BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The earth is flat not spherical

Firstly, If you look out the window on an airplane or any other object that goes up at high attitudes , you can see that the earth curves, proving that Earth is a sphere, and not flat. Or if willing to pay up a small fortune, you can see the Earth curve on a recreational spaceship. Not only that photos from the 1960s and 1970s show that the earth is a sphere, not flat. And don't forget the photos and videos of the International Space Station's (ISS). Not only that, you can see more the higher your up. Here is my example; you are on a massive field of grass (Just for the example, this field is 500 Million Kilometers in area), for some reason you can see 0.1 of Kilometer more every 50 meters. The field is 0 meter sea level. You are on the field at 0 meter sea level and you can see for 10 Kilometers. Then, a 600 meter hill comes up, you decide to climb this hill. At the top you can now see for 11.2 Kilometers. This is because of the earth's curve. These pictures will show it works. http://www.smarterthanthat.com... http://www.smarterthanthat.com... Secondly, if the earth was flat, then how come there is day and night? On a spherical earth, the planet rotates counter-clockwise, making it have day and night cycles for around 12 hours, unlike the flat earth. You see, if there was a flat earth, then the sun will be beaming light and other products of the sun at all places. This will turn the earth extremely hot, killing all life on the entire "flat" earth. Thirdly, if there was a flat earth, then what happened to the people who traveled to the South Pole? Also, the UN flag doesn't mean it supports the flat earth theory. In fact this is a quote from the UN itself: A map of the world representing an azimuthal equidistant projection centred on the North Pole, inscribed in a wreath consisting of crossed conventionalized branches of the olive tree, . . . The projection of the map extends to 60 degrees south latitude, and includes five concentric circles. Official Seal and Emblem of the United Nations, Report of the Secretary-General, 15 October 1946 You see, an azimuthal equidistant projection is map type that was used by the Flat Earth Society. Ancient Egyptians may have actually used it in star maps in holy books. Also, just because it is a map projection doesn't mean it is right or accurate. For example, the Mercator map is inaccurate. They used it because it doesn't show an actual map of the earth, it shows the Earth as whole.
The earth is flat not spherical

Reason 1: If you look at ships sailing away from you, you can absolutely see that these ships submerge, this is because the Earth is round. Here is an example: http://www.smarterthanthat.com... Pretend the brown object is a ship, and the bottom blue line is your viewpoint. Reason 2: The North and South Hemispheres have different Constellations, for example the North has the Draco Constellation and the South has the Southern Cross, seen in the flags of Australia and New Zealand. If Earth was flat then we will see all of these constellations. I have more reasons, I just don't want waste them right now on your lack of intelligence. And by the way if you say if Earth was round that we will fall off, there is something called Gravity.
Anime is better than cartoons

Anime is better than cartoons by this i do not mean cartoons are bad. cartoons are entertaining but anime is much better.Its life for me. anime has a much more story and life to it which doesn't make it too much super natural. Cartoons are too obvious and supernatural. That's just too childish. but anime is watched by kids and adults too. Examples for anime's are Naruto, one piece, bleach, full metal alchemist, fairy tail
Anime is better than cartoons

I assert that cartoons are just as good as anime if not better. I will make my case by rebutting PRO's arguments." Its life for me. anime has a much more story and life to it which doesn't make it too much super natural"That argument is rather opinionated, I request you to make it objective. "Cartoons are too obvious and supernatural."That's just a claim that doesn't have any grounnd." anime is watched by kids and adults too."And so are cartoons. They are entertaining and give you a good laugh.
should the U.S. government address the rising cost of health care

I will split my opponent's arguments into two rebuttals. These will be cost and performance. I wouldn't typically use new evidence, but because my opponent did not argue last round, and this is the only round I have to rebut his case, I have no other choice. Cost: One of the attacks my opponent brought up was the cost of Obamacare, this being 1.17 trillion dollars in government spending. However, if you haven't noticed, what my opponent is advocating is also that the government has to intervene in providing healthcare. All Obamacare does to raise these prices is provide healthcare to everybody, which is exactly what my opponent is claiming the governement should do. So, all of his points against healthcare costs are moot as he will also impliment one of these systems. Performance: The first attack against Obamacare was that it leaves 30 million uncovered. However, this is actually an improvement uder the current system. Accodording to the Supreme Court Obamacare decision in June, "“CBO and JCT [Joint Committee on Taxation] now estimate that the ACA, in comparison with prior law before the enactment of the ACA, will reduce the number of nonelderly people without health insurance coverage by 14 million in 2014 and by 29 million or 30 million in the latter part of the coming decade, leaving 30 million nonelderly residents uninsured by the end of the period,”" [1]. This shows that Obamacare actually helps the level of uninsured in the US. And, as the number of uninsured continously decreases the longer Obamacare is in effect, we can assume that a steady decrease will continue over time.Additionally, these people who are currently uninsured actually have the choice and ability to become insured under Obamacare. According to President Obama "If you’re one of the 30 million Americans who don’t yet have health insurance, starting in 2014, this law will offer you an array of quality, affordable, private health insurance plans to choose from,” [1]. So not only will the number of ininsured decrease under Obamacare, those who will be uninured during the act will have the ability to become insured at any time. Because of this, Obamacare actually fulfills the United State's obligation.Voters:The main voter in the round is that my opponent never addressed my argument on the obligation placed by the resolution. Because of this, he practically accepts the fact that he needs to show how, even with Obamacare in place, the US has future obligations. The way he went about this was trying to disprove Obamacare itself, which he failed to do. Because he couldn't actually prove that the United States requires any further obligation, and he doesn't dispute the fact that he has to prove this, you must negate the resolution, thank you.Works Cited:1.) http://cnsnews.com...
should the U.S. government address the rising cost of health care

According to a new study from consulting firm Deloitte, almost one of out of 10 employers said they are going to drop coverage for their employees because of Obamacare, while another 10 percent said they “remain unsure” about what they are going to do. As the vast majority of Americans have health insurance through their workplaces, this is a huge blow. Yesterday the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) dealt another blow with its updated outlook on the health care law, as it attempted to integrate the Supreme Court’s ruling into its projections. Although Obamacare spends more than $1 trillion to get people covered, CBO predicts it will still leave 30 million Americans uninsured, falling far short of what was promised. CBO’s announcement said that Obamacare could cost less than originally projected—but the reason for the drop was that fewer people will be covered. Even with the updated cost estimate, Heritage’s Kate Nix explains: “The law will now add $1.17 trillion in new government spending over 10 years—paid for by massive tax hikes on all Americans and robbing money from the Medicare program.” Although President Obama campaigned on the dream of universal coverage, that remains simply a dream. In fact, each time the CBO has updated its projections, the number of uninsured under Obamacare increases. works cited:1]http://blog.heritage.org...
should the U.S. government address the rising cost of health care

I'd like to begin by thanking my opponent for instigating this interesting and politically inclined topic :)Today I will be arguing the U.S. government is under no further obligation to address health care costs at their current levels.Observation1: As the resolution doesn't specify any specific philosophy, and the Pro's round 1 implies that we are talking conditions in the present, we will be arguing that the US should address healthcare costs at this time.Observation2: As we are arguing over the present, all current programs, practices, and evidence should be relative to the present. Examples from previous time periods are irrelevant and future implications must be tied in with substantial proof. Definitions: Should: Used to express obligation or duty [1]. Obamacare: An informal term for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 [2].Constructive:My argument revolves around the obligation the resolution places on the US government. The argument itself is simple: the government has already addressed the issue enough to place further obligation. In 2010, the piece of legilslation known as "Obamacare" passed through Congress, putting certain limitations on Health Care companies and providing a Government-funded system for those who still can't afford the privatized health care in a system commonly referred to as "two-tier" healthcare. Because the US has already provided this system to address healthcare spending, placing further obligation on the US government would be redundant and unneeded, and thus there is no obligation on the state.Because my opponent did not provide any actual evidence in his first round, neither will I. However, he must actually prove that Obamacare will not help health coverage enough when it passes in order to prove that the US has further obligations in the upcoming rounds. If he fails to prove that Obamacare can't do it's job, then the resolution must be negated due to the reasons stated in the paragraph above.Works Cited:1.) http://www.thefreedictionary.com...2.)http://financial-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...
should the U.S. government address the rising cost of health care

The cost of health care in the United States is growing more rapidly than the incomes of those who pay for it. If these costs continue to rise as rapidly into the future, the standards of living and economic security of retirees and workers alike will be put in jeopardy. Employers will increasingly shift health care costs to their employees. Government budgets will be dominated by the need to finance the cost of Medicare and Medicaid benefits.
anime fights

I love battles like this, so I accept. But there are some questions I need answered in Round 2.1) On a scale of 1 (Goomba level) to 20 (Saitama level), how strong is the maximum of my chosen character allowed to be? A 12 would be I believe Amaterasu from Okami, but that's an estimate. But I can't choose her since I don't think she had any cartoon.2) Must my character have originated from an anime, or could they be from a video game that got an anime, like Pokemon?3) To better know my character's maxium limits, what's your chosen character?I've got so many characters and anime series in mind, and I hope your chosen character is around a 15 on the 1 to 20 scale. With that, let's fight. (Keep in mind I don't know a whole lot of anime, but the characters I do know are quite powerful.)
anime fights

Kyubi can travel to a location near instantaneously via warping. Again, Kyubi can dodge any powerful attacks that need to be charged easily by warping behind Goku. A good example of a powerful attack Goku charges is the Kamehameha, which takes either around 3 seconds, or perhaps longer, depending on how powerful Goku wants it to be. And even if Kyubi can't trick Goku's mind, Kyubi's still got high power, similar in strength to a volcano.
anime fights

goku has not also trained his physical body but has trained his mental body so he can block any mind attacks kyubi throws at him. he also also have i mentioned goku is fast enough to travel literally "instantly". he also doesnt depend on his ki as he is a master martial artist and he is a genius when it comes to fighting. he rivals the powes of the gods of destruction and is one of the few people to go through snake road which is 1 million kilometers according to screwattacks deathbattle. he also owns a power pole for combat with weapons.
anime fights

I guess I should also say this: Kyubi is also able to remove, and even change, a person's memories. And he can even manipulate the weather. Weather probably won't be of much help, but Kyubi could make Goku forget, even for a moment, any powers he has. Considering Goku's powerful, this'll be necessary.However, Kyubi hasn't been shown of any real feats. He is powerful, but he's more so about using his powers to confuse the opponent rather than fighting them head on.Talking about Goku now. He's strong, but Kyubi can easily dodge any powerful blasts, which usually require a bit to charge.
anime fights

I have chosen Kyubi from Yo-kai Watch. He can cast fire spells equal to the strength of a volcano's eruption, which is pretty scary. But that kind of power has to be charged up before it can be used. A regular flame attack is pretty powerful, though. Kyubi can also fly and teleport. He also is pretty decent in melee combat. In the cartoon, he isn't shown fighting but rather he charms women. But he's still a formidable opponent. So what can Goku do?
The paradox of the stone successfully disproves the Christian God.

1. Almighty My opponent has clearly evidenced that the Christian God is Almighty, meaning, "having more power than any other thing." However, my opponent claims that this means that he should be able to lift a "simple" rock. This is true. With so much power, God would easily lift any rock imaginable. However, what He cannot do is create a rock so heavy that He cannot lift it, because such a thing cannot exist, and the ability to create what cannot exist is not an aspect of Almightiness. 2. God's Nature My opponent says that God creating a logically impossible rock would not violate His nature. However, as we are operating under the premise that all things must be logical, God's nature must also be logical. (This is a conceded point, unattacked since last round.) Therefore, creating the logically impossible violate God's logical nature, and therefore cannot be done. Additionally, creating a rock so heavy that He could not lift it would violate God's own Almightiness, and would therefore go against His nature of Almightiness. Now, God has only claimed to have created all that is. He never claimed the ability to create a logically impossible rock, which is unsurprising. 3. Logic My opponent claims that God absolutely must follow logic, because we tend to follow logic. However, logic might only exist in this human dimension. There is no guarantee that there is another dimension, the supernatural dimension, in which logic holds no bearing. 4. Definitions My opponent asks why we cannot assume "omnipotent" to include the ability to perform logical impossibilities. The most basic reason is that there is no evidence that "omnipotent" would include such ability, and there isn't even any reason to think such a thing, as other definitions of "omnipotent" clearly fit God much better. Ultimately, there is no reason to assume "omnipotent" to include the ability to perform logical impossibilities, and therefore, one should not assume "omnipotent" to include such ability. Why assume something without reason? The alternative is to use the context clues provided by the Bible ("God cannot lie") to realize the intended definition. In conclusion, God cannot create a stone that he cannot lift because: 1. Such an action would be illogical, violating God's logical nature. 2. Such an action would create something greater than God, violating His Almightiness. Both of these reasons are compatible with the discerned definition of "omnipotence" or "Almightiness" used to describe God. Therefore, because God can be omnipotent while being unable to create a stone that He cannot lift, the paradox of the stone does not disprove the Christian God. The resolution is negated. Vote CON. With that, I would like to thank KidateK for his first debate here. Good luck in future debates!
The paradox of the stone successfully disproves the Christian God.

Now, my opponent's argument is entirely valid, short of one flaw. The Christian God is declared omnipotent in the Bible, but one cannot assume that the definition of "omnipotent" in the Bible matches the definition of "omnipotent" required for the paradox of the stone to work. There are many different definitions of "omnipotent," and due to the fact that God is mentioned to be unable to lie ("In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began" —Titus 1:2) or be around sin ("Your eyes are too pure to look on evil; you cannot tolerate wrong" - Habakkuk 1:13), the most obvious definition of "omnipotent" to describe the Christian God would be: "A deity is able to do anything that is in accord with its own nature (thus, for instance, if it is a logical consequence of a deity's nature that what it speaks is truth, then it is not able to lie)" [1]. Dictionary. com also defines "omnipotent" to have either almighty or infinite power. Almighty power, however, only includes having more power than any other thing, not even matching our conception of "omnipotence" [2]. This is yet another explanation as to why the paradox of the stone is irrelevant. Now, if we are assuming that anything that is logically impossible is absolutely impossible, then everybody's nature must be logical, and therefore, it is a logical consequence of God that he can only do what is logical. If we assume that things that are logically impossible might be possible, then God is not disproved. Now, there is yet another way to show that we absolutely cannot assume "omnipotent" to mean the ability to do the logically impossible. If we were to do so, the very word "omnipotent" would lose all value, only being able to describe things that cannot exist, and therefore would not be discussed. We would need yet another word to describe something that can do all things logically possible. The simplest solution is for omnipotent to actually have use in the world in being able to describe abilities of logical omnipotence. In conclusion, if God creates a stone that He declares too heavy for Him to lift, then He cannot lift it, and yet He would still be omnipotent. 1. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. . http://en.wikipedia.org...
The paradox of the stone successfully disproves the Christian God.

Thanks for posting such an interesting topic for an argument. I look forward to a good and enjoyable debate and wish all the luck to my opponent. Now to start off I would like to give simple definitions for some of the terms in the Stone Paradox and Resolution: 1. Omnipotent-almighty or infinite in power. According to the Random House Dictionary on Dictionary.com 2. The Christian God-The Christian God is defined as the creator of the universe (as mentioned in Genesis Chapters 1 & 2), who is pure and good (as in the books of Romans, Chapter 3 and Ephesians, Chapter 4) and who happens to also be all-powerful (as found in Matthew Chapter 19 and in the Book of Mark). Now onto my argument, the Paradox of the Stone leads to one of two scenarios: 1. The first scenario is that God cannot create a stone which he cannot lift. This scenario informs us that God is restricted to what he can and cannot do by his own power. Since he cannot create a stone which he cannot lift. 2. The second scenario is that God can create a stone which he cannot lift. This scenario informs us that God can create anything, including items that have power or some attribute that exceeds his own. This would then disprove idea that God is all-powerful, since there is something that can exceed his powerful. Being that the Christian God is defined as all-powerful and omnipotent, he should, in theory, be able to do anything. However, since the Christian God cannot create a stone which he cannot lift or he can create a stone which he cannot lift, it becomes apparent that the Christian God is not the all-powerful being that the Bible and Christian religion make him out to be. This means that either in either scenario there is something that God cannot do. Therefore, by simple reasoning and logic it becomes apparent that there is no way that there is no way for the God that is defined by the Christian Faith to exist.
The paradox of the stone successfully disproves the Christian God.

Full resolution: Because of the scenario introduced by the paradox of the stone, the God discussed in the Christian Bible (Yahweh) absolutely cannot exist in reality. The paradox of the stone is outlined here: http://en.wikipedia.org... My opponent will explain why this paradox disproves the existence of the Christian God. Naturally, PRO will have the burden of proof. Good luck to my opponent.
a terrorist w a bomb ready to explode in an unknown location should be tortured to get the info

defense: 1. fact remains you are breaking a law to do this. It is immoral because it goes against everything I listed in my first statement attacks: 1. not answer any of my questions 2. they didn't defend themselves and their side of the debate voters (why I should win): 1: I have the most amount of sources 2: I have attacked and defended numerous times whereas my opponent just attacked 3: I am defending the great United States and what we stand for. conclusion: VOTE NEG!
a terrorist w a bomb ready to explode in an unknown location should be tortured to get the info

even con's link from the new york times said that torture can sometimes be moral. it advocated it being illegal, but sometimes still moral, and perhaps it's better to force people to break the law to torture as to deter wrongful torture. but we dont have to read it in an article, it's common sense, that sometimes it's more moral to torture than not to, cause you'd be putting an ideology over milliions of lives.
a terrorist w a bomb ready to explode in an unknown location should be tortured to get the info

defenses: 1. we shall deny no man their rights, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I am not talking utilitarianism. i am talking fundamental rights and how torture is against everything the United States stands for. 2. God is a power we do not have. How can we envoke god if people don't believe in a god? Also what gives us the right to enact? What do you mean by all we need is autonomy? If we just use autonomy the world will end in chaos. 3. Torturing is not moral! You could look back at the list of morals we are not upholding. This is not moral and you are being unconstitutional! attacks: The ends do not justify the means in any way. A man threatens bombing. He has info and will not give it. This is violating the 4th amendment. How is this selfish? I am trying to protect other people. This is in no way moral! conclusion: It is not moral to torture people. If we torture people we will be going against what our nation stands for. Please side with me. Vote neg!