BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
God Does Exist

My argument is not for a specific deity, but rather that a Deity did create the universe. What methods He/She/It used is irrelevant in this debate. The point is that the Cosmos was made by someone. I have no opening arguments, as to me nature itself should be evidence enough to show that Intelligence created it, but I will ask some questions in order to start this debate off: 1) How did the Big Bang (If you believe that that was how the universe started. I don't, but for the sake of the debate, we will argue from the assumption that it is true.) begin and create itself? 2) How were the laws established (inertia, gravity, etc.)? Hopefully that will be sufficient to begin the debate. Thank you!
On the balance - Astrology makes accurate predictions

To prove my case I will make an Astrological prediction that is provably, and significantly accurate in Round 2. I will then prove its significance in round 3 with evidence, and provide a final rebuttal in Round 4. This will be to prevent my opponent from selecting someone who is just making random Astrological claims, and proving the random passerby wrong. After all I can find someone who claims to have used Science to build a perpetual motion machine, and prove them wrong. However, that doesn't prove that Science is false. It only proves that person was wrong. I'd also like to define Astrology, and some other terms upfront before we get to far into this. Astrology is any system that uses heavenly bodies in relation to ones birth to predict possible outcomes for an individual. Heavenly bodies are most commonly refereed to, but not limited to, the Earth, Sun, Moon, planets, and stars. Finally, for significance I'd like to only use statistical significance because we be leaving the audience, and the voters a lot of subjective room to judge otherwise. Thank you, and lets begin.
On the balance - Astrology makes accurate predictions

Brief Response to Pro's Round 2. Pro does not seem to support Western Astrology, making my opening statements mostly a mute point. Thus, it can be ignored that Pro addressed the analysis on the presidents, but ignored the analysis on murderers. Pro and I seem to agree on the scientific method, but Pro does not seem to understand my earlier statements in regards to the use of backwards reasoning. In the specific case given, the author of the article did not take predictions made by astrology and compare it to observations. Astrology doesn't simply predict that there will be differences among people with different zodiac signs. It gives more specific predictions in regards to life outcomes. Brief Introduction to Chinese Astrology/Zodiac For those unfamiliar, the Chinese Zodiac has 12 animal signs and 5 element signs, giving 60 possible combinations. Each year cycles through to a new element and a new animal. This 60 year cycle is linked to the 60 year orbit of Jupiter [1]. Chinese astrology makes specific claims in regards to what occupations are good for which animals [2]. Rebuttal to Chinese Astrology Some animals are predicted to be good for politics, and others not. The best link I could find with a list of US Presidents and their Chinese Zodiac signs is given [3]. But if you would like to construct it for yourself, you can always do that by looking up their birthdays [4] and their animals using an easy calculator [5]. We find an almost even distribution among all the animals on the Chinese Zodiac. Because Chinese Astrology predicts that some animal signs would not do well in politics, I claim that Chinese Astrology does not make predictions that agree with reality. In this case, the sample size does not matter, because there was no statistical significance analysis. 1) http://en.wikipedia.org... 2) http://www.chinahighlights.com... 3) http://answers.google.com... 4) http://www.infoplease.com... 5) http://www.astrology.com...
Joke War

The Geography teacher was asking students to name the capitals of each state. The Class consited of 10 Brunetts 2 Redheads, and a Blonde named Sue.The Teacher asked, "What is the capital of New Hampshire?" Everyone in the class raised their hand, except for the Blonde.The teacher said, "Sue what is the capital of New Hampshire?" Sue replied, "Can I use my book?"The teacher said, "Fine, so long as you learn it, there is a map on page 65 with the capitals"The blonde open the page to 65.The teacher asked again, "So sue what is the capital of New Hampshire?"The blonde replied, "Is it NH?"
Joke War

As a blonde crawls out of her wrecked car, the local sheriff asks her what happened. The blonde began, "It was the strangest thing! I looked up and saw a tree, so I swerved to the right. Then I saw another tree, so I swerved to left. Then there was another tree, and another and another ..." The sheriff thought for a minute and then said, "Mam ... I don't know how to tell you this, but the only thing even resembling a tree on this road for thirty miles is your air freshener."
Joke War

A man goes into a funeral home to make arrangements for his wife's funeral. He tells the director that he wants his wife to be buried in a forest green dress. He asks, "Wouldn't it just be easier to bury her in the dark purple dress that she's already wearing?" But he insists that it must be her favoite color which is forest green and gives him a blank check to buy one. When the man comes back for the wake, he sees his wife in the coffin and she is wearing a beautiful forest green dress. He tells the director that she looks amazing and asks how much it cost. He says, "Actually, it didn't cost a dime. The funniest thing happened. As soon as you left, another corpse was brought in, this one wearing a forest green dress. I noticed that they were about the same size, and asked her husband if he would mind if his wife were to be buried in a purple dress. He said that it was fine with him. So... I just switched the heads."
Joke War

One day a woman comes home from work to find that her bird is laying stiff and motionless on the bottom of its bird cage. She picks it up, wrapes it in a towel and rushes to the vet. When she arrives she asks the vet "Is my bird ok? Is he still alive?" The doctor responds "I'm not entireley sure. Follow me we can do a few tests. They walk down the hallway to a small room. The vet walks out and leaves the lady with the bird in her hands. The doctor returns with a cat. The cat walks over to the bird. Sniffs it, looks at it, and walks away. The vet leaves again and this time returns with a dog. The dog walks over to the bird. Sniffs it, looks at it, and walks away. The doctor looks at the woman and says "I'm sorry m'am your bird is dead" As the woman is walking out of the vets office the lady at the front counter stops her. "Im sorry ma'm you can't leave just yet, here is your bill" she says. The lady hands her a bill for $800. The woman gasps. "$800? What for"? The woman at the desk responds "For the cat scan and the black lab test".
Joke War

The People vs Santa Clause aka St. Nicholas Prosecutor: Let me get this straight, you see them when they are sleeping, you know when they are awake, you know if they been bad or good, so they better be good for goodness sake? Santa: That's right. Prosecutor: Or what? What would you do Santa?! What would you do?!Santa: Krampus will come and whip them with birch. But the good boys and girls get toys.Prosecutor: How do you deliver these toys?Santa: Through the Chimney with care. Prosecutor: So you broke an entry. Do you have any aliases? Santa: St. Nicholas Prosecutor: several witnesses claim they heard you yell, "ho ho ho" after leaving a house that you broke into. Why did you yell this?Santa: I was laughing.Prosecutor: Really? What is St. Nicolas the Patron Saint of?Santa: repentant thieves, pawnbrokers, and prostitutes. Prosecutor: The prosecution rests.
Joke War

Teacher: Good morning class I have a couple of riddles to start off this morning. I have something here that's round red and good to eat? Sarah: an apple? Teacher: No it's a tomato but you're thinking. Teacher: I have something here that's yellow and odd shaped and good to eat? Michael: A banana? Teacher: No it's a pear but you're thinking. Little Johnny: Teacher, I have a riddle. Teacher: Okay Johnny tell us your riddle. Little Johnny: I have something in my pocket that's round, hard and has a head on it? Teacher: Johnny, you go see the principal right this instant. Little Johnny: It's a nail, but you're thinking.
gay marriage is not the same as marriage equality

The topic is "gay marriage is not the same as marriage equality."We are meant to be debating that. I am con, you are pro. Gay marriage being legal has nothing to do with this, unless you meant to debate a different topic which I would gladly accept.Proof that they are the same: http://www.marriageequality.org... - a site about gay marriage, also known as marriage equality.http://en.wikipedia.org... - A source I trust less, this being Wikipedia, but proof nonetheless.www.advocate.com/politics/marriage-equality - More evidence.*****With all of that out of the way, here are a few reasons why gay marriage should be allowed (note that this has nothing to do with the topic, and any arguments following my 5 stars in this debate can be dismissed):1. Government benefits from metting married. (http://www.nolo.com... )2. Their rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, which people bring up all the time. (http://en.wikipedia.org... ) 3. Personal reasons, me being a lesbian and all :P
gay marriage is not the same as marriage equality

Well the problem with multiple spouses is that it devalues the sex that has more spouses in that relationship, generally women.The problem with incest is that the offspring is more likely be severely damaged in some way, hurting society as we use money to help the child after birth. But, again, this is still a man and a woman, it is still the definition of marriage.The problem with homosexual marriage is that...? Sex will happen before or after marriage, so not diseases. Government benefits for the married couple would also apply to other marriages, like a brother and sister marriage. Them wanting to get married hurts no one more than a straight couple getting married (we're talking about a couple that is completely loyal, we aren't involving the idea of cheating on their spouse and spreading a disease, if they even have one.), so marriage equality only applies to them, as their marriage hurts no one but themselves (and the themselves part is a maybe).
gay marriage is not the same as marriage equality

1. I am unable to see that video link due to problems with my laptop.2. You have yet to challenge the definition of marriage equality that I posted in round 1 with a definition of your own (Unless a new definition is in the video that I cannot see).3. If relatives of the opposite sex are in love and wish to be married, so be it. They still fall under the definition of marriage (used in round 3, definition 1a:1 ). The problem is that incest leads to severe problems with the child, so of course people are going to be against it.
gay marriage is not the same as marriage equality

well as you can see gay marriage is not the same as marriage equality. you would have to agree with statement 1 and 3. marriage equality involves more than just gay marriage. this being said, there are more factor to marriage equality than just gay marriage. if you disagree with statement 1 or 3, which many gay rights activist do, than you are not fully for marriage equality. http://www.youtube.com... check out this citation I posted and you will see exactly what I mean
gay marriage is not the same as marriage equality

"1.) do you believe a brother and a sister at least the age of 18 should be allowed to get married?"If they are in love and both consent, yes. Now due to the problem of deformities from having children they should only adopt, should they want a child. If they do want to have a child together it is up to them, I wouldn't stop them. They would simply need to live with the consequences and difficulties of a child with severe deformities."2.) do you think more then 2 people should be allowed to get married?"Marriage is defined as: 1a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> (http://www.merriam-webster.com...)More than two people is not mentioned in that. "3.) do you think a father/mother should be allowed to get married to their son/daughter?"See answer to #1. You have yet to challenge the definition of marriage equality itself, all you are doing is asking questions. Marriage is defined in the answer to #2, and if family members in love wish to be married, they should. Multiple spouses is not brought up in either definition of marriage, or the definition of marriage equality. This isn't mentioning that, unlike the others, having multiple spouses makes whatever sex the multiple spouses are seem worth less than the sex of the one spouse, thus pushing back full equality of the sexes.
gay marriage is not the same as marriage equality

ok so let me ask you a few questions. 1.) do you believe a brother and a sister at least the age of 18 should be allowed to get married? 2.) do you think more then 2 people should be allowed to get married? 3.) do you think a father/mother should be allowed to get married to their son/daughter? as you can see if you are for marriage equality, you have to be for more than just gay marriage. homosexuals have changed words around to fit their benefits. i dont feel this part is really part of the debate, but if you want me to give examples in the next round, i will.
People should know what a gun is before they vote against it.

You say that knives and hammers are essential for everyday life, well so are guns, nearly 2 million people use guns to provide for their families, what would you tell them if you took their means of food away? Also, if people are getting hurt by owning a gun, that's their fault! You are supposed to know how to use a gun, but it ends up getting yourself hurt. I have a hunters safety permit, they teach you everything you need to know! But once again, people don't necessarily know what or how to use a gun, and they get themselves hurt, which only adds to the negative opinion about guns. Criminals would still find a way to get guns, but law abiding citizens would be helpless! They couldn't defend themselves against the guns that aren't legally bought. If you are a criminal, you can find ways to get guns, but law abiding citizens can't.
People should know what a gun is before they vote against it.

Thank you for your insightful arguement. I would first like to say, that in an arguement I made the previous time, that the pwople in the home with the gun are 43 more times likely to get hurt. And there have been numerous cases where people have been killed. 33, 000 to be exact. In 2011 only. This is way to large of a number of people dieing just by guns. No we do not outlaw knives or hammers because those tools have been deemed essential to everyday life. My opponent ultimately looked toward his commenters opinions, for use of evidence. And I supplied much more evidence. My opponent says that guns take the blame for people who use it. Those men who dI'd the crime are going to end up in jail, and the gun is also to blame. If we didn't have guns we would have less people dieing, and a safer enviornment. In Chicago it costs over 900 dollars to own a gun. Not a lot of people are rich. So Not many people have guns, and people have other ways of protecting themselves. Guns are not the only resort.
People should know what a gun is before they vote against it.

I did not mean to say that people have no idea what a gun is. What I meant by this is, people have only negative opinions because that's all you hear about on the news, bad happenings. I think people should know the good things guns do. Yes, the gun kills and destroys, but it can be used for good. It can be used to protect the innocent, and our armed forces use them every day to protect our freedom. When a man goes out with a knife and kills someone, do we blame the knife, one of the commenters made very good points, why do people blame guns? When a fire gets out of control, do we ban fire because it killed people? No, we normally blame the person who started it, a gun is a tool, and it's use is determined by the carrier. If a person went out with a hammer, would we outlaw hammers? No, we would deem that man crazy, and go on; but not with guns, instead a tool takes the blame for a person's use of it.
People should know what a gun is before they vote against it.

I accept. Thank you for a great debate topic. And for an insightful arguement. So, I'd like to assume my opponent is a hunter, as his name clearly says "thebaskingdeerhunter". So he will be for guns, if his name has a true meaning. His opening line of his arguement states " I don't think its fair that people get to vote on getting rid of guns when they have no idea what a gun is." I would like to refute this by saying, The Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco And Firearms states that 33, 000 Americans were involved in gun related deaths in 2011 alone. So obviously the majority of people know what guns are, since they're publicized on the news, and such. So his arguement there is inherently false. He then says "persons opinion is based on a video game, or tv, or a shooting on the news." Every person has their right to an opinion, first off, and shootings on the news would lead to someone having a negative opinion. Even after six gun massacres in a year alone. His next statement says "Guns aren't bad, they're actually quite good". Might I ask for what? Killing people? He might say for protection in homes and such. But in a study by the England Journal of medicine and guns, "guns in homes are 43 times morw likely to kill a family member, aquaintance, or friend then to kill an intruder." Guns are not good at all, as my evidence has stated, they are only used for destruction. Destruction in which guns are not worth. Would you rather have to defend yourself with another object? Or have thousands of people dying every year? Banning guns completely will end all gun related deaths, and set an example that we actually care that children, teens, and adults are dying because of guns. Thank you and I await your response.
People should know what a gun is before they vote against it.

I don't think it is fair that people get to vote on getting rid of guns when they have no idea what a gun is! It may not be true for some people, but for must it seems like it! If a person's opinion is based off a video game, TV, or a shooting on the news, where does that get us! People need to understand that guns aren't bad, they are actually quite good. Yes, background checks should be tight, but should we take away guns entirely? I don't know a single person who has shot a gun and is against it, sure, there will be people, but it is hard to vote about guns if you hardly know what one is. Seeing a gun in Bass Pro doesn't count, you have to know to comprehend!
The republican party for moral and political incentives should take a pro-gay rights stance.

As much as it embarrasses me to do this I must concede to a superior opponent. I would like to thank my opponent for his time and effort and apologize for not being able to follow through with the final rounds of the debate, however I am currently unable to think of a proper argument to contend against my opponent. I would also like to say that I am very impressed by my opponents argument, and that is why I am so unable to create a proper argument. Again, very sorry for not seeing this debate through in a proper manner.
The republican party for moral and political incentives should take a pro-gay rights stance.

This argument regards the United States republican party only. Pro-gay rights is defined as being officially in favor of legal homosexual marriage. This argument is to be largely based on logic and reason but any relevant facts are encouraged. No new arguments may be brought up during the third and fourth rounds. No arguments based on religion or faith may be brought up. All arguments should focus on the moral benefits/negatives and the political benefits/negatives of taking a pro-gay stance.
All people should expect to live an equal life.

now it's time for my rebuttals... first, i would like to rebut about his argument on wage... actually in Taiwan, people their has equal wages. When it comes to lifestyle, the Muslims are the most equal, because they live their lives following laws. If these people can do it, why cant we. When it comes to personality, well all of us has the same emotions, therefore we could have the same personality, the thing is we just don't want 2 show this feelings and personalities...... Now i beg u 2 please vote for pro.... coz dis debate sucks!!!! Again vote for pro... don't mind my opponent, he's just a foolish debater... i HAVE GIVEN YOU THE REASONS WHY WE ARE EQUAL... THANK YOU TO ALL THAT WOULD VOTE FOR ME AND I ALSO THANK DOES WHO DOESNT VOTE ANYONE IN THIS DEBATE....
All people should expect to live an equal life.

When you accepted this open debate, you agreed to my definition of equal life. Therefore, in this debate, Equal- same lifestyle, wage, and happiness As this is the last round of an unfortunate debate, I would lke to remind the audience that my opponent has not proved that we should or even can live equal lives. He has not negated my points, and they stand. Further, my opponent's argument concerning the afterlife does not coincide with 'life', as the after life is after, and not part of, life. People cannot feasibly live an equal life and therefore a person should not expect to live a life equal to another. Though we were created equal, we will not live an equal life. Therefore, I urge all the voters who took the time to read this to vote CON. Thank you.
All people should expect to live an equal life.

in afterlife, we are all equal in the eyes of GOd... we are his creations.... therefore we are equal to each other. And if you don't think like that, your stupid.... equality does not refer to lifestle, wage and yadayada... it refers to what we are. we are humans belonging to the human race... that's why we are all equal. Because we are all humans... with the same emotions.... EAT MY ARGUMENT>>> as for the judges, good day
All people should expect to live an equal life.

My opponent has brought up life length as proof that we can all live an equal life. Well, in terms of length, no one can live an equal life. All people cannot live equal lives. All people will have different lifespans. In addition, many people will not live to be teenagers or adults. Plenty of people do not even grow old. People in different countries tend to live to be different ages. http://www.infoplease.com... Many countries have a high infant mortality rate. http://en.wikipedia.org... https://www.cia.gov... In addition, my points have not been addressed. Extend them into this round. If not answered to, they will stand next round. I remind my opponent: "Equal is referring to livestyle, wage, and happiness."
All people should expect to live an equal life.

ok... if that's the point then this is my argument, we live an equal life, its not because of wage, lifestyle and decision but because we go through the same life cycle. therefore we are all living an equal life. We get born, be a child, then a teenager, than an adult until we grow old and die. A crazy boy would be a teenager, then an adult, then he becomes an oldman then die. Same with a smart girl, she lives as a kid, then becomes an adult until she becomes old and die. Surely, each and every human would follow this life cycle..... as for the judges, you decide, am i not right about this?