BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
should we nuke all of the middle east

Thank you for posting an argument! Rebuttals: "at this point in the world they have no use but oil they should just get killed" First of all, you concede that Middle Eastern countries have a use. Producing oil so we can use it is most definitely important, so we can't just nuke them for... having a good purpose. "sure there are civilians but honestly what use do they have for society other than make more terrorists why help them just nuke em" So because some civilians join terrorist groups like Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and ISIS, that means *every* single one of the civilians deserve to die for it without even being responsible? We can use ballistic massive and napalm bombs on the base of terrorist groups if we really want to reduce the issue of terrorism. Killing the civilians is just wrong. By your logic, we should nuke every country (including ourselves) just because each of them have terrorist groups. Maybe North Korea doesn't have any, I am not sure, but destroying a huge amount of populations from controls is wrong, especially for such a bad purpose. This also includes ALL of the middle east (according to your resolution). Israel is an ally of ours, but because they are in the Middle East, we should bomb them anyway? The problem with your argument is you are supporting nuking all of the middle east due to the intentions of terrorism, which in this case makes me assume you are focusing on certain countries like Iran and Iraq. But since your resolution implies we shall nuke ALL of the Middle East, you have set yourself up for more burdens. Case: This map will be a useful resource. This shows all of the countries in the modern Middle East. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org... This includes Israel, which is one of our allies. Are you seriously saying that we should nuke Israel for no particular reason, or rather, because of something that is an issue on other countries? It would be morally wrong for us to bomb one of our allies, and even nuking our enemies in the Middle East would be problem. We are killing lots of citizens who did nothing wrong at all, and by your logic, punishing them for the actions of others. If you want to get rid of terrorism in the Middle East, or at the very least reduce it, we should only kill the terrorists. When ISIS attacked France, they retaliated by bombing Syria, but only using jets, which shows that they are using less firepower than a nuke, which kills innocent people.
Black holes are real

A black hole has a finite mass, if it didnt then it would swallow the universe. But to disprove that it has to be infinitely massive, the singularity is a point where volume goes to zero, not where mass goes to infinity. "It is a point with zero volume, but which still holds mass, due to the extreme stretching of space by gravity. The density is mass over volume, so we say that in the limit is volume to 0, the density goes to infinity, but that doesn't mean mass goes to infinity." this proves the there is a mass and that tells us that E=MC2 is positive for a black hole to form, and implode. http://physics.stackexchange.com...
Black holes are real

Just because Hawking said it, does not make it true. But let's assume your hypothesis - a great deal of matter compressed into a small pocket. First we need to look at relativity, as I have previously stated. Because of the supposedly huge gravitational pull, the black hole would implode very quickly, and, as always, would therefore explode. However the force which is expelled or perhaps created by the explosion be immediately rendered moot by E=mc", because, as we know, there is no mass, at least not relative to mass as we know it, in space. The force would immedistely dissipate or carry on forever.
Black holes are real

Ok first a black hole is anything but empty space. Rather, it is a great amount of matter packed into a very small area - think of a star ten times more massive than the Sun squeezed into a sphere approximately the diameter of New York City. The result is a gravitational field so strong that nothing, not even light, can escape. In 1967 john wheeler ( a physicist) coined the name "black hole" mostly because from a telescope it was a large black circle that did not let light pass through, throughout the years recent technology made a 3-D image, it's a small pocket with a large dense gravitational pull, that did not let a thing go by, not even light. How black holes are made, mostly from a large supernova, when all the atoms from a sun implode due to know oxygen it creates a small or large black hole. We have seen this process many times in space using telescopes and modern technology. There are many pictures of black holes, and many X-ray videos as well that explain how they are made and what they are. Any way here are a bunch of sites that prove black holes exist, I can't say much more or it would be plagiarizing. . http://science.nasa.gov... . http://www.cfa.harvard.edu... Just found out that hawking disproved black holes with his new wild theory.
Black holes are real

First I would just like to point out the odds are in favour of your winning, due to black holes being a largely recognised theory. Now, to my hypothesis. I AM open to the existence of black holes, however, if E=Mc2 (for those who do not know, this equation means Energy=Mass multiplied by the speed of light squared) and there is no gravity in space, meaning that there is also no measurable mass, then a black hole exhibiting such force would be implausible - energy is first required for force, and according to Einstein's theory of special relativity (E=Mc2), there is no mass for which to be multiplied. This would mean that a black hole is impossible. No energy means no force and no force would mean there are no black holes.
American love

o God dammit he can't cancel I guess I'll pick up the pieces of this round. Yes there is hope for this country in a far far future but right now America is intolerable for our stupid mistake. We have gone into a war and wasted billions of tax payers money. Now some people say this may be because of bush and not America well if this country was so good ad strong we would not have voted for bush a second time. Now lets brake it down into a simpler slower track because I don't think your getting this. What did we start this war for? A desperate attempt to steal oil. Now some of the candidates think of bringing the troops out of Iraq. I think thats the first step. But this country is in such a big debt the candidates themselves might have to do things they didn't even plan for in there term. So I think this country should take it one step at a time and rebuild itself but for now I am against our bad decisions and against our current president.
American love

You are a friggin idiot listen if you really think that will happen then give all your money away to the government because we don't have any money ll that money went into blowing our own teenagers heads off. I think you are an idiot and to think I can't make any good statements or back anything up because theres nothing to argue about clearly you are an idiot who was like home schooled by 2 sheep. I am sorry to the public if there is anyone who would like to have a real debate with me about this topic I would love to this ends the debate. btw I keep accidentally putting arguments in the comment zone lol
ban islam

Well in just two round you have threatened to kill over 1.7 billion people and even me personally, which I would assume is against the terms and conditions. This makes you no better than any other mass murderer or tyrant in history. If you're going to claim that Islam is inhumane then at least show your good side instead of your psychopathic side. And We have not sent you, [O Muhammad], except as a mercy to all of mankind. (21:107) And the servants of the Most Merciful are those who walk upon the earth gently, and when the ignorant address them [harshly], they say [words of] peace. (25:63) Even though you still literally want to kill me if I was there with you, I'm still supposed to talk to you nicely until you actually are going to kill me. Islam will soon surpass Christianity and Islam currently has about 1.7 billion followers, banning the entire religion is ludicrous. Islam is not a threat to humanity, Islam is a mercy to humanity and no matter what you say or how you say it, we will continue spreading peace.
ban islam

ban islam or kill all muslims are the only solution to the sickness of islams existence muslims are not immoral if they have no choice.. islam must be banned from all civilized nations, so that the curse of war becomes clear to muslims, as they will be forced to live in muslims countries or will have to convert to escape that horror prison.. islam is not a religion but a political way of creating a war with no end.. a religion is relied on, while islam is forced on people.. so without a choice islam is not immoral, as the only other option is death.. and survival is morality a muslims follow the koran.. terrorism
The only possible origin for the revelation story of Moses is from the event itself

I am posting this round to concede the debate to Con. After examining his arguments, it seems clear he has managed to sufficiently point out integral flaws with Rabbi Keleman's proof. There are a few minor details that I continue to disagree with, but none of them at this point are significant enough to counter the main contentions Con brought against my argument. I appreciate Con's thoughtful arguments and willingness to debate this topic. It has indeed lived up to being an eye-opening and thought provoking debate. Should I, at any point, think of any significant responses to Con's arguments, I would be willing to debate those points should he be interested as well.
The only possible origin for the revelation story of Moses is from the event itself

Rabbi Lawrence Kelemen has developed a list of names tracing the Jews alive today back to Moses and the Sinai event (http://www.simpletoremember.com...). This list was referenced in a past debate in which MoralityProfessor used it to establish the existence of God via the inability for this story to have been introduced in any other way. The previous debate that inspired this one can be found here: http://www.debate.org... The arguments for existence come almost exclusively from "A Rational Approach to the Divine Origin of Judaism" () by Lawrence Kelemen and the Kuzari Principle. If possible, I'd like to ignore the Kuzari and whether God exists, but instead focus on specifically the claim that the only way (or if you like, most rational/reasonable/likely way) for this story to have started is from the actual event itself--that God spoke to the Jews at Mt. Sinai.
the catholic church is the single most corrupt and indoctrinating organisation since time began

Few who are members of the Catholic faith truly realise its shocking history, in this debate I hope to drag up some hardcore reality check material to throw in the face of all those self delusional bigots who dare to assume they, above others, are favored by "a higher being". Be under no illusion I despise religion and all its implications, blind faith is the single most potent formula for the total downfall of all society. If anyone wants to disagree with me then join and we can talk it out, but I believe any argument you give me will pale to insignificance in the face of the most simple, factual and beautiful thing in the universe.........Truth
Having children is unethical

I apologize; I considered that standard debate rules were already agreed upon by both parties.You are right, for your argument you want a specific context: that is why you must define words at the beginning of the first argument! Otherwise it is left to the other party to create the definitions. "Ethics" is a philosophical context that needs to be defined in the debate. "Having children" is self-explanatory, however my definition simply implies that having children is not always a biological process.I apologize if I have come off as disrespectful or irresponsible. However, as I have said before, semantics is a crucial part to the debate and is listed as an important fact in the DDO introductory guide. I have put in effort to create an argument on semantics and state my contention in regards to the debate as whole ("my only contention I offer is that family is a natural process, and thus is the fundamental conduct of human life..."). As I have stated before using a reputable source, ethics is told in regards to an entire social group while morals (which are not in the resolution) is an individual compass. The entire social group at hand in this debate, humanity, obviously accepts and has been proven through years of evolution to be a natural, accepted process. It is ingrained in our DNA to have children and reproduce, and so while in the future it may be considered immoral to have children, it will always be ethical, an accepted social conduct.My opponent states that it was disrespectful "both to me and to the people out there who may have actually wanted to know whether they ought to have children." however this makes no sense because all of my opponents contentions are placed on the far future, beyond most of the current voter's lifetime, and thus his argument ALSO doesn't explain why the current audience ought to have children.And, even if you choose to ignore the semantics argument, my contention has yet to be touched.
Having children is unethical

"I gave my source to these rules, which comes from a prestigious national debate association, however I would gladly provide more evidence for this debate rule should my opponent demand it." It is nonsense to talk about "evidence" for a rule. Any rule that is not agreed upon by all parties is not a rule. "All of these words that my opponent has used can have multiple contexts." Of course words can have multiple contexts, but in the context of my argument, there is only one context! I challenge anyone to read my opening statement and be confused about what I meant by "unethical," "having," or "children." Oy vey! A good debate is not only a competitive exercise, but a cooperative one. We must both at least make some effort to understand what the other is trying to say. Instead, you have put in considerable effort to twist my message and sabotage the debate. That is both irresponsible and disrespectful, both to me and to the people out there who may have actually wanted to know whether they ought to have children.
Having children is unethical

I gave my source to these rules, which comes from a prestigious national debate association, however I would gladly provide more evidence for this debate rule should my opponent demand it. Semantics is an essential part to any debate, and there is ample evidence to this rule. The official rules for Debate. org never specify the rules of the debate outline, and thus you should look towards this rule in this debate because it is an official rule to all forms of debate (as proved through the evidence provided in my subsequent argument) while my opponent is simply arguing that, since it is not mentioned on the website, rules concerning national debate requirements and conduct should be ignored. All of these words that my opponent has used can have multiple contexts. "Having children" is not birth-specific, as my definition explains. Those who adopt a child, or anyone adult who has a child in a family (whether it is of biological relation or not), would logically describe themselves as having children. My definition comes from dictionary. com, one of the most popular online dictionaries, and clearly should at least be considered (Even if you choose to not to agree to the official rules of debate that explain that the definition given by Con, in the event that Pro does not provide any during his/her first argument, must therefore be accepted without refutation, you must choose my definition because it comes from a reputable source. ). Something that is ethical is not always moral, nor are moral things inherently ethical. As explained on the notorious Diffen website (which is sourced in my earlier argument), ethics derive from the societal systems and norms, while morals are an internal, individual concept. This is an important note, as the societal systems for all of human history has been foundationally family units. Before all else, humans have traveled and lived in accordance to biological, familial tribes. Thus, as I have explained in my opening argument (which has not yet been refuted, along with all of my contentions), family is the most important human and societal organization, and is the most primitive form of society itself. So thus, when we look to something that is "unethical", we must look towards something that would be unsupported by societal systems and go against societal norms, both of which are foundationally family. Clearly, as the Darwinian evidence of years of evolution and survival of the fittest proves, family is the most important societal value and thus not having children would directly go against the views and norms of society itself, therefore, again, having children is verbatim following the lines of "ethical". My opponents arguments have been refuted due to the rules of debate definitions. And, in the event that the voters do not choose to accept the rules defined by a national debate association, I am still winning the debate because my opponent has yet to mention and refute any of my points, while instead only focusing on defending his. I have managed to both recrystalize my arguments and refute his, while he has only done the former.
Having children is unethical

I'm not sure where these "formal rules of debate," which you have used to defeat my argument on technicality, came from. It doesn't matter. They are not the official rules of Debate.org and I did not agree to them. The purpose of a definition is to prevent misunderstanding. My resolution, "Having children is unethical," is perfectly clear and unambiguous, and yet you have attempted to define it using bizarre, obscure definitions which are obviously a deliberate sabotage of my message. A reasonable definition of "ethical" is something like "morally good; correct; avoiding activities that harm people or the environment." I don't think there could possibly have been any confusion about this. To say that something is ethical just because that's what people do or have always done is nonsense. Therefore, in order to show that having children is ethical, you would have to show not only that it has always been done, but that it is worth continuing. I hold that my first and second arguments have yet to be refuted.
Having children is unethical

I aim to show that it is in general unethical to have children. First, having children contributes to population growth. The world's population is projected to reach 10 billion by 2100, and Earth can support 10 billion people if everyone is eating nothing but grains. It would only support 2.5 billion if everyone were eating like Americans are eating now [1]. This is assuming we don't find a way to drastically increase the human lifespan, and we very well might. Either way, there would be little land left for wildlife. And the bigger the population gets, the faster the earth will be destroyed by man-made climate change. Second, there are already 150 million children in the world without parents [2]. Adults who want to have children could do better by adopting. Although the current systems various countries have in place for adoption are immensely expensive and inefficient, making it difficult for them to find homes for even a small fraction of the total number of orphans, a sea change in society's attitudes about family, children, and adoption could make such programs unnecessary. The first step is doing away with the stigma on adoption and leading by example, thus increasing the demand for adoptive services. Finally, the act of having children is inherently a selfish act. People have children because they want children, not because they expect that the children (who do not yet exist) want to be born. Most people alive today are glad they were born, but none of them have any idea what it would have been like to not be born, so they don't really know. Life is short and tragic, so it may well be that it is unethical to create a person who must endure the suffering of life and, someday, the heartbreak of death. [1] http://www.livescience.com... [2] http://mic.com...
Death Battle: Twilight Sparkle vs Optimus Prime

This is the final round. It's time to see who is stronger; The Princess of Friendship, Twilight Sparkle, or the leader of the Autobots, Optimus Prime.(PS a "witch" is the ugly old woman who makes potions. "which" refers to "which apple should I eat", or "Twilight can lift the sun, which is an incredible feat".)Cross Examination:"In Prime The T.V show it enplanes that the Star Saber can only be welded buy the 13 primes"At least you're saying words now. "Enplane" means getting on an airplane. "Weld" means heating up 2 metal objects intensely so they melt and attach.Onto the real matter here: When does he talk about the Star Saber in the video?"Optimums Being the last Prime is now the only one who can Wild the Sword"You mean wield the sword? Also, ignore Spell Checker when you're talking about a character. "Optimus" is the right spelling."In Season 2 Episode 20 Megaton, enraged that Optimums found the star saber, sent a huge boulder down a mountain in an attempt to squash Optimums. "You mean Megatron? A megaton is a measure of force."However, the sword's power was so great that it cut the boulder cleanly in half."Impressive. Twilight could've blasted it to pieces or stopped its momentum altogether. And if you had a screenshot of how large this boulder was, I could further prove my point."The Matrix is a legendary talisman that is passed down to new leaders of the Auto bots, it is made of the Core of the plant the Transformers Live on"They live in a plant? I think you mean planet, not plant. I don't know if spell checker worked very well...But what IS the Matrix of Leadership? HOW is it "the most powerful thing in the universe"?My opponent sites a video. But they point out there's a lot of versions of Optimus Prime. We're using the Optimus Prime from the recent movies (directed by Michael Bay), as implied in Round 1.When I found the part where he starts talking about Optimus (17:00), it appears Optimus Prime's swords do burn that hot. However, Twilight would just teleport, and maybe try to take the swords, and use them against Optimus." Optimums has to hold back his straight so he doesn't destroy the plant he lives on it was not explained how powerful his punches are but in the classic Dev show when the moon of Cy Bert Ron the the transformers live on comes crashing down to earth after impact everyone Except Optimums Prime has creaked armor and is bleeding"Wouldn't want to burn the flower I live on, would I? (couldn't resist. sorry.) Anyways, Optimus was wounded after a crash landing. Just imagine a 10^30 kilogram laser firing at Optimus! Though Twilight might use a weaker magic output to not waste her energy, that's still a massive output, even at 1,000 kilograms, which equates to about 2204.62 pounds of force. [https://www.google.com...]Also, note that 1,000 kgs is nothing compared to 10^30 kgs, which is about 22^30 pounds.In conclusion, Twilight's magic abilities will help her avoid any devastating attacks, and Twilight can probably turn Optimus Prime into a scrapyard with a laser beam.