BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
U.S.S enterprise vs The Ancient city of Atlantis as in Stargate Atlantis

First off, one of my main arguments was that I could easily destroy your shields, I would take out the power source so your city would be crippled. Also, I said 300 years in the future because Star Trek is set 300 years into the future. Finally, I have stated that my ship is considered a high danger ship, and I will state more specifics later in this statement, but I would like you to realize that most of enterprise's battles were won be great battle tactics which is what I have illustrated. now I will give more specifics. Length:642.51 meters Width:463.73 meters Height:195.26 meters Mass:4,500,000 metric tons Decks:42 Crew:1014 officers Maximum Capacity:15000 Commissioned:2360-present Phasers:Type X Torpedo Launchers:3 Warp Reactor:M/ARA Normal Cruising Speed:Warp 6 Max Cruising Speed:Warp 9.2 Maximum Speed:Warp 9.6-9.9(12h) Warp 9.6-9.9 (12h) All of this is according to St-intellegence.com I have defeated my opponents one argument and they have destroyed none of mine. It is for these reasons I urge a con vote.
U.S.S enterprise vs The Ancient city of Atlantis as in Stargate Atlantis

First off, we already turned off the power, the shields are gone. Secondly, I never stated that I wanted a one on one fight, in fact, you didn't either. Third, bio-engineering is possible now, just think what it will be like 300 years from now, we could easily implant a gene of the ancient into anyone, or we could just kidnap some one with the gene and force him to work for us by threatening the ones they love, or we could make an alliance with the Borg (you did not say we couldn't) and control your commander with the gene of the ancients, they did it to Picard. Therefore I urge a con vote.
U.S.S enterprise vs The Ancient city of Atlantis as in Stargate Atlantis

One fatal flaw you do not see is you have to have the ancient gene to control anything in the city also you could not gt past the shields only ancient ships can pass through it. Also you wanted the condition of the fight well one on one i guess everything working properly also my city is huge compared to your tiny little ship and also sense you could not pass through the shield and you don't have the ancient gene to control anything you could not try to get in the city.
U.S.S enterprise vs The Ancient city of Atlantis as in Stargate Atlantis

The whole point of my last argument was to prove that your ship has one major flaw. And I meant in my last statement that I would destroy all of your ZMPs. Also, according to http://www.st-intelligence.com..., the enterprise is a high danger ship. Also, I believe that you have many enemies and if they all attacked at once while I attacked (you did not state the condition of the fight) you would fall. Next, I would like to state the solutions to your drones. The control chair. I could use my agent to take over this chair and control the entire city. And finally, the enterprise is a federation ship, meant to either explore or be part of a fleet, so why would it go into a fight this big alone? It would have the entire federation fleet behind it because once again, you did not state the conditions of the fight.Thank you.
U.S.S enterprise vs The Ancient city of Atlantis as in Stargate Atlantis

You have stated that the city will run out of power but the power can last for ever depending and with thee ZPM,s the city could last for years and the city does not hold prisoners and you have so far stated nothing about the integrity or strength of your ship. My city also has puddle jumpers that can fire drones and fight hard as well as cloke and jump into hyperspace they are little insane fighting vessels. There for i stand Pro.
U.S.S enterprise vs The Ancient city of Atlantis as in Stargate Atlantis

What you are forgetting is that the city of Atlantis is dependant on its power source. without that power source, Atlantis can't use its shields, cant move and is pretty much crippled. Also, my opponent did not state the condition of this fight, so any one of the enterprises members could have infiltrated Atlantis and sabotaged their power source. An example of how they could do this is that doctor McCoy could apply for a job at the infirmary. Also, once the power is cut, the cell block shields will open letting out some of the most dungarees villains in the series. therefore I urge a con vote.
U.S.S enterprise vs The Ancient city of Atlantis as in Stargate Atlantis

In my first argument i would like to state that the city of Atlantis has the most powerful shields ever and the most advanced weapons Drones and they can go straight through shields as in this video http://www.youtube.com... and go to the end to see the weapons being fired and the city can fly http://www.youtube.com... and fight as in this video so that ends my first point.
The US "moon landing" was fake

Been a little while since I debated something worthwhile, and this is interesting enough. I shall take the position that the Apollo11 moon landing, and the succeeding missions, was a legitimate, Real event. I shall take on the proposed half BoP and show that the US did in fact land on the moon in the summer of 1969, and that Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin were the first humans to walk on its surface. to avoid semantics, even if painfully obvious, I shall be using the following definitions unless objected to. My opponent, shall he not agree to them, should discuss with me in PM or comments until an agreement is reached before posting his next round. this is just a formality in order to avoid misunderstanding or semantics debating that does not add nor give value to the overall debate. Moon landing:A moon landing is the arrival of a manned spacecraft on the surface of the Moon. Apollo11:The mission funded by the US government to land a spacecraft bearing the same name on the moon with two astronauts, Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong both walking on the moon, becoming the first and second humans to walk on its surface, along with the third astronaut, Michael Collins that remained in orbit. the spacecraft landed July 20, 1969, at 20:18 UTC. Legitimate: able to be defended with logic or justification; valid. Fake:not genuine; imitation or counterfeit. a thing that is not genuine; a forgery or sham. Real:actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed. not imitation or artificial; genuine.
The Mainstream Heliocentric Model is Correct

1. It's a bit off but still, you are basing your entire time zones argument off of an assumption and on a map. Even then there are a number of maps of a flat Earth. https://gyazo.com... Like this one So, don't claim you've debunked the flat Earth by showing something is wrong on a map. 2. "- 11 am is almost noon - The video was taken in May - The sun typically sets at 8pm in May. So what's your argument?" My argument is therefore, it cannot be an accurate representation. As I've already said. 3. Well, I'd say dismiss is a bit harsh. However, you aren't attacking the actual argument part, just his experiment, which he explained and you are not addressing. 4. If you have no interest in further discussing seasons then I won't 5. You have succesfully proven that he used the wrong word, not his arguments wrong. I need a rebuttal to the argument, not an explanation to how he used the wrong word. 6. So, if people have measured the axis in the B.C, the explanation for the axis must be incorrect, since he said that it wasn't measured until the 19th century? You are continuing to attack arguments based on wrong words or wrong dates. I need an explanation to the whole thing, not just the "quash" part of the last argument or the "19th century" part of the axis rebuttal.
The Mainstream Heliocentric Model is Correct

1. Time Zones Actually if you watch the video, you will notice that the time zones you listed are possible here. He further admits that no map is 100% accurate, but is trying to use a map as his argument. Around the 20 second range, btw. 2. The sun changing size. The video does not state that the sun is constantly changing size, just during the end of a sunset and the beginning of a sunrise, again, such as this example. https://gyazo.com... https://gyazo.com... I don't think my opponent understands what I'm saying, so I will give a longer explanation. At 11 PM, which is almost noon the sun is nearly directly overhead. The video was taken in May. During that Month, the sun typically does not set until around 8 PM. I have no clue where Wolfie is from but lets use an example, the city I live in. https://www.timeanddate.com... 3. The response to my opponents concerns. My opponent is simply dismissing his statements. Next 4. Seasons The video isn't claiming that seasons are caused by the sun changing speed, the video is instead claiming that seasons are caused by the sun moving its path. Please try harder. 5. 3:06. I believe you are the confused one here. He isn't arguing that the sun is changing shape, he is arguing it is getting quashed. https://gyazo.com... See what I mean? 6. Eric Dubay Rant Yes, almost your entire argument was a rant. You spent a long time claiming that he was a liar and confused, brought up the axis argument, and then dismissed a couple more of his statements. Here is his explanation "In typical reverse-engineered damage-control fashion, trying to explain away the Midnight Sun, problematic Arctic/Antarctic phenomena, and the fact that Polaris can be seen approximately 23.5 degrees South of the equator, desperate heliocentrists in the late 19th century again modified their theory to say the ball-Earth actually tilts back 23.5 degrees on its vertical axis, thus explaining away many problems in one swoop! If it simply tilted the same direction constantly, however, this would still not explain the phenomena because after 6 months of supposed orbital motion around the Sun, any amount of tilt would be perfectly opposite, thus negating their alleged explanation for Arctic/Antarctic irregularities. To account for this, heliocentrists added that the Earth also "wobbles," in a complex combination of patterns known as, "planetary nutation," the "Chandler wobble," and "axial precession" which, in their vivid imaginations, somehow explains away common sense."
The Mainstream Heliocentric Model is Correct

Re 1. Here comes the sun My opponents first arguments is time zones. Not the classic "time zones are impossible on a flat Earth", but the pattern of timezones. He claims I should draw a circle on a flat Earth map, and it will show that certain time zones incorrectly. This video shows other wise. Re 2. Sunsets The argument is, when the sun is first setting or rising, it appears to get smaller or larger, as a result of perspective on a flat Earth. That video shows a timelapse of the sun rising from 11 AM to 4 PM. This does not give an accurate result. Re 3. Mindblowing clip I believe the same guy has addressed your concerns with his experiment Re 4. The sun explained My opponent claims his previous arguments apply, and is also claiming that the explanation for seasons is incorrect. Now, I believe I have found a better explanation for seasons. Here you go Re 5. How the sun works Keep in mind at 3:06, the sun is setting, not changing shape. Perspectivve will naturally cause it to begin disappearing over the vanishing point. https://i.pinimg.com... Re 6. Arctic sun My opponent makes no attempt at refuting Eric Dubay's article, instead going off on a rant about Eric Dubay. Well mostly, then explains the whole thing with "the Earth has an axis", which was already refuted in that very article.
Do people learn more from losing than from winning

In the last round, I stated quote, "we too have face a time when we lose". One is not simply born to win everything is his or her life. Even successful people like Donald Trump, Mahatma Gandhi, or even Superman have faced hardship. Of course every single one of us has faced a time when we lose. And by learning from mistakes that we did helps us to become better, but as I said losing MULTIPLE times demotivates us and in the end creates stress. it would be better that the person to move on and focus on other things because clearly they are not good in that area. Winning helps us to be wiser. It doesn't mean that a person who win should think less as stated by my opponent. Of course in many ways they learn from what they did to win in something. And by winning give us the incentive to go further and climb higher to be the best.
Do people learn more from losing than from winning

The first few time, it can give reflection to the loser. If he doesn't breakdown, cry and give up the first time. Losing would demotivate the challenger and in the end results into giving up h easily. Losing multiple times creates stress toward the victim. There's no point in competing in something if we would only every time. Winning gives motivation towards the person and encourages him to be continue on competing in a certain competition. Winning can also teach us to be more respectful for our opponents because we too have faced a time when we lose. It teaches us to be more matured and independent in making our own decisions.
Patriots will win Super Bowl 2015

Among the undisputed facts from last round, the Seahawks score more points for every point scored against them than the Patriots. 1.55 vs 1.49 which means if they both enter the Seahawks have a greater chance of winning. I admit the Patriots have a chance (less than 50%), however this debate is not 'do they have a chance,' it's about the certainty that they "will win," which pro has used Argumentum ad populums of names instead of proving.Their big name players may make them a good team, but the end result is poorer numbers than the Seahawks. The principles from the movie Moneyball apply to any sport.Further pro has been caught in multiple lies, to try to make his chosen team look better."temperature under 40 degrees."Needing special conditions to get what points they have, means their numbers are inflated to those conditions. Whereas this Sunday they won't have them according to latest from The Weather Channel. Worse for them, the Superbowl is expected to be 55 degrees in Santa Clara.
Patriots will win Super Bowl 2015

Thank You to Ragnar and I will begin again, "Names do not win competitive sports, numbers do" My friend, the Patriots most certainly have the numbers. According to cover32 Rob Gronkowski is the second best tight end in the NFL. In the 2014 season so far he has had 82 receptions for 1124 yards in just one season!!! Tom Brady is in the top 5 quarterbacks list for many websites and stat readers. Brady is 60-7 in his last 67 home games and holds the best record in NFL history (45-7, .865) with the temperature under 40 degrees. "they must defeat the Colts, who have previous beaten them in a deciding match" What? Since Andrew Luck entered the league in 2012, the Patriots have demolished the Colts by an average score of 48-22 in three meetings. Brady is 60-7 in his last 67 home games and holds the best record in NFL history (45-7, .865) with the temperature under 40 degrees. The Pat's are playing at home for the AFC championship at temperatures under 40 degrees this Sunday.
Patriots will win Super Bowl 2015

The Patriots have scored 468, and allowed 313, giving them a point ratio of only 1.49. The Seahawks have scored 394, but allowed only 254, giving them a point ratio of 1.55.Seahawks win more points for every one scored against them."There passing game is made up of..."Names do not win competitive sports, numbers do. Tom Brady hosted Saturday Night Live, had an undefeated year, but still lost the Superbowl in 2007, then again to the same team in 2011. This year to even get into the Superbowl, they must defeat the Colts, who have previous beaten them in a deciding match."offensive line is constantly shuffling in new players"Good rhetoric, but unreliability has not given them a year to compare to 2007, or get better margins than their rivals."Patriots are playing at home"Simply untrue. Santa Clara, CA. is not Foxborough, MA., which is their home field."they haven't lost a seasonal game at home for 72 straight games."Also untrue. They lost to the Buffalo Bills December 28th, by 8 points.
Patriots will win Super Bowl 2015

The Patriots will win this years Super bowl. I believe that is true because they have a all around great offense. There passing game is made up of Tom Brady (arguably the best quarterback yet), Rob Gronkowski, Danny Amendola, Brandon Lafell, Julian Edelman. There running game has LeGarrette Blount and Shane Vereen. There offensive line is constantly shuffling in new players so the defense doesn't know what to expect, that will make it very difficult to get to Brady as you can see in the Raven's game. The Patriots defense consist of some superstars as well: Darrel Revis, Brandon Browner, Vince Wilfork, and Devin Mcourty. All that just to add that the Patriots are playing at home and they haven't lost a seasonal game at home for 72 straight games. May I ask your opinion on who will win Super Bowl 2015?
debate.org should not have limits/preset number of rounds in debates

having a set number of rounds and having a limit of 'x' rounds per debate limits the ability of the debater to get fully in depth in the given topic. granted, this builds skill of being a good debater, such as thoroughly organizing your thoughts and making your position clear. however, the lack of potential ideas/thoughts that would be presented after the limit of rounds far outweighs the 'skills' built in a debate with a set number of rounds. not having a set number of rounds might create a friendlier atmosphere and encourage more of a conversation than a debate. but, even though that could, in a worst case scenario, eliminate the idea of debating on debate.org and instead talking about issues, the information, possibly crucial to one's case, would be worth it. one would be able to clearly see the thought process of the debaters and might understand the topic better rather than having to examine points that all intertwine. it would be more organized if debaters went point by point, instead of whatever you can think of to support yourself in one long list. my proposition: there would be no limit on the number of rounds in a debate and the only way for it to end would be that either: both debaters agree on ending the debate, or a debater forfeits two 'rounds' in a row.
Fallacous Arguments II:Stupidity should be a crime, and violators should be given the death penalty.

Why stupidity is not a crime and violators should not be given the death penalty: I said so. Either stupidity is not a crime or the world hates you. Stupidity being a crime won't solve everything. Hey look a bee! Stupid people are human. Therefore all humans are stupid. For example, if stupidity is a crime then Pro is too short. The resolution is ridiculous. Pro is too short, therefore Pro is too short. Stupidity is old. Stupidity is natural. Pro is too short. Pro said "Stupidity should..not..be a crime" Every stupid person is cool. So far every stupid person has been nice. Therefore all stupid people ever will be nice. "Stupidity" cannot be defined. My opponent has to prove that everyone is stupid to win. I am objective. If stupid people kill someone it's because they had to. Criminalizing stupidity is like killing babies. The death penalty is so sad! Most poor people agree with me.
Fallacous Arguments II:Stupidity should be a crime, and violators should be given the death penalty.

Stupidity causes deaths; MTGandP is biased against stupidity; Forrest Gump says "Stupid is as stupid does." Therefore, stupidity should be a crime; If stupidity isn't a crime, WW3 will happen shortly; Being smart is a lost art; Most people don't approve of stupidity; Stupidity is an old tradition that needs to be abolished; I polled myself and I agree with my view, therefore stupidity should be a crime; You cannot prove stupidity is not a crime; Killing and stupidity are closely related, therefore it should be a crime; MTGandP cannot be trusted because he is under 18; Stupidity occurred before crimes, therefore stupidity causes crimes; I don't like mangoes, but I like oranges; Bob killed 42 people due to stupidity, therefore stupidity should be a crime; I love this site, by the way, stupidity should be a crime; Dr. Phil agrees with my point, and he is a doctor, therefore stupidity should be a crime; most people believe stupidity should be a crime, therefore stupidity should be a crime.
Missile Defense

Well, either my opponent thought my argument was so well rounded it was undebatable, or that is was too bad to be addressed. Unfortunately it has taken me too long to find the source material for my A. Q. Khan argument, but I do not believe it is completely needed either. My opponent has not countered my argument, but I have countered hers, and I believe that I have proven definitively that the anti-missile defense system does much, much more harm than good to the American way of life. It is ineffective, it endangers foreign relations and could possibly cause economic collapse, all for the sake of defending against something that will most likely never happen, while ignoring the greater and more potent danger of terrorism and vulnerable nuclear material. The anti-missile defense system is pointless; Americans do not want to see their tax dollars squandered on this system while it endangers their lives and ignores the real problems.
P.E should not required in schools (Or at least there should be alternatives)

First, I want to start with your P.E. teachers statement. I have went to 9 different schools and everyone of my teachers have always graded kids on how much energy they exert. Those Fitness gram tests are required by the state and they are usually not part of your grade. My P.E. teachers just do this to see how they are performing in the class. My P.E. teachers also grade the people in our class if they are able to follow the rules and have the basic skills down. Now to answer your argument about the bad atmosphere. My teachers have always picked kids to go out. Then they choose other kids to go behind the "captains" and that would be a team. Usually, the captains are the same ability level ,so the teams could be even. Also, I have never seen a teacher that likes the most athletic kids if they have a bad attitude or if they think that they are better than all of the other kids. They hate those kids and they like the kids that exert the most effort. Finally, in response to your first argument. My school makes us have 90 minutes of P.E. class every day. And everyone in my GRADE have never gotten below a 85 in P.E. I am going to re-iterate this: my P.E classes have always been graded off of your effort that you show. I also want to talk about your uniform argument in Round 1. You said that students shouldn't have to wear horrible uniforms. Now, I highly disagree with this. For starters, I tend to wear dressier clothes to school and I wouldn't want to exercise in those. P.E. clothes can also reduce bullying between children. Some people get made fun of for the clothes that they wear. The P.E. clothes eliminates this route of bullying for kids.