BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Noah's Ark

Case 1: The Lie Called Noah's ArkThe first and biggest thing that proves Noah's ark never happened is all the animals Noah would have to get! All the animals, from all the countries, from all the continents. Even if Noah could, how could he feed all of those animals for let alone the 40 days and 40 nights of rain?!?! Not to mention all he time it took all the water to evaporate. The next biggest thing is Noah was 500 years old when he started building the ark, and 600 when he finished. This is bull! In the time, a Egyptian was considered ancient at age 60. Think, that is 440 year younger than when Noah started building the ark, and 540 years when Noah was done with the ark! Also, how could the boat float with all the pounds of all the species of elephants and all the other animals. There work back then wasn't really good. Also, how could they keep all the animals from eating each other? They also say that the only humans on the ark were Noah and his family which means we are all descendants of Noah.
Global Warming Exists

For my opening statement/introduction, I will continue by defining the main topic, global warming. "Global Warming": Is the dramatic increase in global temperature in both the air and ocean. Global warming is caused by the excessive release of co2 (carbon dioxide) into the air. These released amounts of carbon dioxide gather in the ozone layer, which is supposed to protect the world from the sun's dangerous ultra violent rays. When the co2 is in the ozone layer, instead of defending the world from the heat, it absorbs it. This is where "global warming" comes from. It literally is like it sounds. When this heat is in the ozone, it causes serious climatic changes in many regions through out the world. One of the issues that attracts most of the world is the rapid melting of the ice caps located in the Antarctic region. When the ice caps melt, it adds to the oceans around the world. This rapid increase of water amount can lead to flooding and the disruption of the North Atlantic Current. This also contributes to climate changes. Flooding would have to attain most of the world's attention. This is primarily due to major cities that lie on the coasts of regions. An example of why this issue is most important is the fact that one of the last pieces that broke off the ice caps was about the size of Rhode Island. I would ask viewers to think of the amount of water that is and image how much exactly that adds to the ocean. For the voters' concerns...I will post links that consist of information about global warming: http://www.epa.gov... http://www.globalwarming.org... http://topics.nytimes.com...# http://en.wikipedia.org... Now please if my opponent would be so kind and proceed with his/her opening statement and state his/her reasoning.... Thank you!
It is 100% Wrong to be Gay

01) Being gay is not natural. b29; And real Americans always reject unnatural things like polyester, and air conditioning, tattoos, piercings 02) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, b29;in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall. 03) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. b29;People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract. 04) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; b29;Hence why women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal. 05) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; b29;And we can't let the sanctity of Britany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage be destroyed. 06) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. b29;So therefore, gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our population isn't out of control, our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children. 07) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, b29;Since of course straight parents only raise straight children. 08) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. b29;In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America. 09) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. b29; Which is exactly why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children. 10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. b29;Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.
It is 100% Wrong to be Gay

Why is being gay wrong? I'm a straight girl with no deep religious views. I know the difference between right and wrong. Homosexuality is not wrong. It is not exactly right. But heterosexuality is not right either. If anything they are both right, they are both a choice for each person to individually look at it. Or maybe it"s not really a choice. Maybe people are born gay. I really think I was born straight. I just want to know why people think it"s so wrong. So I'll argue a few point people usually bring up. God Thinks its Wrong How the hell do we know what God thinks? God loves everyone and he forgives you as long as you ask. So if he can forgive a pedophile, which is possibly the worst type of person, as long as they ask for forgiveness, why can't he forgive a gay? I'm not saying gays need to ask for forgiveness I'm just saying if he really did think it was wrong why couldn't he forgive them? If you think being gay is against god why can't you just get on with your life and let god deal with it when gays get to heaven? The Population Will Go Down If Gays Can Marry I saw someone post that on another discussion. That is so ignorant. Homosexuality has been around for centuries it just wasn't talked about because it wasn't a big deal. The next generation will not just decided to be gay because they see gay people married. They won't even always think it"s right if gays are married. Blacks and whites get married all the time but alot of kids are taught that that"s wrong. Its whatever their parents tell them. Even if they think its right they won't just turn gay. They will have to decide who they are on their own just like every person before them. They will merely accept it. And that brings me to.. Gay Marriage Ruins the Sanctity of Marriage All I have to say is if people are fighting so hard for something, so passionately, just to be like everyone else why can't we let them? Romeo and Juliet fought for their marriage which was considered wrong, and everyone thinks it"s the best love story ever. Two people fighting and dying just to love each other. Why was it beautiful when they fought for a marriage considered wrong but when two men do it its against god? If they fight so hard for it then they really want it and they will mean their vows so much more than straight people who take marriage for granted.
Single-sex schools are good for education

It seems that my opponent has completely disregarded the arguments I've made in the first paragraph and wishes to not include evidence about the first sentence in my second. What explains that less interaction with the other sex causes problems? Aren't they able to hang out with them after school? It is very obvious with your comment about population decreases linked to more gay students to be that you have absolutely no clue or evidence to back your arguments up, and seem to primarily be bashing on homosexuals. Adoption is always an alternative, but that has absolutely nothing to do with same-sex school environments in the slightest. I await your rebuttal.
Single-sex schools are good for education

Okay, how does homosexuality have any impact on the learning style and needs of students? Schools are intended to have students learn the basic core classes such as math, language, social studies, and science. Social skills, of course, are important and such skills develop in the school environment, but it's not the primary focus, because social skils can be taught anywhere. Also, what evidence do you have that students will switch and prefer just because of the fact that they go to a same-sex school? People are born with their sexualities, even though society can influence their expression and openness of holding such an identity. Also, rape is about power, not attraction, so are you sure that this debate has nothing to do with ripping on homosexuals?
Death Penalty Should be Banned

Argument 1- Con says,"Why do innocent people get killed? Because of fault in police investigation. The judiciary gives death penalty based on the evidences presented before it. So death penalty can't be blamed for death of these innocent people. "You are not getting my point, brother. If the death penalty was not being considered, these people would not have died. The 'fault' in the police investigation would not have killed an innocent person if the death penalty was not being considered. Also, there have been many cases where the death penalty was given even when there wasn't any sufficient evidence. Argument 2- Con says,"Aren't they violating the Right to Life of the victims. Even the victims have the right to live. It is just Tit for tat. "I have discussed this in the second round- 'Wait. What? You kill somebody as a punishment for killing someone else? An eye for an eye and the world will go blind. Also, if a person kills somebody, he is violating the victim's 'Right to Life' but if you kill the murderer by sentencing him to death, you too are snatching away his 'Right to Life'. So, there is no difference between you and the murderer because both of you did the same thing- kill. 'Argument 3- Con says,"Let's talk about USA. In 2010, 39 inmates were executed in the United States and 3,108 were on death row. Many states such as Texas, Oklahoma, Florida, Ohioand Arizona regularly execute convicted murderers. Texas has performed the most executions by far, and Oklahoma has had (through mid-2011) the highest per capitaexecution rate. (. http://en.www.wikipedia.org......)What about the crime rate? The Federal Bureau of Investigation reported Tuesday that homicides dropped nearly 7 percent in the first half of 2013, compared with the same period a year earlier. Violent crime fell 5 percent. The greatest drop in homicides, 14.5 percent, took place in the Northeast, but other regions also reported a fal loff in homicide rates: the West (6.9 percent), South (5.4 percent) and Midwest (4.3 percent). (. http://www.csmonitor.com......)So this proves that capital punishment deters crime. "If you have read the whole argument, you wouldn't probably say this. I clearly explained that the countries that do not give the death penalty had lower crime and murder rates than the other countries. So, not considering the death penalty seems to be a better option, doesn't it? Also, criminologists claim that the reasons due to which the crime rate has decreased include the fear of imprisonment but DO NOT include the fear of the death penalty (. http://www.csmonitor.com...).Thank You Con for this debate.
Death Penalty Should be Banned

Argument 1-Pro says ' Innocent People are Killed The death penalty is irreversible.' Why do innocent people get killed?Because of fault in police investigation.The judiciary gives death penalty based on the evidences presented before it.So death penalty can't be blamed for death of these innocent people. Argument 2-Pro says 'It is a violation of the human rights. All humans on the earth have human rights, which include the right to life. The right to life is one of the basic human rights. Giving someone capital punishment is a violation of that right and is thus wrong.' So aren't they violating the Right to Life of the victims.Even the victims have the right to live.It is just Tit for tat. Argument 3-Pro says 'Death Penalty does not deter the rate of Murder and other crimes.' Let's talk about USA. In 2010, 39 inmates were executed in the United States and 3,108 were on death row. Many states such as Texas, Oklahoma, Florida, Ohioand Arizona regularly execute convicted murderers. Texas has performed the most executions by far, and Oklahoma has had (through mid-2011) the highest per capitaexecution rate. (http://en.www.wikipedia.org...) What about the crime rate? The Federal Bureau of Investigation reported Tuesday that homicides dropped nearly 7 percent in the first half of 2013, compared with the same period a year earlier. Violent crime fell 5 percent. The greatest drop in homicides, 14.5 percent, took place in the Northeast, but other regions also reported a fal loff in homicide rates: the West (6.9 percent), South (5.4 percent) and Midwest (4.3 percent). (http://www.csmonitor.com...) So this proves that capital punishment deters crime.
Death Penalty Should be Banned

Argument 1- Con says," 'I personally have always voted for the death penalty because I believe that people who go out prepared to take the lives of other people forfeit their own right to live.'-Margaret Thatcher". Just quoting somebody doesn't prove your point. Argument 2- Con says,"If the convict kills someone isn't he violating that person's Right to Life." Grammatical mistake here. A question is always followed by a question mark.Wait. What? You kill somebody as a punishment for killing someone else? An eye for an eye and the world will go blind.Also, if a person kills somebody, he is violating the victim's 'Right to Life' but if you kill the murderer by sentencing him to death, you too are snatching away his 'Right to Life'. So, there is no difference between you and the murderer because both of you did the same thing- kill.Argument 3- Con says,"It is better to execute the convict rather than spending so heavily on him.A large sum of money is spent on keeping the criminals incarcerated.Take the example of Kasab,the convict of 26/11 attack in India.According to TOI report the expenditure on him during his 3 year stay in prison was roughly 53 crores.(http://www.indiatimes.com......) This money could have been spent for some other good cause." In Ajmal Kasab's case, giving the death penalty was being considered. According to a study, defending a death penalty case costs about four times as much as defending a case where the death penalty is not considered (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...). In terms of costs, a report found out that death penalty cases are estimated to generate roughly $470,000 in additional costs to the prosecution and defense versus a similar case without the death penalty; that does not take into account the cost of court personnel (http://www.wsba.org...).So, I think this explains why Kasab's stay in prison cost the government 53 crores. Also, I have proved my point about life imprisonment being cheaper than the death penalty.Argument 4- Con says,"Punishing them would also show the side effects of crimes to others." I have already discussed the point that the death penalty isn't as effective as life imprisonment in 'showing the side effects of crimes to others'. Countries that have abolished the death penalty have always had lower murder rates as compared to the countries that have not abolished it.Argument 5- Con says,"People say death penalty is cruel and unfair.It is 'inhumane'.So is it humane to let them suffer much more painfully for a long time rotting in jail.Isn't that inhumane."Grammatical mistake again (the question mark was necessary in the end). Prisoners get many facilities in jail such as food, health care, education, fitness, recreation. In some jails, prisoners are also provided with telephones and computers(http://en.wikipedia.org...). Many people are not even able to achieve these facilities. So saying that they 'rot' in jail is not correct. They spend a better life than manypeople in the world. So, no. It is not inhumane.
Death Penalty Should be Banned

'I personally have always voted for the death penalty because I believe that people who go out prepared to take the lives of other people forfeit their own right to live.'-Margaret Thatcher (en.www.wikiquote.org/wiki/Capital_punishment) If the convict kills someone isn't he violating that person's Right to Life. According to me death penalty should not be abolished. Argument 1-It is better to execute the convict rather than spending so heavily on him.A large sum of money is spent on keeping the criminals incarcerated.Take the example of Kasab,the convict of 26/11 attack in India.According to TOI report the expenditure on him during his 3 year stay in prison was roughly 53 crores.(http://www.indiatimes.com...) This money could have been spent for some other good cause. Argument 2-The feelings of victims and family would not find consolation if criminals did not pay with their lives.Society needs protection from these barbarians.Punishing them would also show the side effects of crimes to others. Argument 3-Once a convicted murderer is executed there is zero chance that he will break out of jail and kill and injure people. Argument 4-People say death penalty is cruel and unfair.It is 'inhumane'.So is it humane to let them suffer much more painfully for a long time rotting in jail.Isn't that inhumane.
Death Penalty Should be Banned

Hi! Thank you for accepting. The Oxford Dictionary defines the death penalty as "punishment by execution" (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... penalty). I would also like to clarify the Con's doubt about the death penalty by stating the fact that the death penalty, or capital punishment, is always provided by the court of law (http://www.britannica.com...). What 'goons and moneylenders' do is known as murder and not death penalty. I believe that the death penalty should be abolished from all the countries of the world. Argument 1 Innocent People are Killed The death penalty is irreversible. According to a study, at least 4.1% of all defendants sentenced to death in the US in the modern era are innocent (http://www.theguardian.com...). It puts innocent lives at stake. There have been many cases where innocent people have been executed and are later found out to be innocent. A great example can be Cameron Todd Willingham who was executed in 2004 and was later found out to be innocent (http://www.innocenceproject.org...). There have been many other decisions in other countries where innocent people were given this 'ultimate' punishment. Examples can be Weiqing An, Teng Xingshan, Mahmood Hussein Mattan, etc (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Argument 2 It is a violation of the human rights All humans on the earth have human rights, which include the right to life (http://www.un.org...). The right to life is one of the basic human rights. Giving someone capital punishment is a violation of that right and is thus wrong. Argument 3 Death Penalty does not deter the rate of Murder and other crimes Many supporters advocate that the death penalty deters the rate of crimes. But statistics show that the countries that have abolished the death penalty have always had lower murder rates as compared to the countries that had not abolished it (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...). A July 2009 study titled "Do Executions Lower Homicide Rates: The Views of Leading Criminologists" by Michael L. Radelet and Traci L. LaCock, demonstrates that the death penalty does not add deterrent effects to crimes rates (http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu...).
It is generally unfair for women to get angry at men for leaving the toilet seat up

haha, this looks pretty fun, I accept :). As the rules state, I'll list some definitionsUnfair: Not just or evenhanded; biased: an unfair call by an umpire.[1]Generally: a. As a rule; usually: The child generally has little to say. b. For the most part: a generally boring speech.[2]Works Cited:1.) http://www.thefreedictionary.com...2.) http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
It is generally unfair for women to get angry at men for leaving the toilet seat up

Dude, I feel so guilty for this, but ever since I got a mouse virus on my laptop I can't stay online for more than five minutes without being so spammed by right click boxes that I can't do anything. I'm typing this from my phone, but I don't think Is be able to give a valid argument from it. If you're willing, Id be more than willing to challenge you to this debate if and when I get it fixed. Tldr: I concede due to technical failures.
Abortion

(note: I am not debating at what point in development is it a baby. If they abort within first three months, it's not. If they do it within the last 1-2 months, it is. I am not debating the "gray area") If abortion is murder, so is abstinence. Having an abortion is the equivalent of not getting pregnant in the first place. A fetus is not yet a human being, and thus is not "killing a child". The fetus has not developed feelings. To say that a fetus has rights is the equivalent of saying that semen and sperm have rights.
Abortion

Abortion is the killing of an innocent human being, the right to life is an inalienable right given to every innocent human being, therefore, abortion, as the direct result of the killing of an innocent human child, violates the inalienable right to life. Thus, abortion is wrong. I would like to argue against abortion. There is no layout other than that my opponent should first provide a retort to the paragraph stated above in round one. This is just a free discussion in a relaxed manner. Also, I would like to mention there is one case where abortion is permissible, and that is under the circumstance that the mother and/or child will die. I could argue why it is permissible in the debate, if my opponent so chooses me to do so. Thank you, and remember, let us remain respectful and courteous.
god is impossible

Physical is not true.To be true is to be in accordance withfact or reality. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...To be physical, in the philosophical sense, is to be relating to things perceived through the sensesas opposed to the mind; tangible or concrete. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...These are not the same.What does imagination have to do with the resolution?If everything doesn't have a beginning then why does God need a beginning to exist?If God does nor require a beginning to exist, it requires no creator either. Making god inherently possible under your own framework of what constitutes the real from the unreal.