BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Destiny is not a matter of chance, it is a matter of choice.

That was indeed a rather strong argument Con and it would have been effective HAD I said that destiny was equivalent to our desires but I had not and it is not. My definition defines that destiny is "a predetermined course of events [caused by an act of choice] often held to be an irresistible power or agency." You see I mention nothing of desire but of choice. Your entire second argument is based on proving that circumstances outside the realm of control have the ability to negatively influence the future we plan for ourselves and I wholeheartedly agree. Though your counter argument is flawed because of your ASSUMPTION that "events [caused by an act of choice]" result in the achievement of out desires and this is not true. In the example of your young Science prodigy desiring to become a teacher you state that his awful teachers effects on him were uncontrollable, a hidden variable. I agree, however, to state that choice was not the cause for this effect is preposterous. He CHOSE the science class, he CHOSE to ASSUME that all Science teachers were like this, and he CHOSE to leave the field of Science for an alternative field of study. I can not make it much clearer than this, that choice was the cause for his failure and that his destiny is unrelated to his desire because unlike like his desires, destiny is "a predetermined course of events [caused by an act of choice]". The failing student falls under the same guidelines, he CHOSE the class, he CHOSE not to seek guidance from the teacher on the upcoming exam, and as a RESULT of his CHOICES he failed. In the case of your unfortunate death in a car accident on your way "to talk to [your] friends house", why you talk to your friends house is beyond me however, you CHOSE to drive, you CHOSE to travel to your friends house, and as a result you were struck by a car effecting your DESIRES but not your DESTINY. In conclusion, my original argument stands unaltered due to your misconception between desire and destiny and your counter argument is void. Destiny is indeed caused by a matter of choice. Although your choices may not always yield results that favor your desires, the effects of your actions are always a direct reflection of your destiny.
Destiny is not a matter of chance, it is a matter of choice.

As my Resolution is posted above, I will begin by quoting Merriam-Webster's dictionary to eliminate all sources of personal bias or otherwise opinionated versions of the definition. M. W. states that destiny is "a predetermined course of events often held to be an irresistible power or agency. " With this new definition, it necessary to reveal additional definitions in order to fully grasp the meaning. M. W. defines: (1)An Event as – " something that happens. " (2)An Action as – "AN ACT OF WILL" (3)Will as - "something desired; especially : a choice" If something happens – it was because of some action. This is a very basic theory of cause and effects laws, where a cause must be present to receive an effect. By this analysis, we can infer that an Event is caused by an Action, an Action is "An act of Will", and Will is merely a choice. Through a process of simplification and substitution of words, we can further deduce that an Event is caused by an act of will or choice. Thus destiny is "a predetermined course of events [caused by an act of choice] often held to be an irresistible power or agency. " If you feel like you are experiencing dï¿½jï¿½ vu have no fear because I have indeed mirrored my resolution, that destiny is a matter of choice, through a straight-forward unbiased medium – the Merriam Webster dictionary. I will now allow the Con to attempt a rebuttal. The sources for the provided definitions are provided below. . http://www.merriam-webster.com... . http://www.merriam-webster.com... . http://www.merriam-webster.com... . http://www.merriam-webster.com... (noun)
The Existence of God

Definitions God: any of various beings conceived of as supernatural, immortal, and having special powers over the lives and affairs of people and the course of nature; deity, esp. a male deity: typically considered objects of worship; in monotheistic religions, the creator and ruler of the universe, regarded as eternal, infinite, all-powerful, and all-knowing; Supreme Being; the Almighty Exist: to have reality or actual being; to occur or be present Sources: http://www.yourdictionary.com... I will be arguing that God does not exist. I will let my opponent present his arguments first.
Stress can have positive effects.

BUT AS YOU PROBABLY ALREADY KNOW, Unfortunately, There are equally as many reasons why stress is bad. Stress is intimately tied to our social world and I strongly disagree that stress can have positive effects. As for us human, People experience stress in different ways. Stress symptoms can affect your body, Your thoughts and feelings, And your behavior. Stress that's left been unchecked can contribute to many health problems, Such as high blood pressure, Heart disease, Obesity, And diabetes. A little stress is OK some stress is actually beneficial BUT too much stress can wear you down and make you sick, Both mentally and physically. Stress can affect all aspects of your life including your emotions, Behaviors, Thinking ability, And physical health. Stress is everywhere! Everyday stress, Compared to traumatic events, Is increasingly recognized as an important risk factor for mental health!
Stress can have positive effects.

Stress, According to the Australian Better Health Channel, Is your body's way of responding to any kind of demand or threat. A typical reaction of stress can be deemed as something as simple as flinching and sweating. It is something that can force humans to take action and react accordingly. The human is a type of creature that adapts, And some level of stress is perfectly healthy. Contrary to popular belief, Stress is vital to how one lives their lives. It can help to retain important bits of information and most importantly, Improve an individual"s mental resilience throughout life experiences. This is most important when someone may have an assessment task that is due or even a year end report and presentation. The human is a type of creature that adapts, And some level of stress is perfectly healthy. According to professors, Aschbacher K1, O'Donovan A, Wolkowitz OM, Dhabhar FS, Su Y and, Epel E, Moderate levels of perceived stress were largely beneficial to fight against future stress. There are various health benefits with a little bit of stress. Researchers believe that some stress can help to fortify the immune system and that stress can improve how your heart works and protect your body from infection. Individuals who experienced moderate levels of stress before surgery were able to recover faster than individuals who had low or high levels. Stress can push us to our limits and force a reaction out of us in order to adequately deal with the situation we"re in.
Stress can have positive effects.

Stress. We use that word quite a lot and it is not a good thing. I understand where you are coming from however as I have already said stress can lead to many issues when it comes to health. There are many people around the world who come across stress and have experienced negative effects to their health problem. I am sure every single person in the world has experienced stress but may not had a big impact in your health, However, There are some parts of your body that may have been affected and caused by stress. Stress symptoms can affect your body, Your thoughts and feelings, And your behavior. Being able to recognize common stress symptoms can give you a jump on managing them. Stress that's left unchecked can contribute to many health problems, Such as high blood pressure, Heart disease, Obesity and diabetes. STRESS IS BAD
Stress can have positive effects.

Even though extremely high levels of stress is almost detrimental to the human body, Without at least some of it, No human can survive, Whether it be a large scale situation or something as simple as being nervous before a test. It is an essential part of living. As my opponent has stated before, Stress can be dangerous, Yet this is true to an extent. There are several ways of managing this stress, Such as taking a break, Indulging in extracurricular activities and doing relaxation exercises to manage these large amounts of stress. Not every person that experience excess levels of stress will become severely damaged, As mental health due to stress is a whole other issue. There are support services and people that are willing to help those who can't manage this excess levels of stress. Despite this, Stress is also a vital warning system, Producing the fight-or-flight response. When the brain perceives some kind of stress, It starts flooding the body with chemicals like epinephrine, Norepinephrine and cortisol. This creates a variety of reactions such as an increase in blood pressure and heart rate. The senses suddenly have a laser-like focus so you can avoid physically stressful situations " such as jumping away from a moving car " and be safe. Stress is not necessarily all negative, As when most people first think about it, They think about the worst case scenario. Although the side effects of extreme stress levels are true, Humans need it in order to instinctively get ourselves out of harmful situations. Stress does not always have to be a bad thing. If well-managed, Moderate stress can even be turned into a positive mechanism, Providing an adrenaline rush that often leads to success.
Joe Montana is better than Tom Brady

I would like to start out refuting my opponent's contentions and then refute his responses to my contentions. My opponent stated that Tom Brady has set more records than Joe, however since he did not refute my definition of being better my definition still stands and my opponent agrees with it. Therefore, by my definition one aspect that must be included to be a better quarterbacks is to win super bowls something Joe Montana was the best at doing going a prefect 5 for 5 while Brady going 3 for 5. His other point stating that Brady is in more commercials than Joe because Brady is a current quarterback living in a different era something I addressed in my contentions. One has to look at the different eras of these 2 qbs. Back in 1980s-1990s commercials in the NFL were less common to be found so this argument cannot be made because by not refuting my definition of being better he is therefore agreeing with it and the idea of era comparisons was brought up in my definition. He also said that Brady is taller however he did not provide the advantages to being taller and stronger and the success of a taller quarterback in the NFL. Brady stands at 2 inches taller than Montana and that certainly has not helped him get out of a sack while Joe would roll out of the pocket when in trouble and could run with his nimble legs. His teammates in San Francisco would even call him Bird Legs for having legs so short yet being able to run away from defenders most famously seen in the catch. My opponent said why bring in football however since he did not refute my definition of better my definition stands which is clearly stated as a qb who is clutch, has super bowl wins, and can win in any situation. He also used the argument of being advertised for pop tarts yet since my definition was not refuted my definition of better stands and in nowhere in my definition does the standard of being better is seen as being advertised. In fact, my argument states you have to look at the different eras. Currently we are living in an electronic era while back then there was not as much focus on electronics therefore it is unfair to compare and you cannot due to my definition which was never refuted. He also stated the idea that Tom has more swag yet provided no definition for swag and did not state how that makes him better he just poses it as an assumption. My definition of better was never refuted so it still stands, and since my definition did not include money his argument is invalid. Thank you voters and I would like to ask for your vote in this debate for the affirmative.
Joe Montana is better than Tom Brady

you may think that but your problem, that u don't see is that Brady has set more records than Joe, also Brady is in more commercials that Joe. Brady is taller, stronger, on a great, also sponsored by pop tarts, and Joe isn't. Also why bring in football. Football was never mentioned so my argument is valid. Tom has more swag than Joe and makes more than Joe so there for he is better than Joe. Because, his money makes he is swag awesome therefore he is better than him. $W@6
Joe Montana is better than Tom Brady

First off I would like to start by defining what is classified as better in the NFL. Then I will go over my contentions for the affirmation. FIrst of all we need to assess the different eras this played/ are playing in. Back in Joe Montana's era there was not as many rules as to how you could hit the quarterback, while in the era that Brady is playing the nfl has implemented various new rules for hard hitting. Also, the current NFL is a more pass- heavy league than it was during Montana's career as seen through the fact that teams average 11 more passing yards and 2 more pass attempts per game. The model of a quarterback of the NFL is to be able to find a way to win games no matter the situation and be able to make quick reads and get out of trouble quickly and be able to accurately throw the ball with the ultimate goal being super bowl wins. Joe Montana has all of these aspects and has showed so through his illustrious career winning 4 super bowls and winning 3 super bowl mvps. He should have gotten 4 for 4 in mvps however because he was the one who was throwing to Jerry Rice, but even without that many mvps he still has managed to attain 3 sb mvps and win all of the super bowls he has played in one including a game winning drive against the cincinatti bengals where the 49ers entered as severe underdogs. In order to look at his passing yards efficiently you must look at how they were/are in their eras. From 1979-1990, Montana led the NFL in passing yards and passing touchdowns (only Dan Marino was even within 40 of him), completions (noone within 40 of him) and completion percentage. By comparison, Brady is 4th in passing yards, seconds in passing touchdowns, 4th in completions and ninth in completion percentage as of 2012. Joe Montana truthfully shine, however, in the postseason especially in super bowls where Montana has a career high super bowl record of 11 passing touchdowns with no interceptions for a 127.8 SB record. While Brady has the record for completions and passing yards, due to a heavy pass offense now. But even if you look at those stats in the end the important thing is winning and Montana did that with a 4-0 super bowl record while Brady has not been able to win his last 2 super bowls going 3-2. From 1979-1990, Montana had more than twice as many postseason passing touchdowns and over 2,000 more postseason passing yards than anyone else. Since 2000, Brady leads the NFL with passing touchdowns and yards in the postseason but his margins are nowhere near Montana's. Montana was also very good at being able to find a way to win games, whether it was in the super bowl or the regular season he has led 31 comebacks in his career with comparison to Brady's 26. In conclusion, Montana is better than Brady because of the different perspectives you have to look at in terms of eras, accuracy, ability to win games, and super bowl wins.
Trump is a great President.

Happy to think with you today, I accept, But would like to point out all sources are biased to some extent. It is nearly impossible for humans not to be. Your declaration that CNN is an illegitimate source is part of the damage Trump has done to our society and media and is largely baseless. This will be part of my argument. I probably don't need sources from there, But your protests against CNN is largely your own personal bias. Some articles are terrible, Some are great. This is true for every news source. May your thoughts be clear, -Thoht
Trump is a great President.

This debate will be on whether or not Trump is actually a good President despite what the media keeps saying. Naturally, I will be defending our President. Here are the rules for this debate. Round 1: Acceptance. Round 2: Initial arguments Round 3: Rebuttals Round 4: Closing arguments All sources provided must be valid and factual. Wikipedia and other similar sites are off limits as they're not entirely factual. Biased sources like CNN are also off limits for obvious reasons. I'd also like to declare that ad hominem is also off limits as that is not a valid argument and will render this debate uncivil.
leader of team 8

Shino is the leader of team 8 because he knows Human Cocoon Technique (Anime only) Insect Clone Technique Insect Jar Technique (Anime only) Secret Technique: Insect Cocoon (Anime only) Secret Technique: Insect Gathering (Anime only) Secret Technique: Insect Sphere Spindle Formation (Anime only) and Destruction Bug Host Technique (Kikaichū) which is a lot stronger than kiba's abilities
Earth: Spherical vs Flat

Greetings all, I am a proud flat earther. I started out, like my fellow flat heads, on my opponent's side of the pulpit. I was an atheist, and thought the earth was a ball, though I had no reason for so quaint a belief, other than the "smarter guys" said so. Mars was the place we should go, "aliens" exist, the works, but i was still a truther. Totally indoctrinated as far as NASA goes though. A friend sent me a few links on it, i said he was full of it, and I could prove it, didn't even "waste " my time watching it. My first day of research i found about 10-12 (easily refuted) proofs of a ball, and about 10 times as many for a plane. I call it a realm. Now I have come up with about 10 solid proofs of a flat earth, mostly empirical. I will share a few here for consideration. I hope my opponent has some logical or empirical evidence for a ball, and I hope he, and our voters are open minded enough to not completely disregard the idea, before fully understanding the theory, and what it implies. I'd like my opponent to carefully examine my sources, and realize that since i am basically discrediting government and mainstream sources, i wont be using many if any of them. My opponent and i are off to a rocky start from an opinion poll, but i would like him to know that whoever wins the debate, my purpose here is to spread this awakening far and wide, and am positive i will affect someone. Please check your biases at the door, i am not trolling. If my opponent has no idea on how the flat earth model works, I suggest he research this first, as to not waste valuable time and space explaining dumb things like "why ships go over a curve" or "I saw a curve from a plane". Also know that I believe the Flat Earth Society has been mostly taken over and run by shills offering disinfo to discredit this awakening, so please do not associate myself with these groups. I share ideas with the likes of O.D.D. T.V., Brian Mullin, and the like, which can be found on YouTube. With that, i leave my opponent and await his contentions.
Earth: Spherical vs Flat

Recently I've come across a lot of flat-Earthers for some reason on the internet recently. The burden of proof is on both parties as I set up the debate so that both parties are making an affirmative claim. Pro is spherical Earth model, which is me, and Con is flat Earth model, my opponent.FOUR ROUNDS:1st Round: Acceptance/Opening statements2nd Round: Opening arguments3rd Round: Rebuttals/More arguments4th Round: More rebuttals/Closing statements
If the earth is the third planet from the sun. Doesn't that make every country a third world country

Well, apparently my opponent isn't sure either, but let me assure all of you who read, it may be possible to call us third world planets in a astronomical sense, but the label that my opponent associates with can't be altered because of planets relative position to the Sun as they are entirely different. Third world country is a political term that first really came to use during the cold war to define countries that had no alignment with either the USA or the USSR. It is by chance that most of these countries are developing nations and I would argue the system is a positive as it gives us a general spectrum of countries to help around the world. Did we not have this label many people would be less aware of the problems that need solving around the world through charity, the "third world" title nicely summarises to such people who is in need of aid and is a matter of convenience, not belittlement.
U.S. citizens should be allowed to deny service to homosexuals

Thank you for citing your sources and not making assumptions. At the end of your fourth paragraph you stated that "if service was denied on no other grounds than the customer's race, it would be considered discrimination in the eyes of the law. The Civil Right Act of 1964 made this quite clear." This has nothing to do with race, and would not technically considered discrimination. Why would someone who is homo sexual press charges on someone that denied them service instead of just going to another related small business? I think that small business owners should be allowed to deny service to anyone no matter race gender or belief just as long as it is justified. By not implementing this, the government is doing itself an injustice by forcing certain things on U.S. citizens. I will agree that this debate should be kept civil and please warn me if I seem to be getting angry and letting opinions and emotions get the best of me. Thank you.