BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Catholic Christianity's beliefs are false

I don't really think definitions are necessary. A couple of arguments to start off with: 1. Catholic beliefs are absurd. For example, the concept of believing a man was born of a virgin is unrealistic. 2. Pretty much every Catholic response to an Atheist argument as as well questionable. For example, "evil in the world comes from Satan from when evil triumphed over good." To that I'd say prove it. 3. I don't believe in your god for the same reasons you don't believe in other religion's gods (I'll elaborate in response). 4. Overwhelming evidence that Jesus didn't exist (tell me why you think he exists...). 5. It's unfair to say that every time the Bible doesn't make sense it's allegorical and every time it does make sense it's true. That is like saying the Bibld ix the word of god except when it's not. 6. Nobody deserves to go to hell for eternity (not even Hitler), especially for making human mistakes... because we are only human beings. 7. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence... which of course there isn't any of. 8. Christians can't prove the Bible is allegorical, but just take it as that because literally it doesn't make sense. 9. You can't disprove anything there isn't proof of. So don't say you can't disprove god... you also can't disprove invisible smurfs but I souldn't believe in it. 10. There is evil in the world (tell me where evil came from). 11. All these beliefs come from a book that's history is very questionable. I'll consider your responses and reply honestly.
Promotional Diet Advertisement Should Not Exist

I accept. The burden of proof shall be on my opponent to demonstrate "Promotional diet advertisement should not exist."That being said, my opponent has graciously offered a few arguments which I shall respond to.Deconstructing my opponent's argumentsPro's first argument against advertisements which promote diets is because, "Most of these Advertisements are mostly cons. Not all of them are true." He then proceeds to argue that "these kind of things may cause teenagers to have anorexia..they will starve themselves. Some teenagers are naturally already thin but because of these kind of advertisement will make them have a different perspective."However, I fail to see the relevance. If, as my opponent remarks, most of these advertisements are fake, then how could they result in teenagers starving themselves to death? If the products advertised really do not work, why should we worry about teenagers becoming dangerously anorexic? How are the two connected?Furthermore, my opponent makes a naturalistic fallacy. (1) Simply because certain diet products may cause negative effects, it does not follow that they should not exist.Humans may cause problems (in fact they do), but it doesn't follow from this that they should not exist.ConclusionMy opponent has not sufficiently demonstrated that promotional diet advertisement should not exist. While it may be the case that they could cause negative effects, it does not follow from this that they should not exist. If this were the case, then anything which could cause negative effects, ought not to exist. Remember, my opponent must not demonstrate that promotional diet advertisements have negative effects, or should be illegal, but rather that they should not exist.Over to Pro!Sources:(1) http://www.logicallyfallacious.com...;
Promotional Diet Advertisement Should Not Exist

Dietary Advertisement are Advertised increasingly high throughout these days ..I admit that even i myself are caught up in these kinds on Advertisement. Most of these Advertisements are mostly cons. Not all of them are true. Not Only that teenagers will easily be effected and they will eventually take actions without any guide. They will make there own unhealthy diets and it will eventually effect there health .Not all teenagers will think rationally about what they are about to do .Its true that we want teenagers to make there own step to ensure there life path but it will eventually ruin there life if we don't guide them .these kind of things may cause teenagers to have anorexia..they will starve themselves. Some teenagers are naturally already thin but because of these kind of advertisement will make them have a different perspective.
butts or front butts

jhlwNORfahejij[FWOGHAjp]glwuJQOIPA]sendnudesfqavnpiqFNOEWNGVPQA;NVWSVNLRJQPA;VNLOSWVNAIEVJNAVLANDNJNVDLNLDJVNNpnvsordvnbfrebnsdnbjsdbruwgiyghwbdnosvapwkgejihobdfnkxsjsekopcmvx ,dskeoc
Lil Wayne is currently the best rapper

<> "Unfortunately, I'm sorry, but I can't do that." That's quite alright and I accept your apology. However, your arguments claiming that 50 Cent and Eminem are superior to Lil Wayne are flawed, in that you employ commercial success instead of rapping ability as a proof that they in fact are currently better rappers. Furthermore, I consider Eminem ineligible as a rival to Lil Wayne as best current rapper considering he has been on hiatus for the past few years. Also, by CURRENT I imply recent popularity and recognition in which Eminem is definitely lacking. As for "fiddy", who has been admittedly successful in album sales and other financial ventures, he is nonetheless deficient in the characteristics that make a great(not just successful) rapper. His faltering, monotonal mumbling is only outdone by his uninspired and witless lyrics. As for listing numerous people your two artists have worked with, this is pointless being that Lil Waynes collaborations eclipse those of 50 cent and Eminem both in multitude and prestige. "...to be a good rapper you need millions of people to love your songs enough to buy the album. And Lil' Wayne doesn't have that." This statement is both unsound and just plain incorrect. I disagree that rap skills and album sales hold a strong correlation; case in point, Soulja Boy. Even so, millions of people do, in fact, love Lil Waynes songs enough to buy his albums. In the matter of your last point, questioning Waynes charisma and listing rappers who dislike him, you've completely strayed from the initial argument. Despite your digression, you did choose a splendid verse by Papoose in your second argument. Indeed I would say Papoose approaches Lil Waynes ability, it's too bad you made no case for him. But to counter, here's a little something I happened to be listening to while writing this. Drag my name through the mud I come out clean Cast away stones I won't even blink A gun is not a math problem, I won't even think Just leave you dead like the mink under my sink Don't believe in me Don't believe me I graduated from hungry, and made it to greedy My flow is like pasta Take it and eat it But I'ma need cheese if I'm bakin' a ziti Lil Wayne "Gossip" The Leak ($3.99 on Itunes)
Lil Wayne is currently the best rapper

Gun to mind Mind to gun Define which one is the surviving one You say to mind your means is surviving Define it son Rappers use their mind Since the mind behind the gun The mind refines the dumb Guarding them for time to come Drop it son Gun to mind Mind to gun Define which one is the surviving one You say guns is your means to surviving Define it son Where you get your power from when drama comes? Behind the gun Power is money Money is power Drop it son ---Drop it son, by Papoose featuring Busta Rhymes
Lil Wayne is currently the best rapper

<> Unfortunately, I'm sorry, but I can't do that. However, I will definitely argue that Eminem, 50 Cent or maybe even Papoose are better rappers than Lil' Wayne. So here are some reasons as to why both 50 Cent and Eminem are better rappers than Lil' Wayne. 1) Both 50 Cent and Eminem sold way more albums than Lil' Wayne. All four of Eminem's albums were No. 1 in sales in America. Eminem's last album sold 441,000 units in its first week, while in the same week, Lil' Wayne sold 240,000. While some people say that sales don't matter, I believe there's no better way to compare rappers than to see which sold the most. 2) The link you provided showed that more than 25% of Lil Wayne's best songs are in records in which he only has one verse. Furthermore, his top song is"We're takin' over". No doubt that that's a successful record, but Lil Wayne has a 35 second verse in a 5 minute record. And "We the Best" by Dj Khaled, the album that carried the "We're takin' over" record, sold only 79,000 copies in its first week. Meanwhile, 50 Cent's hottest song(s) include, "Many Men", "In Da Club", "I Get Money", "Candy Shop", "Amusement Park", and many more. All of these songs were written by him and only him, and he raps throughout the WHOLE song. 50 Cent's first album sold 8 MILLION copies in the U.S. alone. Finally, Eminem's singles are also sung by only him, and his record sales more than double Lil Wayne's. Eminem sold 1,760,049 copies in his first week of his first album alone. This only explains that Lil' Wayne is dependent on other rappers to make hits, and even those hits are far from Eminem's or 50 Cent's hits. < > Try comparing that to Dr. Dre, known for working with Tupac's best records. Unless you think Lil' Wayne is better than Tupac, then we can discuss that too. <> 50 Cent worked with Justin Timberlake, Robin Thicke, Busta Rhymes, the whole G-unit, Nas, Papoose, Lil' Kim, Akon, Eminem, etc... Eminem has worked with Dido, Akon, 50 Cent, Nate Dogg, G-unit, D12, Elton John, Marilyn Manson, etc... And those were still not their best songs. Eminem and 50 Cent do better alone than with other rappers, and that proves them to be better than all of them. < > Well that's your opinion. But to be a good rapper you need millions of people to love your songs enough to buy the album. And Lil' Wayne doesn't have that. < > Charismatic? Birdman basically owns him, Cassidy hates him, 50 Cent hates him, Papoose hates him, Jay-Z hates him. Lil' Wayne has ghostwriters. I can't prove it but it's obvious that Gillie Da Kid has written stuff for him, and who knows if anybody else in Cash Money records has too. While 50 Cent and Eminem are so great that they had to expand into D12, G-unit, G-unit records, Shady Records, to help other artists with their songs, Lil Wayne is taking classes from other rappers.
Lil Wayne is currently the best rapper

I'm not arguing that Lil Wayne is "the best rapper alive" as many do. I'm simply contending that in todays world of hip-hop music, his songs are unequaled. The songs I'm speaking of start with "The Carter"(2004) and all songs that followed. Because remarkable rapping alone does'nt equate into a good song, Lil Wayne has had some of the best producers in the game make his beats(Mannie Fresh, T-Mix & Batman). The Carter is where he starts to develop a more eloquent flow and since has been rapping with increasing fervor and fluency. His lyrics are fresh and original. His delivery, dramatic and vivacious. He's also one of the most prolific rappers of today. A testament to this is an article by Vibe title "The 77 Best Lil Wayne Songs Of 2007". http://www.vibe.com... Since his debut solo album in 1999 (The Block Is Hot), he has had four more solo albums, with the much anticipated "The Carter III" set to be released this May. He's been on numerous mixtapes(most notably "Dedication 2" and "The Drought 3") and appeared on countless singles with artists ranging from Chris Brown and Wyclef Jean to Fat Joe and Playaz Circle. He even did songs with Enrique Iglesias and Robin Thicke. His singles aren'nt even his best work. I think unheard of songs like "Nigga Wit Money" and "Zoo" featuring Mack Maine are some of his hottest tracks. I'm sure there are many obscure rappers out there who can match Weezy on flow and metaphors but he is the most charismatic and successful rapper out there right now. I challenge anyone to name an active rapper alive today who can best Lil Wayne on all points.
Lil Wayne is currently the best rapper

<> Only because he hasn't dropped many albums recently, doesn't mean he's not a current rapper. He played in one of 50 Cent's recent songs and on the #1 hit "Smack That" with Akon. <> There's always somebody who's going to like Lil' Wayne's lyrics more than 50 Cent's. But album sales certainly show that people often choose 50 over Wayne. < > He did not sell millions with his latest album so that's incorrect. The lyric you sent me is not bad. But your whole argument is based on opinion. My argument is based on the fact that more people share my opinion than mine. I'm glad to see a rap-related debate though, I never thought that anyone on debate.org was a rap fan.
This House agrees that New Zealand should become a repucblic

As I stated in my my last argument I stated "the prime minister holds the power at any time to dismiss the governor-general at any time" in your example for 1975 that the prime minister was dismissed by the governor-general it was only because the prime minister hadn't picked someone of close relation to themselves. Since have been many occasion when the prime minister has picked someone of close relation meaning the prime minister has a foot to stand on in times of constitutional crisis. A few quotes from previous Pm's have stated there liking to republic so would the people who have had an overpowering rule want a government with such different standards and not the freedom of choosing the governor-general. And such cases of constitutional crisis have occurred in New Zealand such in 1984 with the currency devaluation situation when the prime minister refused to devalue the dollar causing the reserve bank having to close the currency markets down temporarily until an election appointed a new prime minister who was able to solve the problem all of which could have been dodged if we had a head of state who can solve the problem as soon as possible. I would also like to add to my previous argument that the principal of changing to a republic is not just about the power of the political leaders it is about the New Zealand becoming a mature, respectable country giving it the adjective nationhood which all countries want to have but can't with the leash of the monarchy. So it really isn't a question of if New Zealand becoming a republic it's a question of when. So if such outcome ere to occur that would mean that the structural integrity of the monarchy is at stake here because of the inevitability of the fall down. With your mentioning of the African countries with political issues they are republics but not the type we will become being that in Libya the leader is GENERAL Gaddafi key word being general if you didn't notice. The word general is almost an antonym to the word president as the don't associate each other unless major times call for it. Look at the most recognised country in the world, the U.S.A. the country was once part of the monarchy they now have separated and are probably the best off country in the world. When was the last time the U.S.A. had constitutional crisis. Just going back on the comment about diverse and unique. Diverse being a great deal of variety and unique being different from the rest of the world. I don't quite get how in that context the cancel each other out. Rebuttal for 1975 crisis in Aussie the reason the prime minister was dismissed was because the governor-general beet him to the punch, because the prime minister didn't believe that the governor-general would dismiss him he was to late when he did. P.S - thankyou for the welcome and sorry for the short rebuttal it was not as long as yours.
Size Matters.

So, if a man pulls down his pants, and he's got a 2-inch penis, obviously the girl is going to laugh in his face and tell him to go fvck a pencil sharpener. But the man will say bend over, and once she sees how hard he can thrust and how deep he can go, that girl is going to know just how much power is in the package. So, as Master Yoda says, "Judge me by my size, do you?", it's not size that matters, it's what you do with what you have that matters. I am not a rapist.
If you accept the challenge then I win, if you don't then I lose.

I would like to remind voters that this is what my opponent has said, "If you accept the challenge to this debate, then I automatically win no matter what, if no one accepts the challenge to this debate then I automatically lose." Please note the part that I have underlined. I would like to point out that the DDO user named, "you" has not accepted the challenge to this debate, which means my opponent does NOT win. Here is proof that there is someone named "you" on DDO: http://www.debate.org... If no one had accepted this debate (there is not a DDO user named no one), then my opponent would not have won or lost, since the debate would have been canceled. Both rules have been rendered moot; therefore, I should win. If voters find that no one has fulfilled their actual BOP, then I urge voters to notice how I am the only one who has provided a source for this debate. Thank you.
Who is to blame for Global Warming? (Pro: Nature Con: Man)

You forfeit, you selfish bourgeois Liberal, and do you know why!!??? Because you don't REALLY care about the planet, you only care about a clean place to live, your own habitat, you're worried that someday in the future YOU might be personally inconvenienced!!! The planet has been here 4 1/2 billion years, we've been here for 200,000 years, and we've only been engaged in heavy industry for a little over two hundred years. Two hundred years versus four and a half billion. And you have the gall to somehow think that WE'RE a threat!!??? The planet has been through a hell of a lot worse than us!!!!! Been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sun spots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles...hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors, worldwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages...and you mean to tell me that you think that some plastic bags, some styrofoam, and some aluminum cans are gonna to make a frickin' difference!!??? Frickin' kiddin' me!!!!!
Who is to blame for Global Warming? (Pro: Nature Con: Man)

While I don't think Nature alone could bring the methane concentration levels up to 145%, I also don't find it plausible to say that man played the greater role in this. Global Warming really became a major cause for concern 10 or 15 years ago, was CO2 not the cause 10-15 years ago??? (FYI they weren't concerned with the impact humans had on the environment back in 1750, they were just excited to finally discover what that strange thing called The Atmosphere was...) And was it never really this warm??? Because there are still archives of 'hottest day on record', that hail from the 1900's...
Who is to blame for Global Warming? (Pro: Nature Con: Man)

It is true that man is not entirely the cause of global warming. Lots of plants release methane into the air while decomposing which cause the atmosphere to heat up, and water vapor is technically a green house gas as well. Technically speaking, nature is helping Earth along in its path to global warming. However, mankind is releasing way more of these greenhouse gases than ever. Methane concentration levels in our atmosphere have increased by 145%, which wouldn't happen naturally. Because mankind is cutting down trees and polluting the environment, we are just imitating what happens naturally just more drastically. Also, in history CO2 was not the cause of the global warming. Now, however, CO2 is leading the warming. Yes, you may argue that this heating and cooling of the Earth is caused naturally, because that is true. However, nowadays global warming is being caused mostly by an increase of CO2 since 1750. This breaks from the natural cycle of ice ages and warmth. Ice ages occur generally every 100,000 years, and right now, it is true, we are in a warm period. However, in history, the Earth was never this warm.
Who is to blame for Global Warming? (Pro: Nature Con: Man)

So it was man who caused the Ice Age, then??? I'm sorry, I cannot bring myself to accept such a silly theory, as in that point in time, we were mere hunter/gatherers, we could not have plausibly affected the temperature so drastically at that point... The Industrial Revolution hurt the ozone layer, as did the Automobile Revolution, but man is not entirely to blame for the change in temperature, as the Earth's temperature has experienced rapid changes for thousands and thousands and thousands of years. I can agree to disagree and throw a dog a bone here, we need more energy efficient solutions like Fracking to wean us of our dependance on fossil fuels...
Who is to blame for Global Warming? (Pro: Nature Con: Man)

For over 950 years, Earth's global temperature has never passed a certain limit. In the past ten years, we have passed that limit and went far above it. How is this caused by nature, when we are repeating no pattern ever shown in history... By mankind's pollution of our atmosphere, we are increasing the amount of greenhouse gases drastically. This doesn't happen by nature. Sure, sometimes the level of greenhouse gases increases, however, naturally, they would never come up to this level. Without mankind, the Earth wouldn't be experiencing global warming this drastically.
Who is to blame for Global Warming? (Pro: Nature Con: Man)

Do you guys remember the Ice Age??? The planet has been freezing and warming at extreme temperatures for thousands of years, how is this now all-of-a-sudden man's fault!!??? Don't get me wrong, the Industrial Revolution had to've had some sort of an impact on the ozone layer, but mankind is not entirely to blame for the hotter summers and warmer winters, there's more to this issue than blaming and shaming our way of life!!!!!
Grades don't matter

"I must point out that this is directed at high school levels." Even if this is case, there are classes at the high school level that are more than memorization. Speaking from personal experience, my philosophy and some of my English courses were discussion based and emphasized being able to use reason and logic. "The core classes shouldn't be required in high school. They teach the basics in junior high and elementary school. Students usually know what they're interested in by the time they're in high school. " I disagree. Most people might have a general idea about what they want to be, but future careers aren't really explored till late high school. Some people don't even know what they want to do in college. Circumstances can change, and career choices can change as a result. Having general knowledge from 1st grade to the end of high school can make career/major changes much easier. "The core classes stress kids out and take up their social time if they have a lot of unnecessary homework." I find this position to be too subjective; it all depends on the school, teacher, and class. Even if this were the case the problem is not necessarily with grades; the problem would be teachers putting an emphasis on homework. For these reasons I believe that grades are necessary and good, to some extent. Thanks for the debate, voters please vote!
Grades don't matter

"Grades don't measure intelligence. Grades prove that kids can memorize things when needed." I find this statement generalizes what goes on in classrooms. While there are plenty of classes based on memorization, there are many discussion based classes where grades are based on participation, critical thinking, analysis, etc. Even if a class has a lot of memorization, application of what you memorized is still important. And while there is much more to intelligence than memorization, it still plays a part in intelligence. Combined with the fact that not all classes are based on facts and memorization, grades are a decent measure of intelligence, though obviously not perfect. "Students usually get bad grades in certain classes because they aren't interested in the class. No one is going to put effort into something they aren't interested in pursuing." Unfortunately, sometimes we have to do things we don't enjoy doing. While some people might dislike reading, writing, math, etc., having a general knowledge of these subjects is important, and can allow a student to later specialize in a subject he enjoys.