BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Evolution is More Probable Than Creationism.

Greetings affirmative.BoP is on you to convince us of why you think your right. Merely defending evolution won't get you anywhere in this debate, you're going to have to attack creationism, so good luck. You'll need it.Challenges_________________________________________________________I wish to challenge rule 5: "Closing Arguments/Conclusion" to read: Closing defense/Conclusion. I'm going to take a guess and say that you were not planning on making new arguments in the last round, which would mean you would break your own rules. It would be a shame to see you fall on your own sword.I also wish to challenge the definition of creationism to mean the base belief of creationism and not something as specific as the christian religion. This will mean that we will not debate the book of Genesis in the Bible but instead, creationism itself. Without any further ado, I hope this will be a beneficial, intellectual debate, and I look forward to see what Pro has to say for himself.State your case.
Evolution is More Probable Than Creationism.

Rules:1. No semantics2. No trolling3. No profanity4. No vulgarityStructure: 1. Acceptance/Definitions2. Opening Statement3. Rebuttals4. Rebuttals to Rebuttals 5. Closing Arguments/ConclusionDefinitions:Creationism- a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis.Evolution- a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations.Probable- supported by evidence strong enough to establish presumption but not proof.If anyone violates the rules, they will lose the debate.
Trotskyism VS Capitalism

You say that France is Trotskyist but according to this source: http://en.wikipedia.org...Only 10% of the electorate consider themselves to be of that alignment. You can't possibly base the success of this nation on such a minor percentage of its electorate.Germany and basically every other country that you mentioned is 0% Trotskyist and the movements in those countries which you found on your source are minority extremist movements that are very frowned upon within those nations."In a Trotskyist society everyone works for the benefit of everyone."Well in a capitalist society, everyone gets what they worked hard to earn."One's self interest is to aide and contribute to society."This is like saying that one's blackness is white, that one's heat is cold or that one's wealth is poor. It makes absolutely no sense as you are describing an opposite concept as being represented by its opposition."Since salary is equal and the eventually a Trotskyist society is without currency is one with inequality of wealth."I think what you were trying to say here was that Trotskyism is somehow linked to communo-anarchism. I think you have confused Marxism for Trotskyism."Capitalism is a society based on inequality, while Trotskyism is one based on equality."This is no reason to consider one superior to the other for you never once proved equality to be a trait of a superior economic system."One could see the origins of similar societies during the Great Chinese Cultural Revolution and the earlier Soviet Union."Both of which have failed miserably and whose governments have no vowed to never return to the philosophy of Communism again."Thank you again for informing me on Prioritization."You're welcome... (I think you meant privatisation).
Trotskyism VS Capitalism

Wait, hold up now. I thought that as long as you agree with the article you are allowed to re-use the information on this website. If that is not the case, (Take note this is my first debate on this website) I apologize and hope that you will find that the following is completely and fully my original work: Regarding my unjustified claim that Trotskyism can work but hasn't yet, I was referring to on a larger scale. You might be pleased to know that there are Trotskyist organizations all around the globe, I will give you a few places now: Argentina, Australia, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Czech Republic, France, Germany, India, Ireland, Italy, Peru, and Poland. And those are only some of them. If it needs to be known I got that list of organizations from this source: http://en.wikipedia.org... As I am fairly new to debating and am always open to learn I thank you for educating me on the topic of Privatization, although I had a limited knowledge on the topic, you have expanded my thinking of this Capitalist concept. I understand how you can see that what I said (I'm talking about a world where people take personal responsibility for their business decisions and don't rely on the government for everything.") can seem like I am describing a Capitalistic Society. However, in a Trotskyist society everyone works for the benefit of everyone. One's self interest is to aide and contribute to society. Since salary is equal and the eventually a Trotskyist society is without currency is one with inequality of wealth. Capitalism is a society based on inequality, while Trotskyism is one based on equality. One could see the origins of similar societies during the Great Chinese Cultural Revolution and the earlier Soviet Union. Thank you again for informing me on Prioritization.
Trotskyism VS Capitalism

I have to congratulate you on your very amazing speech in favour of Trotskyism! It was very well laid out into nice and neat paragraphs and you seem quite well articulated on the topic.I am so very proud of your ability to copy and paste your entire opening paragraph from this site: http://tinyurl.com... In which a huge amount of its second paragraph was the entirety of your first. :) What an amazing talent you have there!I am also so proud to find that the second paragraph was copied from here: http://tinyurl.com... and that the third was your truly original work. ;)So, now that we have established which part of your debate is actually your own work I think it would be best if we explored what you conveyed. "I'm talking about a world where people take personal responsibility for their business decisions and don't rely on the government for everything." Now let us see what privatisation (a Capitalist concept) is.Privatisation, in short, is the philosophy that any and all business owners should be entirely responsible for any and all business decisions that they make. The government has no say in a fully privatised economy and this would be a Capitalist one. So actually what you were talking about, or so you claimed to talk about, was a Capitalist society.A Trotskyist society is one in which the businesses are very rarely responsible for their own decisions and very often the government is relied on for such matters. This is because over 50% of all industries would be publicly funded (meaning that the public pay taxes and the government choose where to distribute it to).They you said a bit of truth. "The long-range goal of Communism is a society that provides equality and economic security for all." However, the long range goal of Capitalism was the entire sentence that you mentioned prior to this, almost disregarding your entire conclusion.You then make the unjustified claim that Trotskyism can work but hasn't since you neither proved that it hasn't worked nor did you prove that it can.
Trotskyism VS Capitalism

This should be a good debate. Just to start off, Trotsky argued that in Russia only the working class could overthrow feudalism and win the support of the peasantry. Furthermore, he argued that the Russian working class would not stop there. They would win its own revolution against the weak capitalist class, establish a workers' state in Russia, and appeal to the working class in the advanced capitalist countries around the world. As a result, the global working class would come to Russia's aid, and socialism could develop worldwide. Only the proletariat or working class were capable of achieving the tasks of that bourgeois revolution. In 1905, the working class in Russia, a generation brought together in vast factories from the relative isolation of peasant life, saw the result of its labour as a vast collective effort, and the only means of struggling against its oppression in terms of a collective effort also, forming workers councils (soviets), in the course of the revolution of that year. I'm talking about a world where people take personal responsibility for their business decisions and don't rely on the government for everything. The long-range goal of Communism is a society that provides equality and economic security for all. It can work, but hasn't.
Islam is an evil religion

Now, as I said, I don't want to offend anyone. If I accidentally did, I apologize. Sorry. However, I would like to thank you for accepting the debate. Let me ask you, do you remeber the Danish cartoons of Muhammad? A couple of quotes from the Qu'ran about the Kafir (non-Muslims): "Take not the Jews nor the Christians as your friends or protectors." "...*Slay the idolaters wherever you find them*... Take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush...." "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned" "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them." "Allah only forbids you respecting those who made war upon you on account of (your) religion" The Qu'ran about women: "The share of the male shall be twice that of a female." "Evil omen is in three things: The horse, the woman and the house." "And forbidden to you are wedded wives of other people except those who have fallen in your hands (prisoners of war)." "... For the Unbelievers are unto you open enemies." "Fight those who believe not in God nor the Last Day nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by God and his apostle nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth (even if they are) of the people of the Book, until they pay the Jizya [religious tax] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." "Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him." There are many more passages like this in the Qu'ran, especially about the Jews. I think that pretty much says it all. I would have a ton of arguments about Muhammad's life, but let's stick to the Qu'ran and the Surah. The God of Islam, Allah, is according to the Qu'ran loving, merciful etc. Now, this is very illogical. 1. According to the Qu'ran, Allah is loving. 2. According to the Qu'ran, Allah wants all non-Muslims (especially Jews) dead. 3. Am I the only one who notices a slight problem here? I'm not saying Muslims are bloodthirsty terrorists who want to blow us to pieces. I'm saying that Islam has some serious problems. Remember before you respond, we're not debating about Muslims, but about the religion Islam.
Islam is an evil religion

Calling all Muslims (or anyone else who wishes) to debate about the religion of Islam. Now, I'm not a racist towards Muslims. This is not racism. This is not a debate about Islam. This is a debate about Muhammad. By the way, I'm a Christian. Muhammad, who Muslims consider the "Seal of Prophets" and the greatest of all prophets, did not live a moral life as Muslims suggest. Here are some facts about his life: 1) Muhammad: Had eleven wives at once. 2) Muhammad: Murdered 600-900 innocent and unarmed people. 3) Muhammad: Traded in slaves. 4) Muhammad: Robbed Meccan caravans. 5) Muhammad: Raped women. 6) Muhammad: Tortured people. 7) Muhammad: Kept concubines for sex. 8) Muhammad: Beat his wife. 9) Muhammad: Ordered the deaths of those who left Islam. 10) Muhammad: Was a pedophile because he had sex with a 9 year old girl. I have much more evidence to back up my claim about Islam, but I'm going to leave them out of this round.
Anthropogenic climate change.

R2 ArgumentsNote, my opponent has deviated from the structure in round one and should be penalized. Suggestion, one point for conduct.A scientific consensus exists on the reality of anthropogenic climate change." But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen." [1]Man-made climate change has already claimed human lives and continues to do so."in a general context where the anthropogenic contribution to climate change is becoming more plausible, led to an excess of 14,947 deaths in France, between August 4 and 18, 2003. The greatest increase in mortality was due to causes directly attributable to heat: dehydration, hyperthermia, heat stroke." [2]"The association between climate change and the frequency and intensity of extreme heat events is now well established. " [3]"The World Health Organisation estimates that the warming and precipitation trends due to anthropogenic climate change of the past 30 years already claim over 150,000 lives annually. Many prevalent human diseases are linked to climate fluctuations, from cardiovascular mortality and respiratory illnesses due to heatwaves, to altered transmission of infectious diseases and malnutrition from crop failures." [4]"The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper. Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al " [5]My argument is succinct and should prove that man-made climate change is extremely likely to exist. Thanks for debating.Sources:1. http://science.sciencemag.org...2. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...3. http://dx.doi.org...4. http://www.nature.com...5. http://iopscience.iop.org...
do we need more memes? (early 2017)

As last year went with memes and the years before, I honestly think that we will never run out of memes since they are created by recycling old photos and change the meaning of them. I also think that we have a surplus of memes actually, since so many accounts create new ones everyday. I think the real question is that; will there be any more good memes coming? However since we aren't debating on that question, I think it's safe to say that we dont need more memes.
Music should be made free

hahahaha I'm still recovering from before as I thought it was quite amusing you took the opposing side :P Let's just have a discussion about it. I think it's kind of ridiculous how we can YouTube songs, but then to use an application such as spotify, it isn't free. I can't seem to reconcile it personally. I understand that there should be some form of royalties given to the artist, as I am a musician myself, but it's a little difficult when people are uploading YouTube videos of the same song over and over again! -James
Music should be made free

my bad Music is Sold For a Reason I can see where people would think that it being free would be good, but is it honestly? Artists have to pour money out of their pockets to make music, and if they're not getting paid anything then they have to pay to do what they love. Sure things like sports have to be paid for and people may love doing those, but think of all of the hours and other money they have to spend to be good enough to produce music. They need money to feed their family, and if they don't have that then they're kind of screwed.Music should be free because some people can not afford to buy and listen to it. If it is free on YouTube or the radio the why not make it free all the time. Artist are making enough money as it is so they can make it free and it wont effect them. I think that music should be free.
Music should be made free

though it would be nice to have music for free it is not fair for the artists who are putting all their time and effort into creating it for us to not get compensated for their work. I mean if music were free then how will the musicians put food on their table? Artists do make money from live shows and merchandise, but they are bi-products of the music itself. If music is free then people would not be making music for the love of music. Music should not be free. Artists and record labels spend a lot of time and money creating music.Millions of dollars go into making an album, sometimes even one song. Due to this, music should not be free at all. Those people deserve to be compensated for their time and effort of making the music.
Sesame Street corrupts kid's MINDS and turns them EVIL in the future.

First of all I will start with Elmo. Elmo is the only positive character on this show because he reflects the viewer. The willingness to learn reflected in Elmo makes the kids want to learn from the show. Unfortuanately, the behavior that is produced from the character's on the show eventually leads to their inner destruction. I was not saing that the cookie monster is a crack addict but he reflects the behavior of a crack addict. Therefore kids who idolize the cookie monster are at great risk to smoke some dope themselves. Your Count argument makes no sense. Why can't a man who is married still be a pimp? Big Bird's name is Big Bird. The word bird is in the name. I think kids can get that big bird is a really big bird.
Sesame Street corrupts kid's MINDS and turns them EVIL in the future.

Sesame Street is a wholsome show made for kids who love to learn. Elmo for example (who my opponent has not yet maliciously attacked) teaches chldren about one special subject a day. My two (2) year old sister loves sesame street. I belive that sesame street is a healthy way for kids to learn and grow. My opponent says cookie monster is a crack addict. He obiously is not because he screams Cookie, Cookie, Cookie and Not Crack, Crack, Crack. The count is most obiously not a pimp as he has a steady relationship with Countness. Big Bird can talk dangerous birds cannot, therefore children will not think a bird is Big Bird.
Sesame Street corrupts kid's MINDS and turns them EVIL in the future.

When analizing how Sesame Streets corrupts kids you have to look at the individual character's on the show. Let's first start with the Grouch. Now you have to understand that the Grouch doesn't choose to live in a trash can, the designers made him live in a trash can. Now this is implying that the Grouch is poor and cannot reach a higher status. Now the problem with this is that ALL the rest of the Sesame Street character's make fun of him. They call him mean names and tell him to get a job. Now this kind of behavior towards the homeless people carries on into real life and we wonder why we see little kids kicking homeless people and saying, "Get a job Grouch. " This is blatant evilness. You also have character's like the Cookie Monster who is just an obvious representation of a crack addict. All the time he's just like COOKIE COOKIE COOKIE. Obvious cracky behavior Big Bird can also be very harmful to children in 2 seperate ways. First kids can become very frightened from a 20 foot tall bird. Other kids who find Big Bird delightful might carry over that behavior to birds in the real world. And as we all know birds are some of the most dangerous creatures on Earth and are prone to attack at any time. Sesame Street dooms kids to being pecked to death. You have to understand that they also had the nerve to put a pimp on there. You might not recognize him as a pimp but I can tell a pimp when I see one. They called him The Count. He had a cape and everything. He'd just be like, "Where is my money? I slap you 1,2,3 times. "
Death penalty

The controversy over the death penalty has two sides. Those who think it's murder and those who don't. Some people think that the death sentence is bad, that it is murder. They think killing is killing no excuses. They believe the government has no right to kill. Many think jail is a better punishment. They think killing is too short of a punishment. Been alone in jail for life can be more of a punishment. They believe a lifelong punishment is better. Others think it is odd that the government believes that they killed and get killed. Do you think if you follow that rule things will get inhumane. Should rapist be raped, or arsonists be burnt? If you follow that rule they should!
Death penalty

At the moment the death penalty is a pro and is going on the pending on how serious the crime is it also depends on what state you live in is the death penalty is a reality now let's get to have the death penalty should be a pro or con. Let's start with the pro side up it The government says if you kill you should be killed so really an eye for an eye but is that really the forgiving way does that mean if I would if you rape they should use they should be raped in that some of many problems could be caused this is why we need to consider both sides of it and know how severe the crime is in another big one is the tax money it would save getting rid of them is going to jail cost a lot of money towards our government to tax especially when they go for life. Even to some people jail mean I'll be bad enough for some in their actions may be repeated. What other people do say it all depends on the person.
We will never run out of oil

RE: Every debater has his/her own set of tricks. _________ "You're examples above have product diferrentiation. " ---"Product differentiation" is just a convenient term that my opponent uses in order to say that my example is specifying the wrong things. However, I was simply basing off of his idea that consumers look to things that are cheapest. From my point of view, "car" is synonymous to "vehicles that travel on roads", which includes everything from the Thrust SSC to my old bicycle. Your point of view may be different, and my opponent's point of view is definitely different. "Product differentiation" does not disprove my example though, as everything is inevitably different at some level. However, he gives no reason as to why his point of view is true, so you can't buy that point. "Additionally, you need to prove that somehow technology will allow us to tap the other 60% of the oil that we can't seem to get out of existing wells. That oil is just sitting there because we can't get it out of the ground. So even if technology stays the same there will again always be oil. You're burden is to prove we can. " ---I just ran out of my favorite tea. I don't really care if there's a couple million more bags of my favorite tea at the Wal-Mart three miles down-somewhere-that-a-way; I've ran out of tea! It doesn't matter if 60% of the oil in the ground is unrecoverable. We can't get to it. We are using petroleum at a rate much faster than it is being produced. Although he is correct in saying that the process that naturally produces petroleum takes place and that we can now make some oil for ourselves, our usage rate still heavily outweighs our and nature's production rates. It took much of Earth's history to create the amount of oil that we have been using in the last two hundred years. There's no conceivable way that our synthetic petroleum creation can even close in on the amount of oil that we use around the world per day. Because our consumption of oil far exceeds our production of it, we will inevitably run out of oil. The "60%" or so of oil that my opponent claims to be unrecoverable is irrelevant to us because it's unrecoverable - we can't use it, so it doesn't matter in this equation.