BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
It is and will always be a man's world

" hey i never said a man.....i wrote a man's....i hope u understand the difference b/w a man and a man's" No relevant difference. Man's simply means "A man possesses x." Man's is singular. My sentence was a valid rephrasing of the meaning of your resolution, as it referenced possession. "wont write men's world i guess." You should have. :D "men dominate the society - this was my statement in the previous debate not man dominates the world" You stated it is a man's world BECAUSE men dominate the society. Men dominate the society is not your resolution, it is your evidence, and as evidence it does not work well. If you state the resolution you typed was mistaken, that means you forfeit, because you do not uphold the resolution that this debate began under.
It is and will always be a man's world

hey i never said a man.....i wrote a man's....i hope u understand the difference b/w a man nd a man's.....u wont write men's world i guess.........men dominate the society - this was my statement in the previous debate not man dominates the world.....nd me like to apologise fr use of wrong eng in line----crux remains that it will reamin a men's world.....where i wrote men's by mistake..........nd insted of remain i typed reamin
It is and will always be a man's world

wheteher we like it or not and no matter what the facts and figures may quote , the fact reamins taht it is and will always be a man's world. There may be an occasional variant and exploits by exceptionaslly gifertd women but the crux remains that it will reamin a men's world..... women though many of them might have become a part of grt companies nd hav done grt exploits but still if see the broader view they remain exploited by all............still it is the women who r having to thinbk swo much bfore travelling at noght or doing any night job.....why ???becoz men dominate the society and don't allow progresss of women.......
The universe is infinite

Can you understand the idea of infinity? Then you can understand the idea of an infinite universe. I am not binding the term "infinite universe" by simply defining it. Infinity is a tricky concept because there is nothing that we can compare it to. We cant just look at something and say "this is infinity". Just because the human mind cannot currently fully comprehend the idea of infinity does not mean that it cant exist anywhere in our universe. I never stated, nor do I believe that the universe is constantly expanding, I believe that the universe is a static whole that is all already there. I particularly do not show any belief in the bubble theory, what is it that is holding it all in? The idea that there is some wall that is the end of the universe is far less probable, lets say that our human race is around for another 20 million years? What happens when we hit that wall? Is that simply the inevitable doom of humanity? In conclusion, there is no smallest thing in the universe therefore there is no biggest thing in the universe. We will never be able to define the smallest thing in existence, therefore we will never be able to define the largest.
The universe is infinite

Okay... To be able to grasp the concept. To concieve the idea of a universe makes it automatically limited. If you then choose to describe your concept, or conceived entity, as 'unstoppable' or 'unshrinkable' or 'infinite' you are bound to enter a paradox. The moment you try to justify your idea, you will eternally be justifying it. The moment you stop justifying it, the universe has appeared to have a limit; the limit of your subjective imagination of it.Tell me this:Why is it that if energy (hence mass) is never created nor destroyed that we are not already separated. How are you, and the computer you are typing on staying in tact?! Why isn't it all being ripped apart and pulled apart into infinite expansion? Because the universe is not infinitely expanding. The bubble theory makes sense.
The universe is infinite

I would argue that something can be defined and have no limit or boundary. This is the purest idea of infinity, a representation of something with no limit or boundary. We can definitely define things without boundaries. While yes, I cannot prove that the universe is infinite, can you prove that it is not? Your argument is just as unable to be proved as mine is. While yes, I am making an assumption in saying that the universe does not end, you are making just an assumption by saying that it does. My argument is based primarily around the fact that because things become smaller and smaller forever, they must become bigger and bigger the further you go out. Hence the positive and negative infinity. Perhaps these sizes exist on some alternate plane that we have yet to discover, however there is definitely some correlation between the two.
The universe is infinite

I wholeheartedly believe that the universe that we live in is infinite. To understand why exactly I believe this way lets take a look at the small, rather than the large. I think that it is relatively safe to say that no matter how good our microscopes get, we will never really find "the smallest thing in existence". As long as we find something smaller that we can give a name, there will be something that it is made up of that will eventually be defined as substance and given a name as well. There is no limit to how small something can be. Branching from this ideology, who is to say that there is a limit to how big something can be? If the universe that we live in is infinitely small then who is to say that it is not infinitely big? One could argue that the idea of infinity is a complete human conception, but I believe that the further and further we explore in modern science our idea of infinity is turning into a reality. The fact that there is nothing that can be observed as infinite in our universe leads people to believe that it has some sort of end, but if it does what is that end? Do you honestly believe that there is some sort of material wall that prevents us from leaving our universe? I do, however, believe that there could potentially be something out there bigger than what we would call "Space". "Space" is a funny term because it is defined as "A continuous area or expanse that is free, available, or unoccupied" under this definition, I would say that space could be defined as infinite, but if you define space as the known universe then I think that there just might be a whole new layer composed of something that we do not have the means to observe now.
Napoleon Bonaparte had a small penis.

While those stories are interesting, all that proves is how big the penis is currently. It does not say how big the penis was when it was attached to the body of said Frenchmen. For example, If I cut off the ear of Christopher Eccleston (Someone known for having large ears)... and then put it in a container of sorts... how big will the ears be in 10 years, 20 years and so on. The body shrinks after death as it begins to decay. Also, do we know how big his penis was when he had an erection? Knowing how penises work, many people who have what is thought to be a small penis grow to be about "average" when erect. So really are you talking about proof of how small he was when flaccid? And do we have evidence of how big it as when erect? Please provide measurements in your debate of both of those things to prove Napoleon had a below average penis size. Because so far... (and I measured), my penis is about 3 inches (a little less actually) flaccid. But when I'm erect it hits the almighty average size of 6 inches. So I am below average flaccid, but right at the average of erect. Then there are men who are "above average" flaccid and right at average when erect. Then there are men who are above average when flaccid and below average when erect. You are going to have to clarify provide both states of Napoleon's penis than just 'hearsay'. http://www.menshealth.co.uk... http://en.wikipedia.org...
Napoleon Bonaparte had a small penis.

The owner of Napoleon"s penis only recently died and prior to that, he did not allow it to be photographed. That said, there is no reason to doubt the pro position. Here are several stories from mainstream newspapers and magazine verifying the existence of Napoleon"s penis including its smallness, the he "had" a penis, meaning the corpse of Napoleon does not have a penis. My sources include Time Magazine, the New York Times, National Public Radio, the Independent in the United Kingdom, as well as the British Huffington Post website. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] I will wait on Con, but I can provide more evidence, but I want to show it does exist. [1] http://www.independent.co.uk... [2] Here is a Time Magazine Top 10 Most Famous Body Parts: http://www.independent.co.uk... [3] Huffington Post UK story on existence and smallness of penis: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk... [4] A New York Times article on the history of Napoleon"s penis: http://www.nytimes.com... [5] Here is a link to an NPR story as well as podcast on Napoleon"s penis: http://www.npr.org...
Napoleon Bonaparte had a small penis.

Napoleon Bonaparte = Napoleon Bonaparte (15 August 1769 " 5 May 1821) the French military and political leader who rose to prominence during the latter stages of the French Revolution and its associated wars in Europe. Or exactly the person you thought I meant. Had = past and past participle of have A = used as a function word with nouns to form adverbial phrases of quantity, amount, or degree Small = according to data based on historical averages. For Napoleon, this meant small based on average size of penis of his contemporary Frenchmen as well as small meaning below the average size today. Penis = noun \G2;pē-nəs\ :the part of the body of men and male animals that is used for sex and through which urine leaves the body And the equals sign = defines what things mean This debate is exactly what it sounds like. The wording unambiguous.
Denmark and Iceland should meet together to switch names between Greenland and Iceland

Since Greenland is mostly an island of ice, and Iceland is generally Green throughout the year, I believe Denmark(who controls the territory of Greenland) should meet with Iceland and have the two islands swap names. This way the names can be representative of what they actually are. This isn't really a serious debate, but figured I'd put it out here. Only two rounds of debating since I don't see much to debate on, and 500 character limit.
Resolved: That schools should regularly drug test their athletes to prevent drug use.

Although my opponent has proposed very useful facts, he failed to cite his sources. In result, these facts are not credible to the argument. My opponent also failed to answer the whole question that actually stood before him. Would private schools, that are allowed to recruit players, be considered illegitimate in the conference? Along with this, my opponent also took my argument out of context. I said that coaches are able to warn their athletes about drugs without having to use drug tests. Back to the argument at hand, states are the ones who have the policing power to keep their people healthy. Do you think you will be able to have every state cooperate with drug testing? Is the state government going to be able to fund all public schools to administer drug testing of their athletes? Many public school districts are already having issues passing levies that are simply for operational purposes. And based on my opponent's opinion, private schools should be held to the same standard of drug testing as public schools. However, how do you plan on state governments regulating private schools when you said yourself that they have to be affected by national law? As a result, I stick to my argument that schools should not regularly drug test their student athletes.
Resolved: That schools should regularly drug test their athletes to prevent drug use.

I would like to start off by stating that private schools with athletes that consume performance enhancing drug would be considered a illegitimate team in a conference. Also at the end of your statement you stated that coaches are able to stop athletes from consuming drug which fall on my side of the argument stating that we should drug test athletes. Public Schools - in 2002 the supreme court ruled that public schools have the legal permission to drug test their athletes -In 2005 and 2006, 373 school even received government funding to do drug tests Private Schools -They cannot be directly affected by state laws. -But they can be affected by national laws. - due to not wanting to be suspected of drug testing many private schools drug test their athletes -It is also in their best benefit to drug test their athletes because if they are taught their whole team can be eliminated from their conference and put a bad view on their team. Benefits Of Drug Testing - Many people fear that drug testing will violate a student, but in contrast there are several way these tests can be completed without violating a student. -If a student does test positive, public schools are prohibited from sending the results to any legal office; therefor, students are protected. -Along with testing positive, school officials can suspend or expelled any student from a sport. -decrease drug abuse in teens
Resolved: That schools should regularly drug test their athletes to prevent drug use.

First, I would like to define a key word that my opponent conveniently overlooked. This key term is "schools." The only schools that could have regulations enforced on them by the government would be public schools. However, this still could allow private school students to use enhancing drugs, AND they are also able to recruit new players. Based on your previous argument, would private schools be considered as illegitimate teams in a conference? Also, in your argument, you stated that coaches can only use drug tests to warn and inform their players about the effects of the drugs. However, it is evident that coaches can warn their players before it gets to the point of actual consumption.
Resolved: That schools should regularly drug test their athletes to prevent drug use.

Schools should regularly drug test their athletes to prevent performance enhancing drugs. These drugs give you a higher advantage on the field and can get you disqualified from a game or season. it is the schools responsibility to regulate drug tests too prevent drugs and be a legitimate team in a conference. Also drugs tests will allow coaches to warn and inform athletes about the effects of these drugs on their bodies and mind and prevent them from using them in the future.
Olympic Spirit is Dead

I must again preface my rebuttals with a clarification. Pro has offered a new, vague definition of Olympic spirit as the "whole event. " Not only does the timing and ambiguity of this meaning demand it be summarily dismissed, it does nothing to further his case. The event as a whole, as well as its athletics, obviously continues to thrive. Olympic spirit refers to an expression of sportsmanship, international unity, and effort through competitive athleticism and spectator support. As my opponent has conceded that these elements continue to take place, the resolution is negated. ::Rebuttals:: "I feel its wrong to think that the spirit of the olympics comes from within the athletics alone, becuase then the olympics would be no different (albeit larger) than the world championships…" Pro makes no attempt to explain why the Olympics should be viewed in some specialized light. If it must, are its size, history, and popularity not sufficient in setting it apart? He alludes to some additional element that embodies the Olympic spirit but falls short of actually explaining it. As such, this point can be dismissed. "[T]he Olympics is seen nowadays more of an event to demonstrate oppression rather than unity. " Pro fails to offer any evidence for his claims besides his own musings. Who views the Olympics in this light and to what extent? More importantly, what does external political protesting have to do with effort and unity through competitive sports? If complete international harmony among athletes, spectators, and organizers was a requirement of Olympic spirit, Pro's point would stand. As it is not, this argument is irrelevant. My opponent goes on to mention money and international maneuvering as fatal to the Olympic spirit. As with his previous contentions, these points fail from a lack of clarity, evidence, and relevance to the definition of Olympic spirit agreed upon within this debate. ::Conclusion:: Pro does well to show the Olympics are far from perfect; protests and political posturing remain a part of the games' history. Unfortunately for his position, purity, faultlessness, and harmony among non-participants are not necessities of Olympic spirit. The fact that the event remains the world's largest and most popular demonstration of international sportsmanship, effort, and unity successfully refutes the resolution. Can the Olympic spirit be overshadowed by outside events? Perhaps. Is it dead? Not by a long shot.
Olympic Spirit is Dead

The key difference in my opponents and my argument is the interpretation of the Olympic spirit. My Opponents view of the Olympic spirit is athletics and sportsmanship, and the international unity achieved through these mediums My interpretation is the idea that the Olympics as a whole event is what creates unity, while the athletics is simply the focal point of the event itself. I feel its wrong to think that the spirit of the olympics comes from within the athletics alone, becuase then the olympics would be no different (albeit larger) than the world championships for example, an event that struggles to hold a candle to the the torch that is the Olympics. And it is through this interpretation of the olympic spirit that you can truly see how it has died. I mentioned in my last argument Munich. Well this is but one event which has blighted the Olympics. Last years Olympics was used as a medium to show the struggles of the Tibetans against their Chinese oppressors, and though I strongly believe their struggles should be heard, it just goes to show that the Olympics is seen nowadays more of an event to demonstrate oppression rather than unity. The fact that such a vast amount of money needs to be spent on the Olympics, further demonstrates that the veil of a unifying sporting event is a sham. And that barely hidden agendas run writhe through the veins of the Olympics, Chinas fantastic ceremony at the start of the 2008 games was seen not just as a fantastic show but an image which proved the decline of the west. Olympics held in America and Russia during the cold war were boycotted be either side, using the Olympics again as a medium to prove a political point, undermining the entire unifying ideology that the Olympics is supposed to support. True the athletics is spectacular, true the Olympics is spectacular, but the Olympics is supposed to be more than just an athletic event, and for an event to have an ideology's that so fundamentaly clashes with reality is proof that something very very wrong has happened. I thank my opponent for accepting my debate, in case you want to know I have exactly 3 minutes and 10 seconds to finish writing, which I have just done! Cheers and thanks to everyone for reading.
Olympic Spirit is Dead

Before I address my opponent's arguments, I must point out the failings of his current position. Given that Olympic spirit entails expressions of sportsmanship, unity, and effort through athleticism, Pro must prove that these aspects are no longer present whatsoever within the Olympic games. Because my opponent has conceded that the Olympics remain a hub of each of these elements, the resolution is negated. At this point, I address Pro's arguments only out of courtesy. ::Rebuttals:: "How can we pretend that all competitors have a fair chance of winning a medal when it is now all about which national team has the biggest sponsorship deals…" My opponent's point is both misleading (numerous under-sponsored countries won medals for the first time in 2008 [1][2]) and counter-productive to his position. Based on finances alone, only a small group of participating countries in the Olympics can be considered serious medal contenders. The fact that 204 countries still competed in the recent summer games is a perfect example of how international contribution and individual athletic effort still play an important part in the Olympic games. "The documentary claimed it was possible to bribe IOC members into voting for a particular candidate city. " The possibility of shady dealings being involved in Olympic planning does nothing to eliminate the spirit of the games. According to the agreed upon definition, Olympic spirit is expressed through the athletes, not the organizers. While political and financial trickery may blemish the image of various committees and countries, it does nothing to expunge the spirit of effort and unity found within the actual competitors. "The international temptation to use the Olympics as an event to demonstrate at, to boycott, to demonstrate terrorism in has tainted the entire image of the Olympics irreparably…" The political dealings of Olympic organizations may seem to contradict or even overshadow the atmosphere of the games, but they have not been shown to completely eliminate its spirit. My opponent and I agree that the games remain the world's largest display of international communion and sportsmanship, a fact that proves its spirit exists in spite of various controversies. ::Closing:: Pro argues that the Olympics have been tainted by political and financial influences. Regardless of the validity of these claims, they do little to satisfy the resolution. I have shown, and Pro agrees, that tremendous global participation, athletic cooperation, and individual effort remain prominent elements of Olympic competition. Given that these elements meet the requirements of Olympic spirit and my opponent has done nothing to show that they do not, the resolution is negated. I eagerly await my opponent's closing words. ::References:: 1. . http://www.associatedcontent.com... 2. . http://olympics.blogs.nytimes.com...