BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
John Fitzgerald Kennedy was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald. The facts are overwhelming. Period.

Impressive amount of personal research. The burden of proof is on you, however, to show that there is no credible reason to believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was solely responsible for JFK's assassination. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but I don't believe it can proven that Oswald shot Kennedy AND that he acted alone. I noticed you failed to respond to my argument that it is highly suspicious that Oswald was at the top of the subversives list and happened to be the only one not followed, I can only assume then that you agree. The following is an excerpt from the testimony of Dr. Robert Nelson Mcclelland to Arlen Specter. "The initial impression that we had was that perhaps the wound in the neck, the anterior part of the neck, was an entrance wound and that it had perhaps taken a trajectory off the anterior vertebral body and again into the skull itself, exiting out the back, to produce the massive injury in the head. However, this required some straining of the imagination to imagine that this would happen, and it was much easier to explain the apparent trajectory by means of two bullets, which we later found out apparently had been fired, than by just one then, on which basis we were originally taking to explain it" (1). Here is a link to the drawing made by Dr. Mcclelland of the exit wound: http://www.jfklancer.com... It would have been impossible for Oswald to have created this wound from his vantage point behind and to the right of President Kennedy. Marine sniper instructors Craig Roberts and Carlos Hathcock tried to recreate the shot supposedly taken by Oswald according to the Warren Commission. They couldn't. Here is an excerpt from Roberts' book Kill Zone: "Let me tell you what we did at Quantico," Hathcock said. "We reconstructed the whole thing: the angle, the range, the moving target, the time limit, the obstacles, everything. I don't know how many times we tried it, but we couldn't duplicate what the Warren Commission said Oswald did. Now if I can't do it, how in the world could a guy who was a non-qual on the rifle range and later only qualified 'marksman' do it?" Finally, forensic scientist D.B. Thomas examined recordings of radio channels used by Dallas PD. In the article he published in Science and Justice Journal, he said that five separate gunshots can be heard. "One of the sounds matches the echo pattern of a test shot fired from the grassy knoll", Thomas concludes (2). 1. http://jfkassassination.net... 2. http://news.bbc.co.uk... It would appear that there are enough holes in the findings of the Warren Commission to cast doubt on the lone gunman theory. It is your job to provide indisputable evidence that trumps these findings.
All women should be given free large breast enhancements by the government

I'll explain why in round two - for now, it suffices to say I accept the challenge and look forward to my opponent's opening round. I'd also like to add two parameters and one definition to the challenge. "The government" means "the person who on DDO is called Imabench". Actually he rules the world and so it's pretty clear he'd be the one performing the breat enhancement operations. Anything else is just an abusive definition. My two extra parameters are that the proper way to eat a hamburger is like an Oreo, and that all nightclubs are equal-oppertunities employers. I'll need both for my case, but I'm prepared to defend them if need be. Good luck to my opponent, and I look forward to remembering this day as the day I actually defeated Captain Jack Sparrow!
All women should be given free large breast enhancements by the government

Hello, My name is Imabench, AND THIS IS YOUR WEEKLY IMABENCH TROLL DEBATE :DThis weeks topic, all women over the age of 16 and live in the United States should be forced to have very large breast enhancements free of charge and paid for by the government. This will be beneficial to everyone because men will certainly be pleased by such a thing, women would get free drinks and get into parties for free, and tourism to the United States to see all the large breasted women will help fix the economy. There are 3 parameters for this debate1) Barack Obama has been beneficial to this country since his term began2) The Egg came before the Chicken3) No one can die as a result of complications from the breast surgeries.
religion is not truth

Apologies for the forfeit. I should have known whether I would have the time to debate this, I accept full responsibility for my mistake. "do you know that i am wearing a hat? i can be wearing a hat. ." Your point? "then you agree that truth is not gods word. . because i did get a new key. . so how could truth be gods word if that not in the bible. . so truth is not gods word" I'm extremely confused as to the key business, but I'll infer you're saying that religion is false because God did not foresee your acquisition of a key. However, religion states that God's word is truth, NOT that truth is God's word. Thus, something can be true but not explicitly stated by God. "if it can be either. . because god didnt say it. . then go ahead and smash your face with a brick, it wont harm you right religion isnt proved. . for it to exist, it is false" As I said, God's word is always true but not everything, ever that is true is stated by God.
religion is not truth

do you know that i am wearing a hat? i can be wearing a hat.. then you agree that truth is not gods word.. because i did get a new key.. so how could truth be gods word if that not in the bible.. so truth is not gods word if it can be either.. because god didnt say it.. then go ahead and smash your face with a brick, it wont harm you right religion isnt proved.. for it to exist, it is false
religion is not truth

"Religion in false.. because I don't know it" What? "The question is did they write down the truth or not?" Yes, those would be the Holy Scriptures from many major religions "Can be=false" No, can be= Possibly true, thus not necessarily false. "you are con.. so you show me why you dont just go ahead and smash your face with a brick, because clearly its not the truth if god didnt say it, or truth is not gods word" In religion, everything God says IS always true, but the converse is NOT necessarily true. God would not point out everything, ever, that is true, because otherwise it would literally be infinite information. There are an infinite number of things that are true, for example, 1+1=2, 1+2=3, repeating to infinity. The fallacy in your argument lies in that you say "If God doesn't say it's true, then it is false". This is not true. If God says it is true, then it is true. If God says it is false, it is false. If God does not specify, it can be either. "i can wear a hat.. did you prove i am wearing a hat?" Why do I need to prove that you're wearing a hat? Religion does not need to, nor does it claim to, prove everything that is true, ever, as I said previously. "the probem is religion didnt mention not smashing your face with a brick.." It didn't say to do it, either, but that was the argument you were using. "its easy to say the moon is made of cheese..." How is that related? And that "fool" comment was not necessary. I apologize for the forfeit, I was busy with real life issues, but no need to be immature.
religion is not truth

religion is false.. because i dont know it the question is did they write down the truth or not? can be=false is=true you are con.. so you show me why you dont just go ahead and smash your face with a brick, because clearly its not the truth if god didnt say it, or truth is not gods word i can wear a hat.. did you prove i am wearing a hat? religion is unknown by default, never true.. show me where god said that you shouldnt smash your face with a brick or go ahead and do it.. because its not the truth that its a bad idea to do that the probem is religion didnt mention not smashing your face with a brick.. its easy to say the moon is made of cheese...
religion is not truth

First, I will like to point out that to win, my opponent must prove that religion CANNOT be true. Thus, I must simply prove that religion CAN be true, as in, it is possible for religion to be true. It is not my responsibility to prove that religion actually IS true, only that it CAN be so. This is because of the wording, "Religion is not truth". If religion CAN be true, then Pro accepts that it is possible for religion to be true, which is inconsistent with the debate topic. Pro has not really made any real arguments. All I see is the obscure metaphore between belief and "smashing a brick into yout face", which in itself is a flawed argument because I can just as easily take that logic and say "Well, what if God tells me NOT to smash a brick into my face? ". Unless Pro proves that religion ALWAYS tells you to smash a brick into your face, all his argument states is that religion CAN tell you to smash a brick in your face, not that it actually does. Now, logically, religion can be true. Religion is defined as "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. ". This is not itself inconsistant or disprovable. Science has not been able to completely prove that the existence of a suprhuman power is impossible. Certainly there are alternate theories to the creation of the universe, but one can easily say that those themselves could have been engineered by a deity.
religion is not truth

belief is smashing a brick into your own face without understanding why its bad.. in any case, because you dont feel your face, and have no truth to say what a brick is.. beyond gods word, so if god didnt tell you smashing your face with a brick is a bad idea, go ahead and never stop, because its not the truth, that smashing your self in the face with a brick is a bad idea if god didnt tell you that smashing your face with a brick is a bad idea, then clearly its not the truth
Abortion is always Morally Permissible

PrefaceI have recently been having some philosophical and logical consistency issues with my Pro-Choice stance. I would therefore like to defend a Pro-Life position to help me understand that persepective, and to determine which point of view I find more compelling.To accept this debate, you must have completed 4 debates already. To vote you must have a minimum of 3,000 ELO. Because this is such a contentious issue, I would also like to remind voters not to vote for their beliefs, but rather based on what was done technically in the debate.Full TopicAbortion is always morally permissible.TermsAbortion - "the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus: as induced expulsion of a human fetus." (Merriam Webster)Always - "at all times: invariably." (Merriam Webster)Moral - "concerning or relating to what is right and wrong in human behavior." (Merriam Webster)Morally Permissible - “A moral system differentiates among behaviors that are morally prohibited, those that are morally permitted, those that are morally required, and those that are morally encouraged.... Permitted [means] behavior that is within the bounds of the moral system.” (Prof. Deni Elliot)Rules1. No forfeits2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final round4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere5. No "kritiks" of the topic (e.g. challenging a core assumption of the resolution, arguing outside of the grounds provided by the topic, etc.)6. No trolling7. Pro accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add definitions8. Pro accepts the full BOP9. Pro must post their case in Round One10. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a lossStructureR1. Pro's Constructive CaseR2. Con's Constructive Case, Pro rebuts Con's CaseR3. Con rebuts Pro's Case, Pro defends Pro's CaseR4. Con defends Con's Case, Pro rebuts Con's Case and CrystallizesR5. Con rebuts Pro's Case and CrystallizesThanks......to whomever accepts. I sincerely hope that this will be a productive, informative, enlightening, and useful discussion.
MIstake is the mother of all success

Since this is a one-round debate, I won't offer any rebuttals out of fairness to my opponent. Unfortunately, it may appear as though I am, as my arguments will address the resolution which PRO desires to affirm. Common English definitions apply. So, "Mistake is the mother of all success". The metaphor seems to state that "If you have not made a mistake, you will not succeed in some particular endeavor" or, otherwise stated, "If you succeeded, then, at some point in your endeavor, you have made a mistake". PRO's example seems to confirm my analysis: " I am a firm believer that mistakes are an important part of any learning cycle". While the broad learning cycle known as "life" only ends at birth, there are several such cycles that one experiences. As PRO notes, the struggle to learn a language is one such thing. However, there are examples where success is reached without mistakes and failure is the result of mistakes. This is primarily found with law enforcement and military. I shall draw an example for each. MilitaryThose who join the military and are sent out on missions are in danger. For whatever reason they are deployed, there is always the possibility that they will not return to base or home. Men, and sometimes women, are sent into fight against enemies and sometimes infiltrate their holds. This is where a mistake can, and sometimes does, lead to failure. If it were true that "Mistakes are the mother of all success", that is that mistakes cause success, then it should not be the case that these men and women are put in danger should, say, Alpha team fail to cut the power to a particular building during an infiltration mission. Even if Alpha team did fail to do so, the mission should be successful, as mistakes are the mother of success. However, in order for infiltrations to be successful, everything must go according to plan. This means that the infiltration will be successful even without a mistake. Law EnforcementSimilar to the above, police officers are in a precarious position. Hated by some, loved by others, police officers sometimes risk life and limb for the protection of their counties citizens. However, sometimes this means going undercover for what is known as a "sting operation". One area where such things occur is prostitution. A cop, male or female, will pose as a prostitute in order to catch someone suspected of paying for sex. Sadly, should the officer be found out, they could be put in mortal danger. Again, an example of mistakes leading to failure, rather than success. To Affirm a ResolutionSince PRO offered no explication of the resolution, I think it safe to assume that as a mother is the primary cause of a baby's existence, so too are mistakes the primary cause of success. From what PRO argued above, it seems that we are to believe this is a necessary truth. However, I have shown this to be in contradiction with reality in two areas.
MIstake is the mother of all success

Mistake is the mother of all success (Pro) Developing confidence is an important part of learning a language. I am a firm believer that mistakes are an important part of any learning cycle. As Henry Ford famously said: "I don't make mistakes, I learn too much from them". The next stage is to recognize the self-discovery process of one's mistakes. Sophia Lorean, a famous Italian and American actress once wittingly told a bunch of reporters that, "After all these years, I am still involved in the process of self-discovery. It's better to explore and make mistakes than to play it safe." it is important to take linguistic risks and it is equally as important to make a mental note and try to examine what went wrong. This process may be tiresome at first because you may not know were to begin. Even if you did not recognize the cause of your mistake, it is always a good idea to try and investigate the cause of your mistakes and how to improve the situation. Thus, I think that Mistakes are the mother of all success
Does God Exist

Does God exist? This is the biggest question that Mankind has ever asked. Is there a creator? My position is yes there is a creator for the following reasons, 1. The Kalam Cosmological Argument, Everything that begins must have a cause, the universe has a beginning (the Big Bang) therefore it must have a cause (God). The universe can't come from nothing because that is impossible. If you have nothing, you will only end up with nothing, Therefore God exist, because he is the something where the universe came from Some atheists try to use quantum fluctuations to suggest that something can come from nothing, but this is absurd. Scientists used to believe that maggots used come spontaneously on meat, but this was proven wrong when it was shown that flies laid eggs on the meat, and that is where the maggots came from. The same thing with quantum fluctuations they may have a cause and must be coming from something otherwise they would be defying the laws of logic. Therefore God exists 2. The Transcendental argument for the existence of God (TAG) The laws of logic exist (the law of identity, the law of noncontradiction, and the law of excluded middle) They are immaterial and are not found in matter and are not made of atoms. They are transcendental and part of God's nature, and God has given us the sense of logic. Atheism is irrational because it can't explain logic or the laws of logic, Therefore God exists. 3. Biogenesis. We humans the smartest creatures on the planet have yet to create a single cell, so how can nature which is less intelligent then us create a cell, and how can a cell create itself? Life only comes from life, so how did it all begin. It began by God creating us. 4. Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him. He was an uneducated arab, but somehow he revealed to us the qur'an which contains knowledge ahead of its time, such as the Big Bang and all other scientific theories recently proved. God gave him this knowledge All these reasons prove God... http://www.alislam.org...
Does God Exist

One of the supported theories in physics is that the universe has a total of zero energy. Positive energy is the traditional form, and negative energy in the form of gravity. Since there is a net of zero, popping into exisence from nothing violates no laws of physics. Now quantum flucations do occur, however for only short period fo time since the particles born are almost instantly destroy each other, however the lower the total energy of the feild where it takes place the longer the system can last. With zero energy to start, the system can last forever as it is now. Also, God being eternal? Why not skip a step and say the universe can be eternal. Since dark matter is not fully understood, it is still possible for the universe to go a series of big bangs and big crunches, making the universe eternal as well. I never said logic doesn't exist, only that it has a natural origin due to evolutionary means. Now, remember that contradications can exist in logic, however they never occur in nature. Only a fallible mind can create a contradication, which can only exist in the mind due to a logical fallacy. Also, simply having logic doesn't mean God gave it to us, logic could, and is, be nothing more than a naurally occuring thing. The reason we can't create life is because of two reasons. The first is that we don't exactly know what the form of that first life form was, so we can't copy it. The other is that is takes too much time, and we can't create everything fast enough before other parts react with something else. I already told you why the Quran is incorrect on the Big Bang and Black Holes in the comments. I don't have enough space to do it again. Also remember that the term heavens can refer to the sky, and really the universe. Hell, the Quran thinks the Earth is flat. Free moving electrons? They are free only because they are not attached to atom, they still obey laws like electromagnetism. Nothing you said proves God, but only shows an ignorance of science.
Does God Exist

God is eternal. The universe either came from nothing or something eternal. Logic proves something can't come from nothing. Science is always changing, Quantum fluctuations are probably coming from something, which is more logically sound. You just admitted that logic doesn't exist since you said it evolves. There has to be an absolute sense of logic for it to be real, otherwise contradictions would be real. The fact that the laws of logic are absolute proves there is an absolute being which gave us the sense of logic. Whatever was the first life form, we should be able to make it since it could make itself. The very fact that we can't make the first life form proves that it couldn't make itself, therefore there has to be a creator to life whom is more intelligent than us. The quran does talk about the Big Bang in verses 21:30-31, "Do not the unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were a closed-up mass (ratqan), then We clove them asunder (fataqna)? And We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?" How did an uneducated man say that 1400 years ago, when science was never even fully developed let alone talked about the big bang. also a new point, free moving electrons, Who is controlling them? God. http://www.alislam.org... All these facts prove that God exists. In order for you to win this debate you have to prove something can come from nothing, create life from non life, show me the law of noncontradiction physically, and explain to me how the prophet Muhammad peace be upon him came up with the quran, and produce a chapter like the quran. If you can't do that you lose the debate, no matter how many human votes you get. Blessings
Does God Exist

If you look at the uncertainty principal and other quantum models you can see why the quantum fluctuations don't occur on the macroscopic world. When you have a large number of particles the uncertainty decreases. Quantum fluctuations could occur in the macroscopic world, however the chance of that happening is too small. You could just one day walk through a wall, but the chance of that happening due to requiring each individual particle to phase is so low that its not even considered as possible. Quantum mechanics are very difficult, and fluctuations have been recorded and it is likely they will help understand the origin of the universe. But even though our understanding is small, you can't give up and say magic. Logic is not beyond an explanation is science. Logic is a result of millions of years of evolution, making simple detection of patterns and stimuli into more complex thought by introducing memory. Logic does not transcend any reality because logic is nothing more than using our senses and imagination (which is a remix of memories) to connect memories together. Logic is also still a part of the brain's functions, and thus energy/matter itself. There si no contradiction. Logic doesn't prove God because you don't need a God to have logic. As for chemistry and life, as a Biochem student I know this well. First off, manipulating molecules is hard and time consuming. By the time you finish enough molecules others would have broken down or reacted with something. However, early life was not anything like modern life. Hell, it was barely life since it didn't have a metabolism. We don't know the exact structure of these early cells so we can't recreate them, however we can recreate the early cell walls and so can nature. The Urey-Miller experiment shows this. The Quran is not a book of science. If I had enough space to type I'd go over it, but 2000 characters is very constricting. The "science" of the quran is very vague, even in the original Arabic.