BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: the Dendera light depicts an ancient light bulb

A light bulb something that we as humans use to light our homes and give us a sense of security. But, the question that my opponent has asked is that "The Dendera Light Depicts an Ancient Light Bulb." Well the definition of a light bulb is "One in which a filament gives off light when heated to incandescence by an electric current." The key word in the definition is electric, how could the Egyptians get electricity. Well, there are many ways that humans use to obtain such electricity. Two main categories of energy are renewable and nonrenewable resources. The renewable resources are wood, wind, sunshine, geothermal energy, biomass, and water stored behind dams. While nonrenewable resources include coal, oil, nuclear power and natural gas. There is no real evidence that suggests that they used any of these sources of energy other some of the renewable ones to cook and keep themselves warm during the cool nights. The main evidence people use in support of the Dendera lights are the lack of soot in the reprimands that would be there if they used to see when working on the tomb and comparing that to other pyramids that clearly show soot on the ceiling and the floor. This is debunked because in the same area that they found the Dendera lights they found another never before seen hieroglyph that seems to show a "light bulb." But, the reason they didn't find it before is because of the fact that it was covered in hundred year old soot, seems kind of ironic. Another reason for the lack of soot is that Egyptians being very educated in geometry where able to use angles to shine light into the tomb with mirrors with light from the sun. While it would be a cool idea of ancient light bulbs the technology able to sustain an electrical current is not there and proof that proves the idea wrong is strong and undeniable. Sources https://www.nvenergy.com... http://ancientaliensdebunked.com...
Resolved: the Dendera light depicts an ancient light bulb

First let us look at the glyphs that make up the Dendera light; The “socket” is M9, which is a lotus flower. The “bulb” is R29, which is a niche with a serpent. Now let us look at the glyphs that make up the stand; The stand is R11, which is the Djed pillar. On top of the stand is D28, which is the Ka http://www.cs.st-andrews.ac.uk... Now let us compare the glyphs to one of the Myth of Atum; Before the world was formed, there was a watery mass of dark, directionless chaos. This chaos was called Nun. Nun was a personified as Nun-Ptah, who was an aspect of the creator god Ptah. The waters of Nun receded, revealing Ptah-Tatenen, the primordial mound. From the primordial mound grew a lotus flower. When the lotus bloomed a scarab emerged from the flower. The scarab was personified as Khepri, the god of the rising sun. Khepri was an aspect of Ra, the god of the midday sun. The lotus was personified as nefertum, the son of Ptah-nun and Ptah-nunet. Nefertum wept, because he was alone, and his tears became the first humans. When nefertum grew up, he became Atum, the god of the evening sun. Atum was often depicted as man, but he was also commonly been depicted as a serpent. http://egyptian-gods.99k.org... The Dendera light represents Atum, or Nefertum. The snake represents the sun, and the lotus represents Nefertum. The snake is in a niche to symbolize the snake being within the lotus. The djed pillar is a symbol of stability. The ka, is one of the 5 aspects of the soul. The 5 aspects of the soul are; 1.) The Ba (Personality) 2.) The Ka (Life Force) 3.) The Ib (Heart) 4.) The Sheut (Shadow) 5.) The Ren (Name) http://www.reshafim.org.il... The Djed pillar topped with the ka represents the stability of life. Thus the sun, Atum, is responsible for the stability of life.
are canadians snow mexicans

First, would my opponent please define what he means by "snow mexicans"? Secondly, having been raised in Alaska and still having friends and family who live there now, I have driven through Canada many times. I also have numerous friends and business partners who live in Canada. That being said, there is a massive problem here in the US with people crossing our southern border illegally. The problem is much less pronounced on our northern border. "According to MPI estimates, about 7.8 million unauthorized immigrants present in the United States in the 2009-13 period (71 percent of the total unauthorized population) were born in Mexico and other Central America countries. About 1.5 million (14 percent) were from Asia; 690,000 (6 percent) from South America; 423,000 (4 percent) from Europe, Canada, or Oceania; 342,000 (3 percent) from Africa; and 260,000 (2 percent) from the Caribbean. " (1) Canada, combined with two huge regions, comprise 4% of the total illegal immigrants in the US. On the other hand, Mexico and the rest of Central America comprise 71% of the total illegal immigrants in the US. I will grant that there are a large number of Canadian citizens who live in Canada, but work in the US. However, these people enter and leave the US legally. I cannot find a reference, but I am fairly certain that there are fewer Mexican citizens who live in Mexico and work legally in the US than there are total illegal immigrants from Canada. References: 1. . http://www.migrationpolicy.org...
Christ or the prophet of Islam.....

Praise be to Allah! The most beneficent the most mercifulIn this debate I hope we can come to at least common terms which is to understand the oneness of Allah (God). Jesus Christ (pbuh) was not divine and he never claimed divinity nor was he killed on the cross. You also say that you don't believe that any other prophets came after Jesus which I will argue the contrary. I fully agree that we must not slander one another etc. Allah in the Glorious Quran said: Surah Al Imran Chapter 3 Verse 64 "Say: "O People of the book! come to common terms as between us and you: that we worship none but Allah; that we associate no partners with Him; that we erect not, from among ourselves, lords and patrons other than Allah." If then they turn back say you: "Bear witness that we (at least) are muslims (bowing to Allah's Will).""Why do we call God, Allah in Islam?The name Allah is unique because the name matches with the attributes of the one creator of the heavens and the earth. Allah (God) is ONE and is GENDERLESS. You cannot change Allah into a plural form and you cannot change it into a feminine or masculine form. God is inappropriate for these reasons. You can change God into Gods or God into Goddess. For these reasons Muslims use the name Allah. Attributes such as azawajal (Glorious and Exalted) are usually said after saying Allah azawajal. What is Islam?Islam is the submission to the will of Allah (azawajal), Almighty God. It is only through the submission to the will of Allah by following the Quran and the Sunnah of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) without associating any partners with him (idol worship etc) that we can obtain true peace and contentment in this life and in the next. Muslims believe in all the previous prophets including Jesus. I also want to illustrate some of the similarities between Islam and Christianity. -Islam is the only non-christian faith in existence which makes it an article of faith to believe in Jesus (pbuh). A person is not a Muslim if he doesn't believe in Jesus (pbuh). -He was one of the greatest and mightiest messengers of Allah (azawajal) -We know that he was born miraculously without any male intervention ( It makes sense because Allah is all powerful, he simply has to say Be and it is) -We know he gave life to the dead, with Allah's Permission -We know he healed those born blind, and cured the lepers with Allah's permissionWith these introductions/clarifications, I ask you to make your opening arguments.
Christ or the prophet of Islam.....

I believe the Bible was the last God inspired text and that Jesus Christ was the fulfilment of the prophecies. I believe no other prophets came after Jesus Christ.Rules: Use references. If you speak about scripture, cite your source. KJV or ESV please. I will only uses sources from the revered text of Islam with reference. I will not slander the name of the prophet or speak evil against the text of Islam. The exception will be the argument of it's validity. I expect my opponent to do the same concerning Christ and the Bible. The point of this debate is to exchange ideas and argue. It's not a fight. I will be preaching the Gospel. I will let you know from the start, I am using this medium to talk about Jesus Christ. You must be able to defend Islam. If you are not a Muslim, do not insult them by speaking for them. I pray that God almighty reveals himself through his text in this debate. I pray that the end result of this debate glorifies God, not men. I pray that God would correct our hearts when we speak incorrectly and forgive us for our errors. Amen.
Christ or the prophet of Islam.....

I guess it wouldn't be proper to introduce my central argument (truth of islam and prophet Muhammad in the Bible) so I will list some very fast replies. Ruh Ul Qudus (Holy spirit) is a title for Angel Jibreel (angel of assistance and revelation) , he is also called Ruh Ul Ameen (Trustworthy spirit). Con didn't explain the contradictions that I mentioned in the bible. I know the bible speaks of a trinity but I showed verses which proved otherwise. If he still believed in the trinity he had to explain the inconsistencies. He seems to acknowledge them because he says "The same book". The reason I missed the rounds is because the time limit was too short (1 day) and Pro responds really fast.
The Bryan Mullins Logic: Not All Conspiracies Are True, Not All Conspiracies Are False

I'm here to take this debate because most people may not know how to handle this. This debate is a truism. I could probably debate the definition of conspiracy, but what would be the point? Don't award anyone any points. Pro shouldn't get the win for starting a topic that he couldn't lose. Like if I started the topic "2+2=4." Obviously, there are some times that a conspiracy can be found true. And obviously there are some that are false. Either way, this debate has no point, so I urge you to keep scrolling through the debate tab as if this never existed. You've already wasted so much of your life by reading this. I've wasted even more by editing my spelling mistakes. Run while you still can. Or report this to airmax. I don't care. Just don't vote on it. Have a good day.
The Bryan Mullins Logic: Not All Conspiracies Are True, Not All Conspiracies Are False

Not all conspiracies are true and not all conspiracies are false. Here, let me show you examples, SJM. Some Conspiracies Are True: For Example, Americans had a conspiracy that Nixon was going to break into Watergate, That apparently was true, Nixon had to face impeachment trials and hearings in 1974; Later, Nixon resigns and admits that he made a plan to break into Watergate. Some Conspiracies Are False: For Example, During The War on Terror, Some Americans had the conspiracy that George W. Bush had WMDs in iraq to kill innocent civilians, But that conspiracy is false, Later, Saddam Hussein was pushed out of power and on May 2011, Osama Bin Laden was killed, marking the end of The War in Iraq and Afghanistan. So, there are my examples, I conclude that: (1) Some Conspiracies Are True (2) Some Conspiracies Are False
assisted suicide

I stand in negation of assisted suicide. As my opponent is both Pro and Instigator, it is my opponent's obligation to uphold the affirmation of the debate. My opponent states: "but as the months go by and the more research I do on her illness the more I realize her desire to die his outweighing the desire to live and is it fair for me to ask her to stay and lose the battle one brittle bone at a time ?????" My opponent exclaims that her mother's desire to die outweighs her desire to live. However, this does not justify assisted suicide. Suicide is against the law, and the general population of successful "suicidees" also felt that their desire to die outweighed their desire to live. My opponent's statement does not justify assisted suicide by any means. Is it fair for my opponent to ask her mother to live and lose the battle one bone at a time? Well, sweetheart, nothing in life is really "fair." In one perspective, it is fair, while in another, it is not. However, my opponent's statement does not justify her affirmation of the debate. Why does it matter if it is fair or not? "is it inhumane to watch someone waste away when we have the means to end there suffering ???" Is it? My opponent has not answered her own question. Thus, there is nothing to discuss. Thus far, my opponent has failed to discuss viable contentions to her side of the debate. I await further rounds.
assisted suicide

someone asked me if I would support my mother if she decided on assisted suicide by the hands of a doctor. and for awhile I was totally against it . but as the months go by and the more research I do on her illness the more I realize her desire to die his outweighing the desire to live and is it fair for me to ask her to stay and lose the battle one brittle bone at a time ????? is it inhumane to watch someone waste away when we have the means to end there suffering ???
Obama is the first black president.

"Obama's skin color isnt black, but tan." Dark - not reflecting much light; approaching black in shade [1] "I agree with this" Tan - …a yellowish-brown color… [1] Thus refuting his claim. "implying that his ancestors came from Africa," Ah yes using my own definition on me, good move. Sadly thought it is just the politically correct term. Without any ancestry tree proof provided you may not make that claim. Assumptions are not answers. Vote Con! [1] Oxford Dictionary
Obama is the first black president.

My opponent asks for proof of whether or not Obama's ancestors came from Africa. However, my opponent provided my proof for me. He said that Obama's father was black, implying that his ancestors came from Africa, and since a father is technically an ancestor, then Obama's ancestors came from Africa. My opponent also said that Obama's skin color isnt black, but tan. I agree with this. However, my definition refers to a person with dark skin. And my opponent admitted that he in fact has dark skin
Obama is the first black president.

I will first attack your definition by stating that "black person" is not a type more of a slur. The correct term is African American which is exactly what the name suggests. My opponent claims that his ancestors have arrived from Africa, I ask for proof. His skin color is also not "black" it is more related to a tan or light skin, which by your definition disqualifies him. According to the Oxford Dictionary a "black person" does not exist. Thanks to 500 limit I must end.
should day time television be uncensored

I am going to use the comment as proof for this. While yes, it would be nice if everyone just appreciated the human body as just that, people like to see it as a sexual symbol to do as the comment said and pleasure himself. For that I would appreciate the "black bar" for myself personally because people take nudity the wrong way. To wrap it up, I can understand CNN and other news broadcasting station bleeping out swear words. Many people watch the news in the morning and afternoon with children who do not need the influence. Personally, I think the reason someone would use a swear word is because they do not have anything more intelligent to say. Therefore, "bleeping it out" is just one way we prevent bad influences.
should day time television be uncensored

WOW. read that wrong. Alright, well now that that is straightened out I'll finish simple. The whole reason that people want to censor television is that they do not want their children to be introduced to that kind of straight up rudeness/provocativeness/etc. People are exposed to that when are at an age where the decision of whether or not they follow the same ideals is not made for them by friends or associates but by their own personal choice. Thanks for debating:)
should day time television be uncensored

When I said the human body is a beautiful thing i was implying that we should all masturbate to the naked bodies on television. A pastime like this could be fun for the whole family. Kids should be introduced to the real world and its provocative language at a younger age, they just simply need to know. Also why cant the bar be white, or green, or yellow. I believe that the television networks are implying that only those of African heritage or those influenced by people of African heritage would be naked in public.
For every dumb Debate there is someone who answers, Cons/Pros should just leave them alone

Con stated that battling an mutated monster may be fun. But when have you seen a person, in movies, in example, go against a monster an instantly kill them? They died. Perfect example, the Saw movies. One had done a deed to end up in the game and is forced to give up important things, i.e. limbs, friends, lives, etc. By accepting the debate you are sacrificing time and effort and wasting energy on a unimportant debate rather than challenging a real topic. And let's say that one does accepts it and ends up giving the full rounds the arguements needed? Would people vote for it? It would be in the voting period forever. Reason for that is that people deemed it unworthy of final judgement. So in the end it is just a waste of space. 1) Con mentions that a person who accepts a debate will move it from the front of the page for all to see and thus taking away less attention. But why accept it? Why couldn't one accept a better challenge than talk about, "Eagles should wear shoes"? In this it is better to ignore a unnecessary debate and give attention to a more interesting one. 2) My opponent states that they took a debate and forfeited the first round. Now in my knowledge you just entered a race and not ran. So by forfeiting the first round one didn't really debate. So this statement does not hinder or help you case, nor does it help or hinder mine. 3) Has already been stated in first paragraph. 4) My opponent posted that taking a silly debate does no realy harm and thus gives a serious debator an easy win or nothing, while the person who posted the debate only looks bad. Why would one want an easy victory? Wouldn't one rather go against a heated topic and lose, gaining experience in the process, than rather waste time and resources to try to prove a useless point right/wrong and then end up getting nothing than getting a few laughs and giggles. Debating is to prove a point for something important, like prove a novel is Marxist than rather Socialist, instead of trying to prove that an old sandwich is useless. In conclusion I have finally realize to go against my opponent's core reasoning and finally go against them. I thank Con for taking this debate and training me a little for future debates. I hope that I can debate against you more in the future and hopefully it would be something different than this one. I have proven my points. I'll await my opponents response.
For every dumb Debate there is someone who answers, Cons/Pros should just leave them alone

First, please extend the arguments I have made that Pro did not respond to (i.e. 3 and 4, specifically). Second, Pro's metaphor is indeed irrelevant. He says that people wouldn't bother a mutated monster because they wouldn't know how to kill it. This has absolutely no relevance to debating. Even if you want to consider a frivolous debate as something foreign, scary or unusual (like a mutated monster), it makes sense to be afraid of the monster but makes no sense to be 'afraid' of debating. In fact, my third argument (Pro ignored it) explained how taking on the challenge of defeating the "monster" could even be interesting or fun. Finally, Pro insists that leaving the debate alone gets it less attention. My 1 and 2 points explained how this is not true. Once again, a debate "left alone" remains in the challenge period for all to see. An accepted debate means fewer people will see it, because just the opponent will see it until the voting period. After that, it goes to the voting page. Debaters are more likely to check out the page in the Challenge Period than the Voting Period, hence less attention. Furthermore, I explained how if the contender forfeits 1 round of the debate, then the debate won't show up on the home page after its conclusion meaning even LESS people will see it. Pro has not refuted any of this.
For every dumb Debate there is someone who answers, Cons/Pros should just leave them alone

I say that that's what I'm proving, that it should be left alone. " I will admit to stating it, but due to lack of attention to what was being typed I forgot to add 'no't before accepting and after 'by'. My opponent also states that my metaphor that I have posted in the previous round is poor (because of me acknowledging it) thus making it irrelavant. I was simply stating that if one were to read the metaphor they may not understand. However, it makes perfect sense. People refers to debators and mutated monsters refer to the satirical debate. I failed to mention how not accepting the debates gives them less attenion. By less attention I have meant that one would see it but answering it would be wrong, in the case that one would be giving that person the attention they need. So by leaving the debate alone, not responding it, you are giving it less attention.
For every dumb Debate there is someone who answers, Cons/Pros should just leave them alone

I say that that's what I'm proving, that it should be left alone. " This statement seems contradictory and/or non-sensical. My point was that it is better to accept the debate then leave it alone, because accepting it limits the amount of attention that it will receive thus making the instigator's ambition (attention seeking) fail. All Pro has done is agree that the instigator should receive minimal attention, which he does not argue is better achieved by leaving the debate alone. So, effectively all Pro has done is agree with me. Next Pro writes, "People have enough sense to leave a mutated monster alone since they do not know how to kill it (Excuse the poor metaphor). " Pro acknowledges that this metaphor is poor, and thus this is irrelevant to the debate at hand. Finally Pro concludes with, "If we do not give attention to dumb debates then they will eventually not come. .. " which is an assertion without any proof. I have explained that accepting the "dumb debates" actually gets them LESS attention, and Pro has not proven that "leaving them alone" will get them less attention. Therefore if the goal is to bring them less attention, then my way is better then Pro's meaning you should vote Con. Also, if Pro is new to debating here then I suggest responding to each and every argument your opponent makes. For the sake of clarity, I listed all of my arguments (1-4) in Round 1. Pro should respond to each argument specifically to ensure that he does not ignore all of my points. Thanks again and good luck!
For every dumb Debate there is someone who answers, Cons/Pros should just leave them alone

I see your point. But what I did proved my own point. (Which really doesn't make sense and thus kills my own debate) I will admit this is my first time trying out debates, for practice, and thus do not know how this truly works. So in turn I read many things and decided to take up an arguement, that had some logic, but I'm sure creators of this website had already figured out a way in removing/moving satirical debates. However, I will continue my debate as to give myself a chance to get used to this websites order. My opponent says by accepting the debate it will minimize the attention it will get. I say that that's what I'm proving, that it should be left alone. People have enough sense to leave a mutated monster alone since they do not know how to kill it (Excuse the poor metaphor). If we do not give attention to dumb debates then they will eventually not come, or hopefully create a whole new forum as to post irrelavent debates. Thank you Con for taking this debate.