BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
River Song is the best companion on Doctor Who

I forgot to mention in round 1 that my opponent is free to refute my points in this round, but she must make points of her own as well. I’d also like to say that although I’ve been watching this site for a while, this is my first time participating, so please let me know in the comments if I’m doing something wrong. Anyway, on to the debate. My points 1. River is the Doctor’s equal. When the Doctor first meets River Song, she succeeds in handcuffing him against his will and taking his place as a sacrifice. The Doctor has met his match. From that moment on, he recognizes that River doesn’t need sheltering, something he never did with Rose, whom he often tried to send away to safety. [1][2] Rose Tyler can be described as the Doctor’s “helper” of sorts. She follows the Doctor around and picks up the slack, often requiring long explanations to understand what’s going on. In contrast, River understands the Doctor so well that she is able to explain his thought process to everyone else. [3] River is also able to fly the TARDIS instinctively [4], unlike Rose [1], and mastered that skill to the point where she is better at it than the Doctor. [5]2. Rose is possessive. Traveling in the TARDIS, Rose often gets jealous of anyone who the Doctor pays attention to. [6] It’s very clear that she doesn’t want to share him with anyone, and can be very rude to people whom she feels are a threat. She immediately deems Sarah Jane a rival [7], resents Mickey for deciding to tag along [7], and is jealous of Martha. [8] River, however, is shown to be entirely neutral to the Doctor’s companions.3. Her tangled up timeline is realistic. Rose’s timeline is entirely synchronized with the Doctor’s (save for their brief encounter in The End of Time), which is rather unrealistic for a man who travels through time and space. River Song is unique in that his first encounter with her is her last. She is the first recurring character with an entirely non-linear timeline, and it surrounds her with unanswered questions. River doesn’t need anything explained to her; she knows it already. For the first time on Doctor Who, a companion knows more than the Doctor, and little by little, we learn more of her mysterious past.4. She has catchphrasesAlthough Rose was the Doctor’s companion for two solid seasons, she doesn’t develop any recurring catchphrases that would automatically identify her. [9] River, however, has several phrases she uses with the Doctor, namely “Spoilers,” and “Hello, Sweetie. ” [10] Having a unique signature makes her memorable in a way that Rose cannot be. Sources:[1] . http://tardis.wikia.com...[2] . http://tardis.wikia.com...[3] . http://tardis.wikia.com...[4] . http://tardis.wikia.com...[5] . http://tardis.wikia.com...[6] . http://thatguywiththeglasses.com...[7] . http://tardis.wikia.com...[8] . http://tardis.wikia.com...[9] . http://en.wikiquote.org...[10] . http://en.wikiquote.org...
River Song is the best companion on Doctor Who

My argument is that River Song is the best companion on Doctor Who, for reasons I'll give in the next round. The debate is over River Song and the companion chosen by Con, and the goal is to prove that one character is at least better than the other. Rules:Revived series only, no classic Who. The companion chosen must therefore be exclusively from the revived series, and must have appeared in more than one story. Only the TV episodes count, prose or comics do not.72 hours to post argument6000 character limit3000 character limit in round 4Only accept if you have time to debate all four rounds.
The Universe was Created Last Thursday

Pro is defining truth in such a way that causes problems with her case. I think her claims that the universe was created last Thursday is nothing more but a dream. Dialogue on Proof What does your model predict? If it is true, how do we show that it can be false? Falsifiability is important for discerning things that are true. From my point of view you’re making it up because I myself remember days before Thursday, as well as everyone else’s memories who judges this debate. Simply, how do you prove that you’re not dreaming? I think you’ve created a burden of proof so heavy, that I doubt that even an all mighty God could lift. Dialogue on Truth Truth can’t be manufactured. Truth isn’t based off of casual existence like us mortal beings. It’s impossible for truth not to exist, for if nothing existed, then it is true nothing exists, hence why it’s impossible for it not to exist (its non-existence is self-refuting). Since it’s not based off of casual existence, it cannot be manufactured, because that would mean that there was a point in time when it did not exist (which would be self-refuting). Truth is incompatible with paradoxes, truth cannot be false. For paradoxes to work it requires it to be possible for it to be true and untrue simultaneously. What is true and false is always as far as the east is from the west, they can never be together out of their own nature. Truth is something that is not false, false is something that is not true. Dialogue on the Worldview Why must we assume that? If we did this debate again next week, we would have to believe that the universe was created the following Thursday, and so on and so forth even if we did it next month. Do you not see the folly in this worldview? Dialogue on Nothing Well it’s easy to disprove the idea that nothing exists. I see something, therefore something exists. If nothing existed, we wouldn’t be able to see anything. Nothing has no shape or dimensions, it’s not casual, it takes up no space, and in its own nature it lacks existence because it’s the absence of all things.
The Universe was Created Last Thursday

(ref: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... see: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...) "Truth The quality or state of being in accordance with fact or reality" In regards to con: "Truth is a part of the contents of the universe. So for your logic to remain consistent, your statement would have to be inevitably untrue." The concept of truth was included in this creation. Should truth be manufactured, then we must conclude that it is true that truth is untrue, but this reaches a paradoxical scale in which we must then assume that nothing is true; that nothing exists. This scale is reached because the truth of the statement "truth is untrue" is untrue because the truth of the statement must have surely been constructed. Rather, we must define these qualities ourselves through critical thinking. If the universe exists, and there is no compelling evidence to a time prior to Thursday, then we must assume that the universe was created last Thursday. Due to the construction of the argument, the conclusion must therefore be true. The reason qualities such as age do not fit is because they are qualities commonly used to suppose that something may have existed prior to Thursday. This perceived age can be subjective and is a product of the creation, not an acquired state.
The Universe was Created Last Thursday

The universe, along with all of its contents, were created last Thursday. (ref: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...) "Content The things that are held or included in something" These contents (memories, sites, people, personalities, events(, et.c.)) and their perceived age were included in this creation ... therefore, the past was constructed and all remembrance is unreal. The conclusion is, therefore, inevitably true.
The Universe was Created Last Thursday

In regards to Con: "From my point of view you"re making it up because I myself remember days before Thursday, as well as everyone else"s memories who judges this debate. Simply, how do you prove that you"re not dreaming?" As stated, these memories were apart of the creation and are therefore unreal. This concept did not arise out of creation as it was an acquired thought as opposed to a lingering one (one that began development prior to Thursday). "Why must we assume that? If we did this debate again next week, we would have to believe that the universe was created the following Thursday [...]" If we were to define the topic, "The Universe was Created February 5th," it would not be susceptible to reinterpretation of this form. Ignoring this additional hypothesis, you go on to say that this process, without modification, must be repetitive... It is possible to believe that the universe regenerates every Thursday, therefore turning things that once existed into an entirely identical, yet separate, object. This allows us to still state that memories are unreal as 'we' did not experience them. In regards to your "Dialogue on Nothing" ... (Con, Round 2) "Truth is a part of the contents of the universe. So for your logic to remain consistent, your statement would have to be inevitably untrue." (Pro, Round 3) "the truth of the statement 'truth is untrue' is untrue because the truth of the statement must have surely been constructed." To extend on this, the hypothesis is not restricted to the logic of predetermined quality because it is an acquired hypothesis, not a lingering one. It acquired its quality of truth rather than having been formed with creation where its truth becomes corrupted. When I claimed "we must then assume that nothing is true," I say so because the hypothesis' truth could not be restricted to creation, else we'd have to assume that truth has contradicted itself. In order for its truth to be arguable, it would have to be acquired and therefore open to interpretation.
Euthanasia

Based on the argument that euthanasia could lead to corruption, reasonable laws could be put in place to make sure it doesn't get abused. For example, so that life isn't just put in one doctor's hands, approval for such process should require at least two doctors, and the patient's family consent. Also, to make sure the patient is mentally and emotinally stable(not just depressed) a psychologist should also have a say in the process. Ultimetly, in the end, the patient gets the last word. While many people think suicide is just a teenage's/ young adult's mind set, the eldery by far commit the most suicide according to statistics. See, many of the eldery look ahead in life, all they see in disease, pain and loneliness in front of them. Sadly, suicide can never be stopped. So, I ask, which sounds more humane, overdose, cutting one's wrist, a bullet to the head or a lethal injection in a stable, compassionate hospital? All end in sadness I guess, but would you rather see someone's wall splattered with blood from a clumsy suicide attepmt or saying your last goodbye to a loved one, ending his life with dignity and happiness?
Euthanasia

Personally, I am Pro- Euthananasia. If in the modern, well developed society we live in, we have the right to live, shouldn't we also get the right to die? Pain is a sad fact of life, it's inevitable. Most of us can get through a tought time, to the other side of the mountain. So, what if that mountain is just a uphill battle full of pain and misery that leads nowhere?
America Belongs To White People

Welcome to the debate! I am glad to be here. I and my opponent will be debating whether or not America belongs to white people. Specifically, I will be debating that it does not. My opponent's (Pro) task will be to create a superior opposing argument. They will be allowed to say whatever they want as long as it relates to the topic. We ask that readers and voters behave in a civilized, polite manner. If you vote on the topic, remember to vote based on the strength of our arguments ONLY. Any personal opinions you might have on the topic should be disregarded. It's like jury duty, only this time you don't have to get dressed up or miss work! Here are the Rules: -All rounds must follow the Round Outline. -A forfeited round equals an automatic loss. -Not following the Round Outline equals an automatic loss. Round Outline: -Round #1 Acceptance and opening remarks only. -Round #2 Main argument. No rebuttals will be posted in this round. Arguments only! -Round #3 Rebuttals. Here we will try to refute our opponent's previous argument. Round #4 i Defense and closing remarks. In this round, defend your point against the rebuttals made in the previous round and offer a closing remark or two. Thank you in advance to my opponent for not being a pain in the butt, and to the fine folks at Debate.org for generously hosting.
Young Earth Creationism Is Improbable

Full ResolutionYoung earth creationism is improbable. BoP is shared. DefinitionsYoung Earth Creationism: ". .. the religious belief that the Universe, Earth and all life on Earth were created by direct acts of the Abrahamic God in a period of 6 days, sometime between 5,700 and 10,000 years ago. " [1] Improbable: "Unlikely to take place or be true. " [2]Rules1. The first round is for acceptance.2. Forfeits are not allowed. 3. No trolling/kritiks/deconstructional semantics.4. All arguments must be visible inside this debate; sources may be inside this debate or in an external link.5. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed in the middle of the debate. Debate StructureRound 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Presenting all arguments (no rebuttals by Con)Round 3: Refutation of opponent's arguments (no new arguments)Round 4: Defending your original arguments and conclusion (no new arguments)Sources1. . https://en.wikipedia.org... 2. . http://www.thefreedictionary.com...;
Scottish Independence

Since Pro has not posted anything, I shall now post my arguments. Scotland's membership in NATO, the United Nations and the European Union are due to its membership of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Without this membership, it is unlikely that Scotland will be re-admitted into these organisations with anywhere near as much power as it currently has. This in turn also has an effect on the defence of Scotland. While it may be able to keep the British Batallions based in Scotland, it will probably have only a fraction of its current military power. Also, Scotland has no withstanding Security Agencies, meaning these will have to be set up. And where shall the money come from? The people of Scotland. This, in turn, will cause higher taxation and possible inflation. Also, in all likeliness, Scotland will have to create its own currency. Currently in the Commons, many are voting against Scotland keeping the Pound. This is because it will benefit the rest of Britain, in that many notes will be pulled out of circulation, making the currency more valuable. It is also unlikely that Scotland shall get the Euro, as German taxpayers do not want to pay for the introduction of another country into the EU, and also due to the Catalan region of Spain. This is a region which wishes to be autonomous. If the Spanish government do not veto the introduction of Scotland into the EU, then the Catalonians who wish to be autonomous shall have a reason to break away, and have a strong standing to join the EU. This may cause unrest. So, to round off, Scotland will have many problems joining any worldwide groups, its position in international relations will be heavily affected and its defence will be in danger.
SuburbiaSurvivor's Opponent Should Win This Debate

I thank Con for a stellar response! First of all, I would like to point out Con's incredible humility. There are not many people on this site who would admit that they are miserable sad loners. In fact, there are not many people in general who would point out that they are miserable sad loners. Con's willingness to give the vote to me is also outstanding! He's literally advocating for me to win. Here are my continued arguments for why Con should win this debate:I. Con Is PassionateAs you can see by his style of writing, Con is clearly passionate! His use of capitalized letters further emphasize his conviction of his cause. If anything, Con should win solely for his passion. II. Con Is A BossP1: Con is Con. P2: All Cons in this debate are bosses. P3: You can not be a boss and not be a boss at the same time. P4: Con is in this debate. P5: Therefore, Con is a boss. My infallible logic has proven that Con is in this debate. III. It Is Morally Wrong For Bosses Not To Win This DebateP1: It is morally wrong not to vote for someone who hasn't given the best argument. P2: Bosses always give the best arguments because of reasons. P3: Con is a boss. P4: It is morally wrong not to vote for Con. The only way to refute this argument is to reject objective morality. Of course, if we reject morality, then we can do whatever we want. If I rejected objective morality, I could kill all of the voters and it would be okay because morality is subjective and according to my perception of morality it is morally wrong NOT to kill people who I don't like. So since we can't reject objective morality because it would mean we could kill anyone and it would be okay, my argument wins. IV. Vote For Con For The Greater GoodP1: It is good to do things that make people happy. P2: Making people happy is a greater good then not making people happy. P3: Voting for Con will make Con and me happy. P4: Since it will make us happy it is for the greater good. P5: If you are a utilitarian then you know what I mean. P6: Vote Con. III. Chuck Norris Likes ConThis facebook page proves that Chuck Norris likes Con. . https://www.facebook.com... IV. Con Is Clever And PunnyDid you see how Con cleverly used my debating position to compliment me? "Don't vote for Con, vote for PRO! Because he is a pro at debating"This further proves my point, that Con is an extremely creative individual, and should win this debate! I suck at puns. Con does not suck at puns. BAM.
SuburbiaSurvivor's Opponent Should Win This Debate

Con did not respond because he had nothing to say, pro had made him speechless. Pro is so awesome and cool. Pro is a nice person (unlike me) I am miserable sad loner. So VOTE FOR PRO because he is clearly a stronger opponent and has AMAZING debate skills. He came up with so many GREAT points and explained them SO well and clearly addressing the audience. He clearly is a better opponent and I'm sure he's a genious. Pro is also a person full of great ideas. One example of this is this very debate (WHAT A GREAT IDEA FOR THIS FUN, INTERESTING, DIFFERENT DEBATE!!) Conclusion: Don't vote for Con, vote for PRO! because he is a pro at debating. PRO FOR THE WIN!!! XD
SuburbiaSurvivor's Opponent Should Win This Debate

Con's Profile Picture Reflects On His Clearly Stellar PersonalityI may not know very many ladies, because I live in my mom's basement and I don't get out much. But I do know that ladies love a snappy dresser. Con's choice of profile picture clearly shows his desire to appear classy, and the microphone in front of his avatars head shows that he has a love for public speaking. I would go so far as to suggest that Con may go into politics one day and become a very influential senator! Con Is From London, And Should Win For His Accent AloneEnglish accents are probably the coolest, classiest, and mostest stellar accents in the world. (See video). The video has other accents, but still. English accents are boss. . http://www.youtube.com...Con Has An Overall Cheery DispositionAfter he accepted this debate, he put a smiley face! People who do not have cheery dispositions do not put smiley faces after they accept a debate. Con Is Open-Minded About Most Controversial IssuesCon's profile shows that he is undecided for all controversial issues. This is good because as someone who is open-minded, he will vote fairly. A lot of you have bee complaining about being votebombed. Well, don't worry about that coming from Con! Con is partial either way. He will only vote for the person he thinks is convincing. Con Should Win So He Will Stay On DDOCon's profile shows that he only has one finished debate. That debate was a tie. If Con does not start winning, it's very likely that he will leave the site! We do not want to discourage this clearly stellar, cheerful, english-accent speaking individual away from our comunity. If I Win You Will Encourage Bad BehaviorRight now there are other things I should be doing. Like schoolwork, chores, I could be looking for a job. But being on DDO is distracting me from that. You must choose Con to discourage me from my irresponsible bahviorConclusion: Con Should Win This Debate
The existence of a God

My opponent is making assertions without evidence. 1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists. True. I agree 2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world. WRONG: Just because something is possible, doesn't mean that it is real. It either could be real, or it could be just possible, but not real. 3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world. IF it exists, yes, but there is no proof that it does, indeed, exist. It may be possible, but that doesn't prove it actually does exist. 4. If it exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world. Yes, IF it exists...but, again, IF isn't proof that it DOES exist. 5. Therefore, a maximally great being exists. It exists, IF and only IF it exists. There is no proof that it does exist. My opponent wants to assert that everything possible is also real. There's no evidence for that. Now for the Transcendental Argument. My opponent wants to assert, "The immaterial, absolute, perfect, and transcendent source is God". Again, that's a claim without evidence. How can anyone claim it is God? It is possible that the source could be naturally accruing. Where is the EVIDENCE that the source is God. That's just a claim without evidence. I also want to point out that logical absolutes don't prove there is a God. It just proves there are logical absolutes, which also can be naturally occurring without a God. My opponent wants to assert that "We don't find these in nature." We know for a fact that the natural Universe seconds after the Big Bang, did not have the same properties and laws as it does today. It is possible, that the Big bang itself is the immaterial, absolute, perfect, and transcendent source, in which case, it DOES happen in nature. Again, there is no evidence either way. The burden of proof is on those making the positive claim. My opponent is making assertions without evidence. The fact that other options, besides a God, are also possible, proves that God may not be the answer. The doubt for a God outweighs the assertion for a God, due to the lack of evidence for a God. My opponent has also attempted to claim "If the universe didn't exist, the absolutes would" Where is the evidence for that? There is no way to examine a situation without a Universe. Without a way to get demonstrable evidence for such a claim, it can't be used as a true fact. What my opponent has done is to make several claims without being able to prove them. There is no evidence that: 1. "If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world." 2. "The immaterial, absolute, perfect, and transcendent source is God". 3. "If the universe didn't exist, the absolutes would" Since I do not have the burden of proof, and my opponent lacks the evidence for his claims, I will declare that my opponent has not been able to prove the existence of God.