would (1) satisfy a lot of people's want for another one and (2) generate a lot of revenue for the businesses involvedCounter-ArgumentsCon drops both of my counter-arguments, hence his original arguments remain negated.Con further claims that "there is only one good spider man, Toby Maguire...", but this line of argument is purely opinion (another bare assertion). Therefore, it should be ignored.References[1] http://www.comicbookmovie.com...[2] http://www.comicvine.com...[3] http://www.killermovies.com...
Spiderman Reboot

Thank you, visheshk, for instigating this debate.Affirmative CaseSpiderman is a very popular franchise. In 2014, The Amazing Spider-Man 2 generated $708,996,336 worldwide [1]. Evidently, people are enjoying the Spiderman content. Hence, I affirm based on the fact that people enjoy the content.Counter-ArgumentsCon needs to explain why there have been "too many reboots for Spider-man". Con needs to establish (1) how many there are and (2) why this number is too many. As it stands, Con's argument is a bare assertion [2].It is possible for people to enjoy both Spiderman and other superheroes/villains; it is not true that people can only enjoy Spiderman or other superheroes/villains. What my opponent has done is created a false dicohtomy, in that there is a very real possibility of enjoying both Spiderman *and* other superheroes/villains [3].So, Con's counter-arguments are nothing but logical fallacies.References[1] http://www.the-numbers.com...[2] http://www.toolkitforthinking.com...[3] http://c2.com...
Overpopulation

Overpopulation is now the leading environmental problem known to man; impacting the environment which is causing devastating changes affecting life on earth in multiple ways. The term overpopulation does not refer to the number of people, but to earth's capacity to sustain life indefinitely taking in consideration its available resources: land, food, water, and other necessities for life. There are currently over 7 billion people in the world today. It is projected that 7 billion will grow to 9 billion by 2050. That is 2 billion in less than 37 years. The human global monopoly is beginning to interfere with the earth's atmosphere and life on earth. There is no quick and easy solution to solving overpopulation and although these issues are overwhelming and seem irreversible the time to start implementing innovative ways to control population growth globally is now.
The term SJW (Social Justice Warrior) is no longer a pejorative

You said "round one acceptance only". I've accepted. I think I've passed that test. Now, since it is round 2, i'll be posting my opening statement. Opening Statement: If a word is used in a negative way, it is a pejorative. SJW is used in a negative way, and, therefore, it is a pejorative. (Disclaimer: I personally believe SJW should not be used as a slur, but I'm happy to debate the opposite of my opinion).
The term SJW (Social Justice Warrior) is no longer a pejorative

Next time instead of making your opening statement a question that you could of or asked me privately you should you know POST A COMMENT IN THE COMMENT OR MESSAGE ME PRIVATELY! (Do not rebut the previous statement or elaborate on your reasoning)Opening statements: SJWs mean it when they refer to themselves as SJWsIf a former-negative is now a current-positive due to rebranding and mocking of the opposing side it is no longer a negative therefore the term pejorative is uselessCitations:https://youtu.be...https://youtu.be...https://youtu.be...;
The term SJW (Social Justice Warrior) is no longer a pejorative

I'm confused. Are you trying to claim that "SJW" is no longer used in a discriminatory way, or should no longer be used in a discriminatory way? Because it's obvious that SJW is used unkindly. Are you claiming that it shouldn't be used unkindly, or it shouldn't have a negative connotation? You should really clarify your argument.
Do you think that people with AIDS or HIV should die

Hello, I accepted this debate simply because I want to test myself. The foundation of my argument will be the ethical theory of "Utilitarianism" where the action of killing someone is justified when its for the benefit of the majority. Since people with HIV or AIDS transmit their disease to the majority, it is justified to eliminate them. Why the majority you may ask? There are only one people they can have sex with right? Wrong. If two people of the opposite gender have sex with each other and one of the members have HIV or AIDS, the baby is in danger of the virus too[1]. Therefore, one person can transmit AIDS/HIV to two people at once. That is not all, what if the baby grew up and didn't know he have the sickness? It would also transmit to other people, then he/she had a baby, which unless the female follows the proper treatment, causes more people to have HIV and so on. I am not even factoring in the people who cheat. Killing people with HIV/AIDS will benefit the majority, therefore, it is justified. [1] http://www.webmd.com...
Do you think that people with AIDS or HIV should die

Okay so my best friend and I were talking, she pointed out to me that so many people in this world have AIDS and HIV. And how they are have sex with people and are spreading this disease to every person they have sex with. And most of time the person with AIDS or HIV don't even know they have it then end up spreading it. But just because they have it and they spread it doesn't mean you should end your life early, even though you are going to die anyway. Give people they chance to live the life they have before it is all gone.
Factual impossibility

No. There are many facts that suggest China does exist. You can know this without going to China. For example - You can see China on a map. - You can see Chinese people. - You can book a flight to China - You can see China on T.V - You can look at Google maps and see China. All of these are facts, and allow you to determine that China does exist. Even if you did know all these facts, you still couldn't say China is impossible. that would just be ignorant. You could only say that you don't know if it exists or not.
Factual impossibility

Spex, you wouldn't even know if you were wrong. You've already forgotten what we were even debating about. You said- "The lack of facts proves the impossibility of a factual possibility" This means, If you don't know something, then it doesn't exist. If somebody doesn't know something, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, correct? For example, if you didn't know China existed, then that wouldn't mean it doesn't exist. This proves your statement is false.
Factual impossibility

My opponent is making an argument that "The lack of facts proves the impossibility of a factual possibility" He is basically saying, that because we don't have evidence it's therefore impossible. I will argue, that just because we don't know doesn't mean it's impossible. I will be surprised if my opponent writes more than one sentence for his argument. It's fair for me to say that, as this is Spex after all. I'm also currently campaigning to have Spex removed from DDO for his spam/poor quality debates. Just look at his total number of debates. Any support would be greatly appreciated, we must, as a community come together and remove him from DDO. I shall call this campaign- "The war on Spex."
We should raise the minimum wage

I will first begin by very easily negating what has been presented thus far by my opponent. They brought up the lack of employment from younger individuals in New York when the minimum wage was increased. This point, however, is null and void. As of December 31st of 2016, New York's minimum wage has already been raised to fifteen dollars, supporting my argument. According to the New York government, the raise in minimum wage was actually due to input from both employers and employees. This means that the people 'wanting to work for less', as my opponent tried to argue for, do not exist, or are a very subjective minority of workers. Source(s): (https://www.ny.gov...) EPI states that raising the minimum wage to just ten dollars would inject $22.1 billion net into the economy and create about 85,000 new jobs over a three-year phase-in period. This means my opponent supports a smaller economy and less jobs. The Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago's economists predicted that a $1.75 rise in the federal minimum wage would increase aggregate household spending by $48 billion the following year, thus boosting GDP and leading to job growth. In 1994, an economic study done by the economists Alan Krueger, PhD, and David Card, PhD studied employment rates between Pennsylvania and New Jersey, the latter having a higher minimum wage. They found no difference in employment rates, meaning that my opponent's argument about lower employment is null and void and flows over to my side. Furthermore, economists Hristos Doucouliagos, PhD, and T.D. Stanley, PhD, released in a review of 64 minimum wage studies. The authors found "little or no evidence of a negative association between minimum wages and employment." Source(s): (David Cooper, "Raising the Federal Minimum Wage to $10.10 Would Lift Wages for Millions and Provide a Modest Economic Boost," Economic Policy Institute website, Dec. 19, 2013) (Daniel Aaronson and Eric French, "How Does a Federal Minimum Wage Hike Affect Aggregate Household Spending?," Chicago Fed Letter, Aug. 2013) (David Card and Alan B. Krueger, "Minimum Wages and Employment: A Case Study of the Fast-Food Industry in New Jersey and Pennsylvania," The American Economic Review, Sep. 1994) (Hristos Doucouliagos and T.D. Stanley, "Publication Selection Bias in Minimum-Wage Research? A Meta-Regression Analysis," British Journal of Industrial Relations, June 2009) For these reasons, supporting my side of the argument and nullifying everything presented by my opponent, I heavily urge a strong Pro/Aff voter turnout.
We should raise the minimum wage

I am going to start off simple, small businesses, who provide half of private sector workers, when doing well have on average $30,000 to $75,000 profit and four employees. Assuming they are having them work 35 hours as is average and that they are paying them the federal minimum wage they would lose about $52,080 annually while over half of them don't make that much. Even the businesses which are doing better would be forced to let employees go to live semi-comfortably. A case study from 2012 done by Joseph Sabia, Richard Burkhauser, and Benjamin Hansen found that when New York increased their minimum wage from $5.15 to $6.75 and withholding other factors, employment of younger individuals dropped about 20%. People look at this issue the wrong way, they think that since a higher minimum wage passed, that it is forcing employers to pay them that much, in reality it is making it illegal for employers to hire you for less, even if you are okay with it. My and employer and I may both agree just to pay me $5.00 an hour, but due to the minimum wage, he won't hire me because of the extra $2.25. That is where the issue lies. http://www.forbes.com... http://www.heritage.org... http://smallbusiness.chron.com... https://www.entrepreneur.com... https://smallbiztrends.com...
Gender (the concept) and its relevance in politics

Sorry about not posting guidelines, I’m still very new to the site and I agree with those guidelines you set. Yes, I do feel bad for transgendered people, I really do. The problem we face is “do they get exclusive rights?” I take issue with this. Take, for example, one of the bigger issues with transgendered people, their ability to go into the bathroom with the gender they identify with not the sex they were born into. There has been a recent political law (1) signed in Philadelphia providing gender-neutral bathrooms for transgendered people with which I find unethical. It forces the people of Philadelphia to front the cost of providing these public bathrooms so an extremely small minority will not feel discriminated against (Less than 4700 transgendered people in a city of 1.55 million using the national average ratio of .003%) (2). Keep in mind that transgendered peoples’ only difference is a subjective self-identification as in it’s not provable, sex is empirical, gender is not. There are no studies that are 100% certain on why transgendered people are different only hypothesis and yet were are making laws for them as if it’s a concrete ideal. Why do people with a mental abnormality classified as “gender dysphoria” (3) get their own facilities? Why must we fund rights for people based on subjectivity and ambiguity? Sources: (1):(http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com...) (2):(http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu...) (3):(http://www.google.com...)
Gender (the concept) and its relevance in politics

Well thank you for the opportunity to do this debate i believe this issue needs to be addressed and i defiantly will do my best to argue for transgender rights. Since my opponent did not set rules and or a format i will do my best. This will be introduction round, next round will be argument and points, 3 will be rebuttal and 4 will be closing statements with no new evidence. Unless my opponent disagrees. What I want to know is why should we incur massive costs as a society tailoring to people whose only difference is a SUBJECTIVE self-identification relative to society. I believe that the state and federal government should incur the costs of the transgender. Transgender people are brutalized and victimized for their wanting to be different. In the declaration of independence it states each person has the right to life, liberty and happiness. The state already spends foolishly we are in debt. Why not spend extra money to support Americans who are different. We semi legalized gay marriage costing the gov. plenty of money. I believe that doing this will also help from humiliation they face. So next round i will go into further details about my case thank you for listening.
Gender (the concept) and its relevance in politics

Over the past two years or so I have had the pleasure of befriending a trans gendered person. With this person, I have had many less than friendly debates over the concept of gender and its role in politics. Gender, as explained to me, is one's subjective self-identification in relation to societies constructs of the roles of sexes. As in a man doing what is typically masculine or a woman doing what is typically feminine as defined by society (i.e. "What does it mean to be masculine or feminine"). I have no beef with the concept of gender as a whole, the notion of identifying oneself in relation to societies' standards seems ultimately useless but harmless, that is until applied to politics. Now the problem with the concept of gender is that people are starting movements that push rights for these subjective genders, such as constructing third bathrooms for people who do not adhere to the binary majority, a "third gender" bathroom, if you will. What I want to know is why should we incur massive costs as a society tailoring to people whose only difference is a SUBJECTIVE self-identification relative to society.
Earth is flat

1) Ships over horizon: This proves nothing more than we know. The gentleman in the video has questionnable honesty and only filmed items on the horizon or near it, not crossing it. 2) Photographs: There's lots, here's one from Japan (Himawari-8 Weather Satellite) and not NASA. Since my opponent is a bit paranoid about NASA. https://commons.m.wikimedia.org... Bear in mind this is an enhanced photograph and not fake CGI, that makes 1 other country a witness. 3) Transmission towers going over the curve. No, it is the same situation as the ships, crossing the horizon line. 4) UK from a telescope: It's the same situation as the ships and transmission towers, UK is over the curvature 5) The sun is not moving: The video is misleading enough to film when the sun is covered up by clouds. https://m.youtube.com... Cameras can also make the sun look smaller, although in real life it stays the same. 6) Chicago Skyline: Since my opponent thinks I'm lying, I'll show him where I got my data from. http://dizzib.github.io... Just by using a curve calculator, if you stood 6 feet tall, 485 feet of Chicago Skyline would get covered, not 500-600. Chicago Skyline stands 1451 feet, so for short: you will still see most of the building. 7) Arguably, there are some pictures from 300,000 feet that shows the curvature from the X-15 pilots. https://www.google.co.uk...: 8) The moon is upside down in the Southern Hemisphere: No wrong again, how can it go upside down if it is spinning sideways? And why is it right side up in UK but upside down in Australia? It appears my opponent has either made this up or rushed his time to research this (but I shouldn't judge). No, the moon is spinning sideways, not up and down. [1] http://dizzib.github.io... [2] https://www.popsci.com... [3] http://www.smarterthanthat.com... [4] https://www.google.co.uk... [5] https://youtu.be... [6] https://youtu.be... [7] https://youtu.be... [8] https://youtu.be...
Earth is flat

1. Re: Ships over the horizon. It's because of perspective, not curvature. You can do the exact same if you live near a beach. 2. Re: Photographs So then, why not give me an example of a photograph that is not from NASA and doesn't show the curvature getting distorted every second? 3. Re: Lake Pontchartrain This is simply an optical illusion. This video explains it pretty well 4. Re: UK from a telescope Atmospheric conditions such as, humidity, haze, pollution, refraction, etc are enough to obfuscate ones view. This is why we can't see everything from anywhere on a flat Earth. Need I say more? 5. Re: The sun is not moving. I guess my opponent is attempting to sneak in the old sunsets argument. The reason we have sunsets on a flat Earth is simply the result of perspective. Here's a timelapse of the sun explaining so. 6. Chicago Skyline That wouldn't make it proof of a globe, that would just mean you have proven that not all of the tower should be missing. What about all of the other buildings? And also, don't forget that it would actually be 500-600 feet (depending on the height of the observer) at 30 miles, and the tower is 1450 feet. It appears you aren't afraid to lie to support your position. Voters should know this as well. 7. Curvature Ok? And this proves the globe because? 8. Upsidedown moon Here you go. https://gyazo.com... This is hypothetical but if the moon is spinning unlike the Earth then the moon being upsidedown would be very much possible.
Earth is flat

Proof of round earth: 1) Horizon Ships disappear bottom first suggesting Earth is curved. It's misconception that a telescope gets the ship in full view, in every video of the ships going across the horizon still shows them "sinking" down along the curve normally. 2) Photographs It's a common myth yet deceptive lie that all of the pictures are fake, there are plenty of real pictures, they are just enhanced for detail. Although some are fake, they are not made from scratch. 3) Transmission Towers curving along with the water https://gyazo.com... If Earth were flat, the towers should have remained completely straight but they are not, proving the curvature. 4) You can't see everything with a telescope If Earth were flat, you should be able to see United Kingdom with a telescope, but you cannot because of the curve. 5) The sun is not moving, Earth is. Flat Earthers claim we should feel Earth moving, but 1000 mph on a planet with trillions of tonnes of mass is not a lot. It takes 24 hours to get a full rotation, it is very similar to sitting in a plane, you barely feel yourself moving, Earth is much bigger than a plane so we don't expect to feel the spin. Now, the sun is not moving because if it were moving around to different timezones, it should shrink out of view like any object getting further away, this proves the sun is stationery and we are the ones moving. 6) Chicago Skyline Although my opponent thinks this is flat earth proof, this is actually round earth proof, had Earth been flat, it should have been in a full clear view. From 30 miles, by using a curvature calculator, only 487 feet should be missing and the tower is 1800 feet, already debunking flat earth. 7) Curvature Flat Earthers seem impatient for a curvature (no further judgement). At 35,000 feet, the curve would barely be 2-3 degrees. To see the curve, you need to measure it or actually get much higher. However, fish eye lens can also be distorted to hide the curvature too! So for short, you need to go really high to see the curve. 8) The moon Do you have 2 friends in UK and Australia? If you do, you will notice that the moon in both places appear different. The moon in the Southern Hemisphere is upside down, think about that. That means Australia is upside down too, but gravity keeps them in place. Like the sun, it slides over the horizon without changing, proving Earth's rotation. [1] https://youtu.be... [2] https://youtu.be... [3] https://youtu.be... [4] https://youtu.be... [5] https://youtu.be... [6] https://flatearthinsanity.blogspot.co.uk...