BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Chicken came before the Egg

I agree that it is a good idea to avoid religion. Now when considering this debate, you must get technical with what the words say. The 'egg' was never specified as the egg of a chicken. therefore, we can conclude that the egg of any egg laying animal came before the chicken. since the domesticated species of chickens have only been on the earth since about 2000 BC. as an example, The red jungle fowl, a member of the pheasant family, lives in the forests and bamboo jungles of India and southeast Asia. The male makes an impressive crowing sound and is dignified by a comb on his head and wattles under his beak. Jungle fowl of this kind are captured and kept for their eggs and their flesh by about 2000 BC in Asia. It is thought that all domestic poultry in the world today are descended from this one species. the fowl were not domesticated chickens, yet they were still only around for about 4000 years. dinosaurs on the other hand, were alive over 180 million years ago. that means that the earliest ever animal to come from an egg was on the earth over 179 million years before the oldest ancestors of the chicken. furthermore, we can all assume that microscopic life forms have been laying eggs since before the first dinosaur. therefore, the egg no doubt came before the chicken.
The Chicken came before the Egg

Any Christian will tell you it was the Chicken. In the Bible God created ANIMALS and PLANTS during the making of the earth. Therefor, the chicken (an animal) must have can first. But, becuase I want to avoid religion I will jsut say the chicken probably came first anyway. An egg must be warmed by a mother, so an egg just sitting there without a mother is kind of, uhhh, DEAD... So it seems realistic that somehow a chicken evolved from some other animal or being that gives live birth. Just like a tiger having a baby with a lion gives a liger, maybe two animals from prehistoric times made the chicken. Did the Liger come from an egg. Nope.
Marvel (pro) vs DC (con) movies

Let us compare latest work of marvel and dc. you see dc comics have collaborated with great directors (Nolan ,Snyder)who make intelligent script which is different but Marvel have stuck to same formula that they have been using since Spiderman 2003 .There(dc) movies have some best pieces of acting roles in modern cinema and they do not go for only boom boom and highlighting heroes as ....heroes not showcasing there human side(like marvel does).look for acting of Heath ledger who totally brought new dimension to role of joker whereas same cannot be said for any marvel hero as no body in their camp has delivered aan academy award winning performance.
Marvel (pro) vs DC (con) movies

So you say hulk's acting is great(since when did smashing everything become great acting )and you compare it to acting of heath ledger ,truly you deserve Oscar. Except X men days of future past none of their scripts in any movie have come up with anything new while DC on other hand at least portray their super heores in realistic way not like avengers where humans are considered worthless just because they have no power. The most ridiculous statement in your whole argument is saying that batman series of DC is puny in front of Marvel's avengers, the thing is your tiny brain cannot comprehend the sheer awesomeness The Dark knight , I mean even the worst of movie fans know that heath ledgers portrayal of The joker was the best piece of acting in modern cinema and either you know nothing about acting or you have really not seen the movie for you are saying that marvel has got better acting than DC. Coming to DC not writing good script Sir you take all writers of Marvel universe(we might lend you some of DC) combine them with all other universes (except DC) and make them write a script and multiply it by as many writers you have and you still won't be able to cross one tenth of what Nolan in DC universe has done. DC universe was not taking marvel highly before but now since Marvel has started this war we are bringing movies and there is no reason in saying that you have won this war before we even entered the battle. Look at suicide squad , Man of steel all of these movies have different script and they are not only good vs evil (something which marvel has not got out of) but beyond that nd show true shades of humanity unlike Marvel has ever done Waiting for your rebuttal
Marvel (pro) vs DC (con) movies

Sources- http://www.therichest.com... http://www.hollywood.com... These sources show that despite only 6 more movies than DC, Marvel has more than double the profit at the box office, and that is not even counting the revenue of Avengers 2. While collection is not everything, it is an indicator of many things. How can you say that Marvel has been 'using the same formula'? How is Avengers and Spider man related in any way? Is X-men related to Spider-man? Marvel has a lot of creative writers that have brought the comic book to the screen, and resulted in mostly positive feedback worldwide. All we have in DC is Batman. None of the other movies have brought as much profit as Batman in the DC universe. But that is still quite puny compared to Marvel. Awards are an indication of nothing, although it is prestigious it is not voted upon by the actual audience. Marvel has great acting in many movies, such as Wolverine, Mystique and Magneto in X-men, Iron man, Thor and Hulk in the Avengers, and Ultron's performance in Avengers 2 was awesome according to me and my friend. DC hasn't really stepped up yet. It plans to release Justice League soon, but other than that many characters like Flash, Shazam, Wonder woman etc. have not got the big screen yet, whereas Marvel has already proceeded on linking their characters to destroy the box office. Waiting for Con's rebuttals
God is Flawed

People starving and dieing in countries and you call it an "experience" I call it death. That's what they get to enjoy and experience because somehow it's to complicated to figure out for our simple minds. Charles Darwin did not recant his theroy that's propaganda from Fundamentalist Group AnswersInGenesis led by Ken Ham. God is flawed he doesn't stop crimes committed in his name. People dieing from lack of water and food and people shrug it off. Somehow in their twisted mind maybe they deserve it? Right.. There's a quote by a philospher Epicurus - ""Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
God is Flawed

God our Father, My Personal Lord and Savior is the ONLY God, He is perfect in every way, in any angle in anytime. What's my proof? Take a look around, everything is designed uniquely for each has its own purpose. God is prefect, He is not flawed. satan once tempted Jesus for several days but Jesus did no sin. God has a plan for all of us, no event can be called a co incident because it is all planned since the beginning of time. people starve because God destined them to be on that place, destined them to experience that kind of experience, and God gives that circumstances because God tests their faith, God does not give problems that can't be overcome, it is just that people give up easily. God's plan is beyond our capacity to think, even Charles Darwin, the father of Evolution, he DENIED his theory of the origin of human because he cannot explain where did this things came from, and good thing, it is all from God , we are all God's creation. God is not religion my friend, No religion can save us when judgement time will come , it is by Jesus Christ that will save us. if God is not perfect, how can we walk on this planet? why did he put planet Earth on the 3rd planet? it is because God loves us He does not want us to burn in heat and froze in cold. God is not thought to be perfect, He Is perfect. But as I end my round, something came into my mind, My God is the Father in Heaven, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. Who's yours?
God is Flawed

God is always thought to be perfect. This is the single driving factor in religions good and evil black and white thinking. Then it came into my head that perhaps God is flawed.Remove for a second religious dogma I talk about God without religion. Perhaps he's more like one of us with baggage not perfect not divine terribly flawed individual. Why do people starve in the world, women are raped and sold into sex slave trades. The universe is a hot bed of asteroids destroying planets. I have to go with flawed. I think God is flawed.
Marijuana legalizetion

Marijuana is one of the safest drug on this earth! Marijuana should be legal because it never killed anyone or anything. Why would we let the drug dealer take all the money when is can be place in the local pharmacy and use the money to pay taxes. 40% of americans has already admitted they use marijuana. Many polls have been read and 40% of americans had at lease one high off marijuana but, lots them didn"t smoke anymore cause marijuana is not as additive as other drugs. Cocaine is 20% more additive than marijuana and 30% of adults are even more additive with tobacco. You may think having a large amount of marijuana will kill you but, its so true that there is not one single death happen of overdose on marijuana and there is like 38,329 people die of overdose use of other drugs.
Parents have no right to decide their childs future.

I'd like to start off by expressing my excitement that Kyro and I have, as I understand, come to a kind of agreement. Though the resolution is a generalization about parental rights, Kyro seems to have adopted some of the intricacies of parental responsibility which I've discussed during the last couple of rounds. Consider his first comment:"I think that parents should [be] allowed to pick their future UNTIL the time is right. As in until they are old enough to make their own desidions [sic]."Though I may certainly be mistaken, it seems that Kyro has adopted the position I suggest previously: specifically, the proposition that, though there may be certain cases, such as those where a fully-developed child is making life-decisions) in which parental intervention is not justified, there are also cases, largely including periods during the child's formative years (during which, as I've argued, a child's unitary capacities have not yet sufficiently developed), in which parental intervention does seem warranted. While this has been a productive conversation, I would urge you all, as Kyro seems, to an extent, to have done, to adopt my position.To address his other responses though: the second claims, as I have argued previously, that parents should eventually relegate themselves to a purely advisory role, dispensing what wisdom they may have to inform their children's decision. Again, it seems that Kyro has come to agree with my advocacy in this respect; however, his final counterargument claims that, because of childrens' general inability to be financially independent, they should not have to foot the bill, as it were, for certain classes of expenses, e.g. tuition and bills. I think, though this breaches an interesting question, that this is not entirely relevant to the question of whether parents have any right to intervene in the lives of their children, and should therefore be exempted from your evaluation of this discussion.In closing, I think the argument constructs at the end of his Round 4 commentary captures very much the sentiments we all likely share, namely that, once children reach the age of majority (or the age of independence, if you'd like), the ability of parents to intervene in those individuals' lives is significantly diminished, if not outright eliminated. Be that as it may, however, the primary point of interest is Kyro and I agree on the fundamental claim that, at least in some cases, there is a clear parental right to intervene in the lives of children.I want to briefly thank Kyro for the arguments presented, and I want to express my joy over the agreement upon which we seem to have settled. Thank you for the constructive discussion, Kyro.
Parents have no right to decide their childs future.

Alright! I have more confidence since that argument was short! ^_^ Anyway this is my debate...First of all, id like to counter his responces(Note to self: Add exceptions... -_-):1. I think that parents should allowed to pick their future UNTIL the time is right. As in until they are old enough to make their own desidions.2. Parents are still allowed to tell them what they think is the right road for them to take, though, They do not always have to obey and take that desired path the parent wants.3. Most children do not obtain allowences nor am able to get jobs for money during this bad economy so they should be exempted for having to pay for things like school funds and bills that they started.Now that that is taken care of time for my real argument....Under 18Obveosly if you are under 18 you are 1. Not allowed to live nor be on your own.and 2. You cannot pay or buy certain things that are needed for everyday life in some cases.Because of that, they arent allowed to do anything that they want. BUT if they reach the age of things like marriage, Drinking age, Driving age, then they can do those things that lead to adulthood and send them off to a job that they want. What that means is that when your an adult you can make any desidion you desire so long as it doesnt cost you something that you cannot offord. Yet still adults are working and paying taxes they do not want because parents made them apply for that job, or sign up for that school or whatever made them into what they are.
Parents have no right to decide their childs future.

My commentary here shall also be rather brief in light of the fact that Kyro's reply was quite short.In essence, Kyro's counterargument is that, because children have a right to self-determination, parents ought not pick their children's careers. While certainly true, I think his rejoinder lacks discussion of the complex dimensions of this case which I touched on in the previous round. For example, he leaves unaddressed my objection that children in their formative years are unlikely to possess well-developed unitary competencies, relying more on interpersonal relationships and bodily experiences to define their early selves. Because of their inability to access this psychological domain of self-direction, it seems null to say that children possess such a right.Additionally, I noted that an inherent feature of parenthood, governance, requires parents to make certain decisions regarding their children which will have a significant impact on both the childrens' identity construction and, ultimately, the children's future as agents. A parent must choose what sort of school to put their child through, how and whether to introduce him to gender norms, and so on. Thus, it is not only necessary, but also outright unavoidable, that parents make decisions influencing the development of their children. While, as I proposed in the last round, there are certainly cases in which parental intervention is likely unwarranted, there are equally-clear cases in which is not only justifiable, but perhaps obligatory.So, while I sympathize with the sentiment that parents ought to refrain from interfering with a child's self-direction and creativity, I think it's also true that, by their very role as parents, they cannot avoid making certain decisions which will inevitably impact the child's future.
Parents have no right to decide their childs future.

Wow... *_*... Well that sure was alote.... Since im all out of ideas, ive only got one thing to say....Parents Should not pick their childs careers because kids have the right(If they even have any rights...) to at least choose what they want to be because usually as said by a teacher.... "Your first awnser is always correct."Ok Im finished with that... (This was VERY SHORT.....)
Parents have no right to decide their childs future.

Great. Now then, we start. First of all, I dont think they should decide their future because children that soon develop into adults have their own minds. Although they are supposed to be a bit of genetic copies of their parents they still have a mind of their own. As said by a person that I cannot remember, "Imagination is what makes the world go round." or something like that... Anyway, Kids also deserve to have their own oppinions. Now like myself, I am never allowed to have my own oppinion, nor allowed to pick what jobs I am able to occupy and I think of myself as a very creative guy who demands to have his ideas out their for the world to see. I am pretty sure that tons of kids around the world have ideas that could MAYBE get our horrible state out of economic failure. As you can see I have a website that also Shows a survey of people who decide if parents should play a role in their kids future Which I will post in the link section of course.....Links1. Survey= http://debates.juggle.com...;2. A persons decision/life story= http://www.streetdirectory.com...
That a human life is intrinsically worth more than the life of an animal

Thank you for the response. This is a very philosophical topic. I have to admit that my human and mammal age comparisons and previous arguments were not great. If all animals (including humans) are equal, can killing the child benefit the worms, horses, giraffes, etc.? No, it could only benefit Harambe. You mentioned that if the child were killed, it would be "one less force for destruction". You just proved a point why humans are superior. Since we are all contributing to destruction of the world, animals cannot do anything about it. In other word, they are helpless. We can keep polluting the water and can fish do anything about it? No, they can't. We can keep cutting down trees and start a massive wildfire. Can animals like snakes, bears, gorillas, etc. do anything about it? No, they can't. Can humans stop water pollution? Not totally but we have the power and intelligence to reduce it. Can humans stop deforestation and wildfire? Not totally but like stopping water pollution, we have the power and intelligence to reduce it. We start the destruction and we are the ones to finish it, not the animals. I can't describe all of this in one word but humans are able to experience anything. We have more emotions and capable of adapting in almost anything (like speaking languages, understanding each other) as well as create civilizations. Humans can define for themselves what is "good" and what is "bad". Again, I would describe this topic as philosophical. Very thought-provoking.
That a human life is intrinsically worth more than the life of an animal

Now, I am an animal lover but I believe that a human life is worth more than the life of an animal. Though sad as it is and that the parents of the child are at fault, the three-year old child's life is worth more than Harambe's life. First, Harambe was a 17 year old gorilla (1) and gorillas, on average, live up to 40-45 years of age though they start showing signs of old aging at 35 years of age (2). The American male child could live up to 76 years of age, according to a 2013-2014 measurement (3). This shows that the child could live 30 years longer than Harambe and with an average of 73 years left, the child can accomplish a lot of stuff! Harambe was 17 and he had an average of 23-28 years left to live. You might say that gorillas are endangered so shooting it was not the best solution. Either way, Harambe was going to die childless since male gorillas are sexually dominant before the age of fifteen to twenty years old (4). As for the child, he can be fertile at his early teens and still remain fertile until he dies. Humans accomplish more than animals and have the brains needed to keep the world stable. If you say the lives of animals are equal to humans, then why can't any wild animal that are mostly left alone by humans perform anything to save the world? Wild animals have their own space and often, humans do not bother them but have they done anything to benefit the world? In fact, I want to ask you. How will it benefit the world if the three-year old child was left to die at the hands of Harambe? SOURCES: (1) . https://en.wikipedia.org... (2) . http://www.berggorilla.org... (3) . http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com... (4) . https://seaworld.org...
That a human life is intrinsically worth more than the life of an animal

The topic pretty much sums it up. If you accept this debate, you are saying that you can justify making the claim that as a general principle, a human life is worth more than an animal (to avoid getting into ridiculous discussions, we'll say any mammal, then we won't be arguing about amoebas). My job is to show that such a claim can't be justified. I will open with the example of the killing of a gorilla named Harambe when a three year old child climbed into the gorilla enclosure at Cincinatti zoo. By far the majority of people claim Harambe's killing was justified, as a human life was in danger. Yet, when asked to say why, I have never heard anyone provide a logical reason why this should be the case. Thus, I conclude the assertion is false.
That a human life is intrinsically worth more than the life of an animal

You have guessed right that I lost interest in this debate. My opponent did not post a single, distinct argument how animals are equal to humans in Round 1. All he did was refute my arguments starting from Round 2. 1) He missed out the critical fact about the long life of an average human. With long life and age of an average human, there comes the experiences and with the experience, there comes knowledge. Now why is he going to compare a human to a koi fish and a Galapagos tortoise? Humans experience a lot of things on the long run before they die. The koi fish or the Galapagos tortoise do not. 2) He missed out the fact about the appalling things humans do. Yes, I acknowledge humans are vicious creatures too. However, the point is that a human can eliminate as many animals if they could. 3) Intrinsically worth means just naturally worth and naturally superior. Humans have superior emotions since they can shed tear, feel betrayal, etc. My opponent said that we may not fully understand animal emotions. Then how is he and the experts sure that Harambe was trying to protect the three year old child? 4) I don't see how a harmonious society makes an animal equal to humans. Humans created civilizations that expanded and shaped the world like Ancient Egypt, Ancient Greece, etc. which created a very organized system (for example, modern democracy). 5) Humans know what is good or bad. If we are the only animals that know what is good or bad, doesn't that make us superior because we have our own knowledge? Con did not provide a single argument how animals are equal to humans. All he did was try to refute my points.