BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Nuclear Power

For once, this is not impossible to accept. If you want to accept, you can right now. I'm probably going to be in the Winter's Tourney, so this will just be a short debate.1. Acceptance2. Arguments3. Rebuttals4. Defense/ ConclusionNo arguments in last round.No forfeits because of the glitch, don't troll, etc.Definitions (bsh's def):Nuclear Power: electric or motive power generated by a nuclear reactor.Countries: areas of land controlled by a sovereign governmentOught - implies moral desirabilityProhibit - to forbid (ban)Production - the creation of utility, specifically, the making of goods available for useResolution: Countries ought to allow the production of nuclear powerCan accept now.
Hitler Wanted to Exterminate the Jews

You did not prove Hitler wanted to kill a single Jew. You only proved he wanted to banish them from Germany: 1: 'his poisoning of the nation will not end, until the carrier himself, the Jew, has been banished' 3: 'Let nobody tell me that all the same we can’t park them in [banish to] the marshy parts of Russia! ... public rumor attributes to us a plan to exterminate the Jews. Terror is a salutary thing.' Note that I am denying the credibility of your second 'quote' where Hitler supposedly says he wants to hang Jews on 'gallows'. It purports to be a statement made in a conversation ... but where is the proof this statement was ever made? Who wrote the transcript? Was it in public? Did Josef Hell report that Hitler told him this? You need to establish the credibility of this quote to satisfy your burden of proof.
We need to abandon the theory of evolution because it has not been able to explain the diversity of

When I am speaking of the diversity of life, I am talking about whales,monkeys,fish in all thier varieties,birds,dinosaurs,etc. I am not talking about small changes within a species such as small changes in a beak. I am talking about new species coming forth and so far,evolution has not given us a satisfactory answer.It is time to find a new paradigm to work within that will be more effective.
We need to abandon the theory of evolution because it has not been able to explain the diversity of

Regarding sources, I believe for your sources to count, you must a website at which the information may be accessed with footnotes in your argument for the sites. Thus, your Dawkins quote and your sources from books are invalidated as you have provided no source. You said things such as: it is common knowledge that dogs evolved from wolves” no citation and no evidence to show. You saying it does not make it true. Yet it is true. Domestic dogs (Canis lupus familiarus) is a sub-species of Canus lupus, or the grey wolf. Dogs and wolves are clearly very different, thus this is a prime example of speciation. Another great example of speciation is chimpanzee to humans. Humans are clearly very different from chimpanzees, yet we have evidence that humans were once chimpanzees. Human and chimp DNA are 97.5% similar. [2] Speciation between chimps into humans was thought to have occurred 6.5 million years ago. [1] All these examples show us that speciation is clearly correct. “Nature has shown us many examples” with no reference. I instead used a footnote. Consider the Cambrian period. My opponent once again has provided no source for his information. However, during the Cambrian explosion animals didn’t just appear fully developed. During the biological big bang, animals began growing claws, teeth, and tentacles. They began adapting to their environment (evolution). Vertebrates appeared after. [3] Hopefully my opponent will address my points including the previous ones where he acted like I was making up studies. My opponent has failed to address MY points and the studies that I provided a source for which clearly shows that laboratory experiments are very different from nature. Furthermore, the studies of my opponents has shown actually proves evolution. According to Darwin’s laws of evolution, animals that have useless adaptions will die out, while animals with useful adaptations will survive. Extra bristles serve no purpose to fruit flies, thus they died out, further proving evolution. As I have shown already, the laboratory is very different from nature. Clearly, we see that evolution has provided the answer for the creation of species. Thus VOTE CON. I thank my opponent for a thought-provoking debate! SOURCES . http://www.nature.com... . http://www.cs.unc.edu... . http://scienceray.com...
We need to abandon the theory of evolution because it has not been able to explain the diversity of

Let me address a couple of things. You are saying I gave no citations when I clearly did on the Dawkins quote and you still ignored the agument. Second I saw no citations in your arguments. You said things such as :it is common knowledge dofs evolved from wolf" no citation and no evidence to show. You saying it does not makin it true. If all the people in the world say it still does not make it true. I offered studies to back up my points and you did not address them. You also said "nature has shown us many examples" with no refernece. Your arguments seem to be more tautology than evidence. However, you mention the fossil record. Let me address that- Even Darwin knew the fossil record did not support his theory. Conditions have not gotten better since then. Consider this statement "We are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species, but the situation hasn't changed much. The record is still surprisingly jerky, we have fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time" Davis Raup, Conflicts between Darwin and Palentology, Field Museum of Natural History,vol.50,no 1,1979,pp22-29. The late harvard palentologist Stephen Jay Gould said(he loved evolution by the way) called the "extreme rarity" of transitional animals "the trade secret of palentology" Consider the Cambrian period, when life forms suddenly appeared on the scene fully developed. Let me quote Dawkins again"It is as though they were just planted there, without evolutionary history. I have read many ways evolutionists have tried to explain this explosion but none with any great satisfaction. They mostly have conjectures like Dawkins from my previous argument trying desperatly to explain how bats or other flying creatures came to be with no evidence to back it up. Some said if only we could find fossils preceding the era they woulde show transitonal forms. However in 1984 palentologists did just that in China. What did it show-no transitional forms. So the fossil recod you have put forth does not explain how how the different life forms from plants to dinosaurs arrived. It just does not have evidence to back up macro-evolution. I think the paradigm is so strong that people stick with evolution as an argument even though there may be other answers out there. Hopefully my opponent will address my points including the previous ones where he acted like I was making up studies.
We need to abandon the theory of evolution because it has not been able to explain the diversity of

I would now like to take this time to refute the arguments brought forth by my opponent and present my own case. I am talking about species changing into other species. For voter’s reference, this is also known as speciation. These studies have shown time and again what dog breeders know, there are limits to evolution. My opponent has provided no sources for these studies. The difference between these studies (which my opponent has provided no citation for) and nature, is that in nature these animals are FORCED to adapt in order to survive in their environment. I will be elaborating on this further in my contentions. My opponent has provided absolutely ZERO sources, so his points are voided until a citation is provided for where his “studies” and “evidence” come from. CONTENTION: SPECIATION (a direct result of evolution) RESULTS IN NEW SPECIES Evolution is the idea that a creature will adapt to its environment, and evolve with physical or biological adaptations. These adaptations allow the animal or plant to survive in their environment. Through evolution, these animals change so much that they become a different species, which is speciation. An easy example of speciation is in dogs. It is common knowledge that the domestic dog evolved from the wolf. Are Chihuahuas at all similar to wolves? Not at all, these are two different species created through speciation. Fossil evidence shows us how speciation has created distinct species, animals such as the Galapagos Turtles and Komodo Dragons. [1] Nature has shown us many examples of how speciation creates new species, such as in sea gulls, warblers, and salamanders. [2] Differences in lab speciation and natural speciation is obvious. When grown in a lab, tetraploid sporophytes were very different from natural ones. When grown in the lab, they grew far slower than natural ones, despite the scientist’s best efforts to make the conditions in labs as natural as possible. [3] Furthermore, my opponent has provided no source for any of his arguments, and I would invite him to cite his studies. Clearly, speciation is a product of evolution. The creation of new species is speciation. Thus, evolution creates new species. Why would we abandon a correct theory? Thus, I have disproved the resolution. VOTE CON. SOURCES . http://curiosity.discovery.com... . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://www.talkorigins.org...
We need to abandon the theory of evolution because it has not been able to explain the diversity of

It looks like you are thinking about micro evolution which I am not disputing. I am talking about species changing into other species. For insatnce, when Darwin saw finches on Galapagos he noticed changes in beaks. That is fine. However there were thirteen varieties (some say 13 or 17)then and are still the same number today. Consider the fruit fly-Life cycle is about 10 days. Excellent for research. There have been numerous experiments with them to cause mutations. Now there are different mutations such as deletions,insertions,inversions and fruit flies are good specimen to study. These studies have shown time and again what dog breeders know, there are limits to evolution. In one experiemnt the fly was selected for a decrease in bristles and another for an increase in bristles. The original parent stock had an average of 36 bristles. After many generations they were able to get the average down to 25 bristles and what happened? They became sterile and died out. In the other they went up to 56 bristles, then sterility set in. There have been many more experiments with the Drosophila melanogaster,but no new species. Now what happens when we leave these guys alone after playing around with them. They quickly go back to the common fruit fly. I work in the field of education. Educational psychologists call this "regression toward the mean". Descendents generally move back to the mathematical average. Of course when evolution was developed by Darwin,he had no idea how complex things were on a molecular level even for a fruit fly. Science has moved on and we need to discard some of these old ways of thinking from 1859. We have not been able to develop new species in the lab so evolution uses conjecture, such as Ricard Dawkins in his book "The Blind Watchmaker'. He talks about how a bat(he does not use that term) evolved from possible a squirrel. It is on page 89-90 if you want to look it up. He conjectures that an animal jumps from a branch and slowly over time develops a flap growing from joints and so forth until we get a flying creature. That argument leaves me unsatisfied because there is no proof in the fossil records, and so forth. There are many more examples I can give where evolution has failed us on the big questions. It does a real nice job of explaining diversity on a micro level such as different colored moths in Industrial England. Evolution has failed in trying to tell us the how different species developed.
We need to abandon the theory of evolution because it has not been able to explain the diversity of

I would like to offer forth some definitions. Theory of Evolution: - a scientific theory of the origin of species of plants and animals that is characterised by the idea that animals and plants will adapt to pressures from their environment e. g. longer beak etc. that help the animal survive Abandon - discard the theory as false Diversity of (? ?) - I'm assuming my opponent means that the theory of evolution doesn't show why there is a diversity of life on the planet I look forward to my opponent's response!
Do you agree with Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's Death Sentence

Now onto my closing statement. I would like to point out that by not executing you are allowing Dzhokhar to live just as long if not longer than the family members of the family and the victims themselves. Tsarnaev does not deserve to live another day on this earth and he has done something unforgivable. He killed people his mental state is already off itself so who is to say he wont mind the incarceration. The money and emotional expense that the taxpayers as well as families and victims must pay is not worth it and he should just be ended.
Do you agree with Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's Death Sentence

Now, back to the matter posted at hand. Let me pose this question to you. What will happen when he is executed? This will cause a media frenzy, with a build up to the execution to the likes of the Super-fight that occurred just under a month ago. If he were to serve life without parole he would be jailed and his name would never be mentioned again, however as he is prepared to die, news networks such as FOX and CNN would be hammering us with coverage, and for those whose families lost loved ones on that fateful day and the days following, it will reopen those horrific wounds. I understand that the death penalty would as Stalin once said "Death solves all problems. No man. No problem. " but do you believe reopening those wounds will be alright for the family? Surely the best way to handle the grief is not to shove a microphone in the face of someone over a decade after their family member was killed. As I close, his acts were cruel and unforgiving. His cowardly acts after the bombing leave me no choice but to call him nonhuman. If life for him would've been as bad as the CNN article mentioned it would be in the Colorado Prison than him suffering mentally over the next 50+ years would've been far more satisfying than a lethal injection in the near distant future.
Do you agree with Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's Death Sentence

Let me add that you believe that the cost of appealing his case until executed outweighs the 10 million dollars? I really do not believe that at all and you didn't back it up with a timed source. As well as the money aspect, why does Tsarnaev get to continue to live when the people he killed do not? Their families have to live with that for the rest of their lives, while he sits in a taxpayer funded cell getting three meals a day and a place to sleep. He is getting better treatment than the homeless people of America! He deserves the death penalty, so the families can have a sense of closure and because he does not deserve to live while his victims either don't enjoy the same quality of life as previous or are dead because of him.
Do you agree with Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's Death Sentence

But even prior to talking about the execution itself you must also consider the cost of Tsarnaev's defense alone. According to one source the cost for a federal death penalty case is 8 times as much compared to life without parole. You must be able to comprehend what will unfold over the next decade or more. His legal team will file appeal after appeal milking their bill. And of course guess who is paying for his attorneys? No one other than the American taxpayer. If he was sentenced to life we would never have to face multiple appeals or view the circus that will unfold when he is executed. And the cost of keeping him would be far less expensive than the next decade plus of appeal after appeal. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...
Do you agree with Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's Death Sentence

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is an evil man. April 15th, 2013 was a dark day for the city of Boston and the rest of the United States as a whole. He destroyed the lives of countless people whether they were injured or killed or families of either. His insensitive acts deserve a reaction. He killed 5 people during this event including a police officer that was shot to death protecting the innocent. When in court he showed no remorse and seemed pleased at the pain that he caused. Now that we have a background we can begin to address your argument. Now onto his punishment which my opponent seems to be interested in. I believe that the decision made my the court as a whole is the correct one for two reasons, a person that has murdered innocent people and injured countless others does not deserve to be alive. Second is that it would cost the people and citizens or tax payers of Boston that had just began to deal with the grief and tragedy another entirety to deal with, the cost. For Tsarnaev to live in prison for the "50-60 years" or the rest of his life would cost on average 200,000 dollars per year! (1) That would be 10,000,000 to incarcerate him for the rest of his life. So on your point is it really worth it to keep him here and pay millions for his life or pay the small amount of money for the lethal injection Sources: http://www.golocalprov.com...
Do you agree with Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's Death Sentence

In all fairness this in no way my personal opinion on the death penalty. I believe the death penalty should be and remain legal. However in this case I believe Dzhokhar Tsarnaev should serve life in prison. Being from Massachusetts I am very angry with the act he committed on that fateful day. But he should live and he should've suffered in prison the rest of his life. According to the CNN article below, he would suffer in confinement for 23 hours daily with no communication or interaction. In my mind spending his final 50-60 years on this planet suffering would be much more savoring than the 15 years before his execution. www.cnn.com/2015/05/13/us/dzhokhar-tsarnaev-supermax-prison
Obama has bad policies that are harming our nation

:) Thank you for taking this on , and lets have Fun!The first policy I will tackle is gun control. He has taken a step that no other president has ever done and is attempted to ban some type of fire arms. This could be a good idea if handled correctly, but will accomplish nothing and waste tax dollars to bring this bill to life. In the past few months, he has been more focused on passing this law than focusing on some of the issues that we are having with syria and egypt which very well could result in the next world war. I will also add the coverup his adminisration did with benghazi. This if true is an outrage, and we have every reason to believe he coverd it up. The stories changed multiple times and at one point left the administration speechless with how to respond. http://www.washingtontimes.com...http://www.huffingtonpost.com...Obama in a way is also trying to promote socialism with his view on healthcare, welfare, and the like. He believes raising taxes on the rich will slove our budget problem all whilte forgetting that the best points in this nation when it was working as a capitalist society. When we start leaning toward socialism there is no way for companies to compete and grow.http://www.newhistory.org...I will now address his stance on welfare and unemployment. The way unemployment works now is call a number , push buttons, say you are looking for a job and tada you have it. They make no effort to make sure you are getting a job. In fact in use to be more strict. They lessened the requirements which is illogical. Also the numbers in the unemployment count have increased since he has been in office. You can argue that the BOLS has a chart that shows unemployment decreasing, however this chart does not take into considerationt those who are already unemployed. It only calucates new people entering into it. He is also cutting pay for service members. This is one argument I hold dearly as i believe our troops deserve the pay they get which is already low enough. They fight and die for us, so they should at least earn the pay they are making as of now. Cutting it is a slap in a face and not a viable option to save moneyhttp://nation.foxnews.com...In short this president has innacted and keeps promoting policies that have never worked or will never work in our society. History shows us that capitalism has shown us the best economic times in our nation, yet he still leans toward redistribution of wealth. He has cut pay for our troops, covered up an incident involving the death our our soliders, and has a poor unemployment plan. If we want this nation to grow and prosper we can not look toward policies that will not work.
The unit system is better than the end of year exam system.

"Not only will a student following the unit system have all the aforementioned bonuses, the student will also have several additional bonuses that grow from one simple fact: a student studying for a unit test won't have to spend as much time at home studying as a student studying for an exam. Studies have shown that a student should not spend more than 10 minutes per grade level (that is 10 minutes for first grade, 20 minutes for second grade, and so on and so forth) doing homework, which includes studying for a test/exam; working/studying more actually cause test/exam scores to go down. Studies have also shown that the best students do not have tons of homework, but instead have a modest amount of homework, reasonable amounts of free time, and get a good night's sleep every night. With less studying time comes less time working, and therefore, more free time as well as time to sleep." You have nothing to back up any of that information and I could not find any studies relating to this. Please don't make up information in a debate. That alone should forfeit your whole argument. Also how does one student get less homework than another? I believe that in a class the teacher assigns all the students the same homework, therefore proving your point about how some marvelous studies you decided not to cite that the best students get less homework and all the other statements in that sentence are false. Please refrain from making up absurd studies and fact check before posting any arguments. I also don't see anywhere in my third round argument where I rebut your third round argument. I was responding to your second and first rounds and adding more information because this round was dedicated to additional comments but never does it say that it is limited to them. If I had the opportunity to call you out on your false studies, I would have done so without hesitation but I respected your rules. I still stand on all my previous statements and have sources backing them up just below. http://www.educationspace360.com... http://paulrheller.com... http://www.psychologytoday.com... Thank you for this debate.