BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
This site is composed entirely of juvenile delinquents except for InfraRedEd.

I am saddened to hear my opponent is a juvenile delinquent. She must accept Jesus immediately. What gang is my opponent in? What crimes has she committed and how much time has she done? What "product" does she offer and under what terms of payment and delivery? Are there more opportunities for women in this traditionally male-dominated field? Such a kind and generous and warm-hearted person could never be a juvenile delinquent and also because it requires ability to count.
This site is composed entirely of juvenile delinquents except for InfraRedEd.

Juvenile -- Pertaining to, characteristic of, or suitable or intended for young persons Delinquents -- Failing in or neglectful of a duty or obligation The site makes it accessible to display basic characteristics of site users. According to the figures and statistics, most site users are, in fact, juveniles or "young persons" as the definition implies. Since most young people are negligent in at least some aspect of their lives, the resolution stands. [Character Limit Reached]
Video games lack actual skill.

My opponent first claims that video games are not just "pressing buttons". Then he goes on to say that it's about precision and strategy but has no points to back that up. Then my opponent goes on to say that professional gamers have skill and video games improve your reflexes. Video games are based off of luck. Video games are like monopoly, you can know everything there is to know about that video game but when it really comes down to it all, everything's is just based off of a roll of a dice. Video games are based on chance and luck. And there's no skill if luck is involved. FPS have aim assist and that little dot in the middle of the screen to help you shoot. How is that skill? So playing action based video games creates better deduction making skills. So imagine playing an actual sport. How much better do you think your decision making skills will be after playing an actual sport compared to playing a video game? How about reflexes? Compare a video gamers reflex to a tennis persons reflex. See the difference? Sports and actual activities that require you to actually do something create actual skills. Video games are like football being played by puppets. Are the people who control the puppets actually good at football? No because they actually probably don't even know how to tackle properly or even throw the ball properly. You develop shadows of the skill in video games that you could develop in a real sport or real activity. My opponent then goes on to say that I am not a professional in Battlefront. And then states that being a professional mean that you have to dedicate your life to it. Which is true, therefore there is no such thing as a professional gamer unless you count being twenty or so years old as "your life". You can be a professional pianist because that will actually last for more than a couple years. You can be a professional sports player because that can last you more than a couple of years. Being a gamer is short. You get replaced once somebody comes a beats you in a game. When compared to actual skills, video games really lack. Video games don't have actual skill, otherwise people would already have counted it as a sport. Video games are based off of luck and where luck is involved, there's no real skill.
Video games lack actual skill.

I am sorry if you got a little confused with my previous argument, Pro, but I am stating that by your logic, pressing a button takes no skill. If these gamers do not actually have "mad skills", they would be just as unskilled as me. Video games take skill. While the gamer may be moving his or her thumb or finger(s) to play, they also do use some brainpower to think about the strategy, and in order to perform certain tasks in a game, there is timing involved. Video games is not all pressing buttons. There is precision and strategy involved in video games, it is not just pushing buttons. Professional gamers do have skill, though. Why else would they be called professionals, as you wrote yourself. According to this article: http://www.futurity.org... , video games actually speed up reaction time. While you may compare a professional gamer's reaction to a professional sports player or a professional musician, but how do professional players' reflexes to one of an average person? According to another Futurity article, gamers, amateur and professional have better reflexes than most non-gamers. I am afraid that I am not familiar with Star Wars Battlefront. Based off of your argument, forty kills is very good, but that would not make you a professional. I threw for 2752 yards in 10 games of football, and I am not a professional at football. I struck out 168 batters in 25 games of baseball, and I am not a professional. I have been playing clarinet for almost 5 years, and I am nowhere near being a professional. Professional gamers actually dedicate their lives to being great at video games. That is how they get mad skills and is how they are professionals. I play a lot of football and baseball, and I practice my clarinet often, but I do not devote my life to them. You could call me a professional student, because I pretty much devote my life to school.
Video games lack actual skill.

My opponent first says that if some people have mad skills in pressing buttons and he has none, therefore he is as good as the people with mad skills. This doesn't aid his point because pressing a button isn't exactly a skill. Anybody can do it and that's technically what gamers are doing. So technically yes, my opponent who has no skills in video games can be as good as someone who supposedly claims they have "mad skills". Video games take little to no skill. There is little to no actual skill in video games because the actual person who is playing it is doing nothing but moving your thumbs or pointer finger. How is moving a thumb a skill? Not a lot of people even recognize video games as a skill and that's because they're not. Sitting on a couch staring at a screen is not a real skill. That's like claiming watching TV is a skill. Then there's gamers who claim that professional gamers have skill. I've watched videos if these so called "professional gamers" and the skill is really lacking. Compare professional gamer skills to professional sports or musician skills and its actually quite laughable. The reflexes of a gamer are lacking compared to the reflexes of a tennis player who has to return a tennis serve in under half a second. The precision of a gamer is lacking compared to having to the precision of a cellist who has to press the string in the right area on the fretless finger board. The speed of a gamer is laughable compared to the speed of a pianists fingers, sometimes playing up to 19-30 notes in under a second. Compared to actual skills, a gamers skills are laughable. I played Star Wars Battlefront and in under a month I was the best in most of my rounds. I usually got over forty kills each round. You could technically say I was a professional at it. Now I could say that I am in grade 9 piano and it has taken me years to get to this point and still I'm not the best pianist. You see the difference between video game skills and real skills? Real skills actually require that you work for them, video game skills are just cheats of real ones.
Animal equality, and the application of rights to animals in acknowledgement of their sentience

Ok, so, no ethics category, so I put this as Philosophy "\_(|84;)_/" This will be a debate for the sentience of animals, their status as sentient beings and why this should be acknowledged in contemporary society and law. This will primarily be ethics based, but will also take into consideration certain scientific facts and the ethical book 'Animal liberation', by Peter Singer. For those who disagree, I feel no contempt towards, thus the existence of this debate.
there is a god

BoP is on pro to show there is a god.He has not provided any arguments.Noll Hpothesis"A type of hypothesis used in statistics that proposes that no statistical significance exists in a set of given observations. The null hypothesis attempts to show that no variation exists between variables, or that a single variable is no different than zero. It is presumed to be true until statistical evidence nullifies it for an alternative hypothesis."So it's the case, one should not believe in any gods, until they're supported by evidence.So on the basis there's no evidence for god(S), atheism is more rational. -The Oscillating UniverseThis is a self-contained model in which the universe evolves from a big bang, then expands and expands and then collapses upon it's self and then re-expands. This model is perfectly self-contained and no god is needed. -Hartle Hawking QET:-Any universe that is described by quantum mechanics with non-zero energy and a time independent Hamiltonian is eternal in both arrows of time.Ekpyrotic Universe: "...our current universe arose from a collision of two three-dimensional worlds (branes) in a space with an extra (fourth) spatial dimension."The point isn't that any of these are the right model, rather that there are self contained models.Multiverse- 1. Let's visit the multiverse. The multiverse is a natural consequence of inflation. Via BICEP2 Primordial gravitation waves have been detected, which is almost indisputable proof of inflation.Inflation accounts for the:1.Uniformity. The cosmic background radiation is quite uniform. Inflation adequately accounts for the uniformity. A uniform region expanded rapidly, evolving into our visible universe.2. Mass density. Inflation predicts the omega should 1. The Planck satellite measures the omega as 1, which means our universe should be flat, which it is.3.Small non-uniformity. The small non-uniformity in the universe is easily accounted for by quantum fluctuations, which have been observed in the CBR.As explained the multiverse is a consequence of inflation. All the other predictions have come true. I would say that would constitute a good reason to think the multiverse is true.Via inflation, some parts of the early universe expanded more than other, created bublbles of space time, which later developed into other universes, and our universe is just a bubble universe and requires no creator just a prior universe. The multiverse can be eternal.I don't know what else to say, considering pro has not said anything interesting.There is not evidence for a god, and there does not need to be a god, thus per Occam's razor, one should not propose the existence of one.
Crime rate of Europe

First, the BoP lies fully on Pro since he is the instigator and the one making the claim. Pro has claimed that the crime rate of Western Europe has been increasing over the years, this is false. Britain"s crime rate is the lowest it has been since 1981 [1]. Western Europe also has one intentional homicide per capita [2]. This negates Pro"s case. [1] http://www.economist.com... [2] https://www.quora.com...
God created the universe

Science asks how the universe got here. Philosophy asks why there is anything at all. I was not proposing that asking 'why' the universe is here is a proof for God. It is a philosophical question that science cannot answer. I accept that you do not think this question is a question to be asked. Let's move on from this point. Sounds like we AGREE that without God there is NO objective morality. You then say that God cannot be the cause of the universe because we do not have examples of things beginning to exist to compare it to. In other words, everything in the universe, you say, has a material cause. Look at this way - every material thing in the universe has a cause. You therefore cannot assume that the universe, a material thing, has NO cause. Eventually you get an infinite regress of causes. So there must be something that started it all. This is what we call God. He is simply the first cause. Then you discuss the ideas of a multiverse and abiogenesis. I looked at your sources in the comment you left on this debate. I was shocked by the LACK of evidence. Amazingly, atheists shoot us theists down for positing that there is probably a God who designed the universe given it's complexity and fine-tuning and that it needs a cause, and yet the sources you showed me lack evidence. The scientist in the video discussing multiverse even states it is a 'prediction.' By this, he means that because we see some other phenomena (e.g. string theory), then we can make a prediction that a multiverse exists. It seems to me like he is taking some weird stuff we see in the world of theoretical physics and then trying to piece it altogether with this multiverse idea that has no true evidence. The sources regarding abiogenesis were no further acceptable either. I stand by my arguments for design and fine-tuning. I don't really have anything else to say. Science can't explain the universe. It has obvious design and fine-tuning. At the end of the day, something had to cause the universe. That something is God.
God created the universe

I will keep this pretty brief and just touch on a few flaws in my opponent's statements. 1. I get that you accept B theory of time. It sounds like you are trying to claim that cause and effect of materials in our experience are just a complete illusion? If this is correct, then why is our experience all designed to make us believe everything has a cause and effect? Furthermore, you explain the illusion of time flow by stating that entropy is increasing, but why is entropy increasing - shouldn't entropy just be an illusion too if you are saying cause/effect is an illusion? You can't pick and choose what is an illusion and what is not. 2. You state that the fine-tuning of the universe came about because of some law in the universe. I would argue this is a fallacy. If there is no God, who created any sort of universal law? Where did such a law come from? 3. The vastness of space speaks to a God. God created the wonders of space so we would be in awe of Him. 4. Your example of a broken glass does not make sense. The universe has much more pattern and intention behind it than shattered glass. 5. I still do not see a good explanation in your statement for how the complexity of a cell or the animal world came to be. I understand they think some 'simpler' version of a cell came first - but this is still a pretty complex thing to just occur. Also, you ignored my point about mutations being usually harmful. 6. You mention a multi-verse, but what proof do you have that there is a multi-verse? 7. You have not responded to my comments on objective morality. I think maybe you should ask 'why' the universe exists at all! It may open your eyes to think a little deeper.
God created the universe

We will be debating whether God created the universe. By God I refer to the all-knowing, omniscient, eternal creator of the universe. We will assume for the sake of the argument that the universe does in fact exist. I also will ask that we do NOT get into specifics of any specific religions. Please do not ask me to prove MY specific God. This is a debate about the origin of the universe, not a venue to bash religious beliefs. In this first round I simply ask that my opponent agree to the above statements and accept the grounds for debate. Thank you and good luck.
"under God"

You literally copied and pasted your last argument. That's not right. But it gives me more space to debunk you. Why take away the Pledge? 1. The only other nation I know of to require loyalty oaths is Nazi Germany. I don't want to emulate them. 2. Let's look at the text. I pledge allegiance to the flag, of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Do you find it a little odd we're pledging loyalty to a flag? Or that we're saying this country can never be divided, on pain of eternal damnation? As we have just admitted the federal government is sanctioned by God. Then we say there is liberty and justice for all. Well historically that isn't true. I'm sure in the future it won't always be true. The whole idea of 'my country right or wrong' is a cop-out to justify bad behavior. Fact is, we need to stand up for principles, and not governments.
"under God"

Why would you take away "The Pledge of Aleagence"? America was built on christian values. Saying "Under God" as well as "the Pledge of Aleigence" is a great part of our history. If you take away those words, you are taking away christian religeious rights. We shall no longer have the right to say it. Also many religions beleive in some sort of god. So why would we take away the statement "Under God", I thought this was a free country. It sounds more like you're trying to take away our first amendment, the freedom of speech. You can't just take away a freedom like that! It is part of our bill of rights, the first ten amendments that are supolsed to be the basis of our rights. What will happen if it is taken away? Will we just say "One nation, indevisible" ? I'm sorry if this sounds rude but thats just stupid! We have the freedom of speech we can choose wether we will or will not say those two words. If we aren't allowed to say "under God" what next? They won't let us say "God bless America" too? Don't you want the all powerful God to bless this nation? I certianlly do.
"under God"

"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." -Treaty of Tripoli, 1796. http://avalon.law.yale.edu... Now further, what did most of our founders believe? Deism. That there was a God, who created things, but wasn't active in our lives. Thomas Jefferson famously made his own version of the bible and kept copies of numerous religious texts. Let's take a minute here to look at what the Pledge of Allegiance is. It's a loyalty oath. Shall we examine another famous oath? "Ich schw"re bei Gott diesen heiligen Eid, da" ich meinem Volk und Vaterland allzeit treu und redlich dienen und als tapferer und gehorsamer Soldat bereit sein will, jederzeit f"r diesen Eid mein Leben einzusetzen." If the fact we're all forced to pledge loyalty every day in school doesn't frighten you, then I have to say I'm a little worried. But what's worse is the ramification. As a religious person, you have the freedom to practice your faith. You can wear a crucifix or a hijab, you can go to church or synagogue, have a holi festival. What you can't do is force your views on anyone else. Essentially what adding God to a loyalty oath does is force the belief in one monotheistic deity on everyone. Further, some religions consider their god to have specific names. If you consider any name interchangeable, then you wouldn't object to 'One nation, under Ahuramazda,' correct? Yet, if we used the Arabic word Allah, then you would probably scream about your first amendment rights being violated. How do we accommodate people of all faiths? Either we take out mention of religious beliefs, or we just get rid of the creepy loyalty vow all together. Now as to your rights, they're fine. For you. But when you force someone else to say your words, to profess your beliefs, then you take away their freedoms. You can go ahead and say 'God bless America' to whoever you want, as long as you don't force everyone to say it as a greeting. It's very, very simple. As long as it affects just you, it is allowed. As soon as it requires someone else to do something, it is not permissible.
"under God"

Why would you tak away "The Pledge of Aleagence"? America was built on christian values. Saying "Under God" as well as "the Pledge of Aleigence" is a great part of our history. If you take away those words, you are taking away christian religeious rights. We shall no longer have the right to say it. Also many religions beleive in some sort of god. So why would we take away the statement "Under God", I thought this was a free country. It sounds more like you're trying to take away our first amendment, the freedom of speech. You can't just take away a freedom like that! It is part of our bill of rights, the first ten amendments that are supolsed to be the basis of our rights. What will happen if it is taken away? Will we just say "One nation, indevisible" ? I'm sorry if this sounds rude but thats just stupid! We have the freedom of speech we can choose wether we will or will not say those two words. If we aren't allowed to say "under God" what next? They won't let us say "God bless America" too? Don't you want the all powerful God to bless this nation? I certinlly do.
"under God"

Should the words "Under God" be taken out of or replaced in our pledge of alligence? They should remain. Many people say that these words are offensive to some religions, but I only see one religion that they could offend--Atheists--. Most other religions beveive in a god of some sort. Also, you don't have to say the words "under God" if you don't want to, but you can't force the rest of us not to say them. That would be infinging on the very first amendment ever made for The United States of America. If someone has an opposing agrument, please respond with good reasons... Good luck.
The practice of only voting in favour of your friends should not be acceptable

Full resolution: The practice of choosing only to vote in favour of another user, while withholding your vote if you believe that user lost the debate, should not be acceptable on DDO. Pro will argue in favour of the resolution, that it should not be acceptable for DDO users to selectively vote only in favour of another user if they refuse to ever vote against that user. Con will argue the position that it should be acceptable for DDO members to selectively vote in favour of another user, while consciously choosing to never vote against that user. The character limit is 5000 per round to encourage concise arguments. Rules: Round 1: Con will accept and present his or her arguments. Round 2: Pro will present her arguments. Con will defend his or her arguments, and rebut Pro's arguments. Round 3:Pro will defend her arguments and rebut Con's arguments. Con will conclude (no new arguments). Round 4: Pro will conclude (no new arguments). Con must forfeit the last round.