BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Evolution and science is an oxymoron

I accept. I also noticed that there were no definitions provided 1st round for the most crucial term of the resolution. Oxymoron. So, I shall supply my own. oxymoron - a figure of speech in which apparently contradictory terms appear in conjunction. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com... figure of speech - a word or phrase used in a non-literal sense for rhetorical or vivid effect. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com... *Resolution* Therefore, I'm rejecting the resolution that "cosmic, chemical, stellar, organic, and macro evolution and the study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world" is a phrase used in a non-literal sense for rhetorical effect in which contradictory terms appear in conjunction. 1. "Evolution and science" is not a phrase used in a non-literal sense. 2. "Evolution and science" is not a phrase used for rhetorical effect. 3. "Evolution and science" is not a phrase in which contradictory terms appear in conjunction. *Burden* Now, I'm happy to make my case now, but as the resolution is worded, Pro most certainly holds the burden in this debate. Pro's burden is to show that the two terms, "evolution" and "science," as defined in Pro's round 1, match the definition of "oxymoron," as defined in my round 1, I've shown 3 reasons why the resolution is false, and I'm most willing and able to defend any of those evolutionary concepts...just after Pro makes his case about how evolution and science is a non-literal, rhetorical figure of speech with contradictions. Pro?
Evolution and science is an oxymoron

Hi I'm Thiest and I believe that evolution and science is an oymoron because science by definition is a study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. and since evolution does none of those things I challenge anyone to prove me wrong. By evolution I am talking about: Cosmic evolution: the origin of time, space, and matter from nothing in the "big bang" Chemical evolution: all elements "evolved" from hydrogen Stellar evolution: stars and planets formed from gas clouds Organic evolution: life begins from inanimate matter Macro-evolution: animals and plants change from one type into another with the exception of micro evolution which happens.
Do you think the buccaneers are going to pick Marcus Mariota in their first pick.

The NFL draft has already happened. [1] Thus, the future tense of the resolution is negated. Marcus Mariota was selected by the Tennessee Titans with the second pick of the first round. [2] This leaves out the possibility of the Buccaneers selecting him.This notion is thoroughly supported by multiple sources, including sports news networks. [3] , [4] , [5] , [6] , [7]This refutes and negates the resolution. As it is fact, it leaves no option but to vote Con.Sources:[1] http://www.google.com...[2] http://www.nfl.com...[3] http://www.nfl.com...;[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...;[5] http://espn.go.com...[6] http://www.sbnation.com...[7] http://www.cbssports.com...
Camping is better than staying in a Hotel

I will examine my opponent's claims now.Rebuttal:"What do you do in a hotel? nothing, you eat something that the staff cooks for you, sleep in a nice bed but there is nothing really special about that." - Round 2Well, the point of hotels is for a place to stay away from home for a while. You don't vacation to a hotel, merely get a place to stay during the vacation. "It [Camping] is not as comfortable as a hotel but nowadays people have a mindset that only comfortable things are good" - Round 2So there's another benefit of hotels; comfort. For camping, you have a sleeping bag. In a hotel, you get a mattress. Which sounds more comfortable?"Staying in a hotel is almost like staying at home, but in a more luxurious way." - Round 3So you concede hotels are luxurious. Luxery is a benefit that camping doesn't have. "When you return home, there is nothing really special to remember." - Round 3 Well, I guess I should've pointed this out. Hotels are usually not a vacationing spot. I concede some hotels are merely beds, maids, and food. Some hotels offer a wonderful stay, assuming you have the money (5 star hotels don't come cheap). But the point of them is to have a bed so you can stay and play Family Feud or whatever."And yes, camping requires more time and work, but at the end it totally pays off." - Round 3I still don't like mosquitoes. And what benefits does camping have, again? Nature? Yeah, I'd rather be home. "And by the way Campfires with marshmallows are just the best thing eveeeeer." - Round 3Opinions! I like McDonalds, which I'm having tonight, actually. Also, I like roast beef and salad, which you can get at some hotels.Argument:Let's review what I've said.Camping requires much work, you need Bug Repellent, Sun Screen, a tent building kit, and much more. Hotels, you just need money. In the end, it is our opinion. However, hotels can be nice to go to. You can look at our arguments and see which is better. But don't vote just because you think hotels are nice. Why are my arguments better? Vote away!
Camping is better than staying in a Hotel

For camping, you need more things. Here's a list of what you need for camping:- Shelter needs to be manually built- Sunscreen- Bug Repellent- A lighter or matches to make a campfire- Food and drinks- Good campfire stories, or at least something funAs for hotels, you would need:- Money to go there- There's probably a TV in your hotel room. You can also bring your phone, or a gaming system for entertainment- Room Service brings food and drinks to you- You're indoors, so no bug repellent or sunscreen needed- Also, no campfires neededGoing to a hotel is clearly less work. I do concede that many hotels cost a few hundred dollars, but I don't want to deal with mosquitoes everywhere. You have to bring many things to go camping, whereas going to a hotel, you hardly need a backpack!
DDO Olympics: Trolling Prelims - Morgan Freeman

My opponent explained how she squashed me "like a half sized mega spider under a large falling wooden replica of the Empire State Building. However, as indicated by that cute picture next to my name I AM KING KONG ergo I not only squash her replica with my mere breath, but can dominate over the actual building she meekly strives to imitate - just like I not only squash her arguments, but dominate this round. #Metaphored My opponent brought up Miley Cyrus in last speech to which I must say EWWWWWWWW!!!! How on Earth could she even mention that name (which I apologize for having to type even once in my rebuttal - she will now be referred to as the M girl). This whole debate has made it pretty obvious that Jonbonbon is a closet M girl fan therefore her opinions regarding actual intellectual pop culture debates are irrelevant as she cannot accurately speak on anything. Because she dare like the M girl. Which is anything but mmmmmmm yummy. Finally, semantics. I don't even know why my opponent attempted to row her crushed wooden empire state replica upstream in this rushing river of a debate. The currents of knowledge and truth provided by Google and other reliable sources sunk her. I admire her dedication, and would offer her a life raft, but ALAS she is dead.
DDO Olympics: Trolling Prelims - Morgan Freeman

It's at moments like this where I like to say something:................................. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Anyway, I will show the main reasons why I squashed my opponent like a half sized mega spider under a large falling wooden replica of the Empire State Building.1) Displaying the image of Miley CyrusTo say that there are conditions which this is acceptable and furthering an apology before people watch the video is like apologizing that you're going to slowly kill them while eating a succulent pot roast.By the time Miley Cyrus's image hits the screen, it's too late to apologize.2) Morgan Freeman's all-pervading voice.As I've shown, Morgan Freeman's voice literally pervades everything in existence. He narrates everything that happens including on the set of Supernatural. That means that his voice is Supernatural. Supernatural wouldn't exist without the golden, molten milk chocolate voice of Morgan Freeman. Nothing would really. Since Morgan Freeman's voice is part of Morgan Freeman and he controls it, by extension, Morgan Freeman is supernatural. Thank you for the awesome debate, Jopo, and thank you to the judges for reading this!
DDO Olympics: Trolling Prelims - Morgan Freeman

I should point out that my opponent has displayed the image of Miley Cyrus. That's a conduct violation at the least, and under normal circumstances would be worthy of a temp ban. Unfortunately, Miley stole the ban hammer for her music video.Also, I'd like to point out that my opponent's definitions are still pretty abusive. The relation to Supernatural and these semantics is the equivalent of putting ketchup on a salmon. Who does that? Now, I will explain my point here. Morgan Freeman must be part of Supernatural by necessity. As my video evidence points out, Morgan Freeman narrates everything on earth. He must then by necessity be narrating Supernatural and is therefore the one who is actually in control of it. He also narrates the actions of the people on set making him the supreme director.Now that we have that evidence to confirm this, we can clearly see that Morgan Freeman narrates Supernatural. That means he must be it. Thank you.
DDO Olympics: Trolling Prelims - Morgan Freeman

While my opponent made a valiant attempt to salvage her case with a new fancy definition she made a few critical errors. 1 - while attempting to establish the difference between "is" and "is in" she only defined "in", meaning we must now backtrack and assess the definition of "is" .... because semantics matter in debate, NEIGH they ARE debate. is - "auxiliary verb, present singular 1st person am, 2nd are or ( Archaic ) art, 3rd is, present plural are; past singular 1st person was, 2nd were or ( Archaic ) wast or wert, 3rd was, past plural were; present subjunctive be; past subjunctive singular 1st person were, 2nd were or ( Archaic ) wert, 3rd were; past subjunctive plural were; past participle been; present participle be"ing" [http://dictionary.reference.com...] is a member of the "to be" verb. Meaning my opponent is claiming that Morgan Freeman is being Supernatural. The TV series. Furthermore, my first point goes in directly on this as I state a person cannot be equated to a singular TV show. Essentially what the resolution is attempting to do is take all of the gloriousness that is Morgan Freeman, and confine it to being only one show. Second, on the subject of "is in", the only point in which I stated this was as a block to a potential argument that my opponent didn't even attempt to argue (because the block is now there). 2 - My opponent attempted to offer a definition, without asking permission from the wielder of the supreme crown of semantics in the Morgan Freeman debate, I role I specifically outlined that I possessed. This means she has clause 18, section A, subsection Y, article xvii of the semantics code of conduct, the code we all swore our souls to upon starting debate. For further impact of this, Laynes Law of Debate clearly illustrates how debate is semantics. Therefore, violating the rules of semantics violates debate itself. 3 - My opponent failed to return to attempt to pull her demolished arguments back together after the wrecking ball of semantics came in and smashed them. For visual demonstration please view the following located as the top video on the right-hand side (please be warned, this video contains images of Miley Cyrus which may come across as disturbing to some audiences, drunk viewers are advised) http://www.youtube.com... Finally, I want to address that my opponent claims that she has proved how Morgan Freeman is supernatural. Given that she has provided no evidence to show how he is this show, nor has she attacked any of my beautiful hypothetical examples that used MLP as a reference, making them God, therefore she has not actually done this, she is simply lying. However, I would like to take this opportunity to tell my opponent that she has done so in a stylish manner, and while everything she says is wholly wrong, http://www.youtube.com... (second video on the right side)
DDO Olympics: Trolling Prelims - Morgan Freeman

Thank you for that post. I'm now going to present a few pieces of evidence.My opponent has equated "is supernatural" with "is in supernatural."I will now provide a definition of in:"in" refers to getting into her/his pants to perform the sexual arts. That definition was provided from here: http://www.urbandictionary.com...Now, the thing is that a show doesn't wear pants. Thus her interpretation is false.Also, Morgan Freeman doesn't have the same reproductive processes as us. I will provide evidence in a video:http://youtu.be...I believe I have clarified why Morgan Freeman is supernatural and my opponents interpretation is inherently false.
DDO Olympics: Trolling Prelims - Morgan Freeman

Ok so first as some important background to my case:"Laynes Law Layne's Law of Debate: Every debate is over the definition of a word. Or Every debate eventually degenerates into debating the definition of a word. Or Once a debate degenerates into debating the definition of a word, the debate is debatably over." [http://c2.com...] This law clearly outlines the importance of definitions in debate. However, my opponent tragically failed to include any thus far. Therefore, giving me full power *take supreme crown of semantics in the Morgan Freeman debate* over the meaning of this debate. DEFINITIONS: Morgan Freeman - "the god among men; God; a man who's beastly powers and deep, manly, god-like and black voice capture the hearts of millions." (Provided by Jopo and the 3 other girls in her room at this time, given that confidentiality is key they shall be referred to as Crackalacking, Patpat-the-kit-kat, and and Kitty RAAAAAAAA - the RA) http://alfonzorachel.com... Supernatural - "Supernatural is an American television series, created by Eric Kripke, which was first broadcast on September 13, 2005, on The WB, and subsequently became part of successor The CW's lineup." (google side bar when googled Supernatural, more info available at http://www.tv.com...) My point summary: 1. A Person Cannot be Equated to a Singular TV Show Here I will explain how it is logically impossible to equate that a person is a TV Show. This would be as ridiculous and claiming "Jopo is My Little Pony". 2. Morgan Freeman is Not in Supernatural The sole exception to be the above rule would be if an actor within a TV series essentially made the TV Series, such as "Fluttershy is My Little Pony". Given that Morgan Freeman is not in Supernatural this does not apply. 3. Morgan Freeman's Awesomeness Cannot in Anyway be Expressed by Supernatural. Here I will outline the multiple gorgeous facets of Morgan Freeman's personality to show how it is impossible to contain him within this clearly flawed comparison. Also, given that the sole point of my opponent's case is to explain the wonderfulness that is Morgan Freeman (as she outlined) see these all as upholding this point further.
DDO Olympics: Trolling Prelims - Morgan Freeman

"Resolved: Morgan Freeman is supernatural." I would like to thank Jopo for agreeing to debate this with me. I'm sure it'll be a fun debate, and I wish her the best of luck. Now, it's time to get (un)serious for the Trolling Prelims in the DDOlympics! I'm just going to brush over my main points, then let Jopo quickly her opening points. 1) Morgan Freeman has revealed his supernatural state to us. I'm going to be arguing with some evidence here that Morgan Freeman has given us direct revelation to the world that he is supernatural. 2) No voice can naturally be that sexy. The logic follows that it must be supernatural as it is clearly beyond natural. 3) Recent findings show that Morgan Freeman's voice has supernatural capability. I'm going to present evidence from a man that has studied Morgan Freeman and his relation to nature.
Sonic will not lose to Mario.

I apologize for posting so late. I have been doing a lot of "end of the year" stuff for school. I will make refutations and elaborate on my points in round two, but for now here's my case. Mario, while not as physically capable as Sonic has many things that would allow him to emerge victorious in a fight. These are his upgrades such as the fire flower, leaf, and star power. Again, I apologize to my opponent, but I'm really busy and will elaborate in round two.
Sonic will not lose to Mario.

This is my first debate so forgive me if I'd like to do an overdone topic. It is popular and thanks to the contribution of Brawl and the Olympic series, fans cannot help but stand their ground when it comes to the competition of these two well known mascots. I plan to use two Internet sources and the many Sonic games I have played. Concept Mobius is a Sonic fansite. The link below will lead you to Sonic's "Real Bio" stating his weaknesses and strengths. I may not fully agree with the website, but should I not, I will back my disagreements with proof. http://concept-mobius.technoguild.com... youtube.com There's nothing more truthful than youtube. Except for the fan videos, but I'm pretty sure a person differentiate between official and fan-made. To start off my argument, I will state the obvious. Sonic has the better speed, the stronger capabilities, and even the ability to outjump Mario. 1) Speed Most evident in recent games, it has become an undeniable fact that Sonic can go at intense speeds in a matter of seconds. Mario would require a build-up to run his fastest at best and even then, he is lacking far behind Sonic's normal pace. 2) Strength The Homing Attack: Sonic gains an instant burst of speed in mid-air to attack the closest enemy. Say he tries this on a regular machine. The machine meets instant death and the ability to do another homing attack on the next closest machine. Another instant death for the machine. Sonic has no weakness here. 3) Jumping Yes, Mario can jump. Wall jump. Triple Jump. But Sonic's range of jump meets Mario's standard and expands. The wall jump? He can do it too! (Sonic Unleashed) The triple jump? He can make a blue tornado (Sonic Heroes) to gain that little extra boost. That freaking mile-high jump where Sonic manages to pull off speed momentum? It looks even cooler in the cutscenes. Sonic can outjump Mario. Conclusion: Sonic can outrun, overpower, and outjump Mario easy.
Sonic will not lose to Mario.

. . . ~~~~~~ Rebuttals ~~~~~~ ///1) Direct your attention to Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games. It is a collection of twenty-four events based on the Olympic Games. .. /// Here my opponent makes an invalid comparison. Not only is my opponent comparing the game-play from one game to that of another separate one but there is also no objective way to gauge the abilities of Sonic to those of Mario on that game. ///Did the creators of Brawl strengthen his abilities so that he can do battle with the other characters? I would say yes. /// This point is mere conjecture made by my opponent with no evidence given to support it. I can just as easily say that they did not beef up Mario's abilities. ///And it's not only Mario. We see Princess Peach in the game who has an unexpected moveset that can demolish and obliterate Bowser. .. /// I don't see what this has to do with the debate. It is about Mario and Sonic, not Peach and Bowser. ///Were the Brawl creators rushing ideas when they made Sonic? Or were they intentionally limiting Sonic's abilities to balance him out, just as they have done with the rest of the cast? /// More conjecture, my opponent has no evidence to show that this is the case. ///Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I have presented three rounds of debate on how Sonic can prove himself an impossible-to-defeat foe to Mario. My opponent has unfortunately only revealed no methods in how Mario can win, but a video of a game that acts more of a truly enjoyable tribute to Nintendo fans than a crossover that mimics flawless gameplay physics and features. /// I would like to direct the audience to the resolution of the debate. >>>Sonic WILL NOT Lose to Mario<<< My opponent has gone out of his way to try and show that the provided video is invalid. This is just to try and throw you off of the fact that the debate resolution has been NEGATED. Sonic clearly loses to Mario in the provided video. I would like to see some evidence that could possibly do more to show how the two match up against each other. The problem with this wish is that there currently is not any other way to objectively compare the two in terms of fighting ability. The resolution is an absolute. >>>Sonic WILL NOT Lose to Mario<<< The resolution is not ambiguous and no terms were provided in the opening round for either of us to follow. I will reiterate, the evidence provided by me is the most objective way to conduct a battle between Sonic and Mario. Whether or not the fight was a fair one is left to the imagination, but my opponent has provided no actual evidence that shows that it wasn't. Even if he did it is not my responsibility to negate a resolution that was not stated or agreed upon before the debate's resolution. It was my opponent's responsibility in this debate to affirm the resolution in a way that I could not counter. He has neglected this responsibility and I have provided evidence that is impossible t counter. I urge a Con vote.
Sonic will not lose to Mario.

I have figured out a way to turn this debate from hypothetical to literal. I drop all of my previous points and will now refer my opponent to the video that I have graciously provided. In it is indisputable proof that Sonic will in fact lose to Mario. For those of you unable to view videos for some reason I will offer a commentary of the scenario. It is a video of a match between two level nine computer controlled characters in the video game Super Smash Brothers: Brawl. All of the items have been turned off so that the characters are fighting using only their skills which includes those listed by my opponent for Sonic. In addition to no items being used they are fighting on a stage that is only a flat surface with no environmental factors that could contribute to their deaths and they both only have one life to work with. My opponent and the audience can clearly see that in a fair fight against equal level computer controlled characters, no items, and no dangerous environmental factors >>>Sonic will in fact lost to Mario<<< at least some of the time. The resolution is negated. I await my opponent's response. [1] Video http://www.youtube.com...
Is this a very scary poem

I don't know what to say at this point. I found Debate.org about two months ago in a hospital wing. Since then, it's been the best place for debates I've known, but I always assumed that swearing was not permitted, as grammar and politeness usually would be associated. It turns out I was wrong. I apologize for the misunderstanding, but I hardly find it suitable to then accuse me of "sexual hang ups", which is of course untrue. But I am 17, and still live with my family. I cannot afford to have something like this show up in my search history. Now, if you've had enough personal attacks made, I'll begin. Your only reasoning that this poem is scary in any way is that you found it scary. But why? I asked you to specifically state why you would find this scary, and I thought it absurd that you would be scared of an erotic poem in the same way you're not scared by every poem in the world. You are the proposition. You have the burden of proof, and your only evidence is your own opinion. I have nothing to prove. This debate is over, but perhaps we'll argue again, Duncan.