BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Something CAN come out of Nothing.

The Con is confounding "something" I. E. The whole Universe with merely matter and "nothing" with empty space. Without a doubt, The Big Bang Theory demonstrates that not only matter but also Space and Time had a beginning. We therefore are not talking about merely matter being created but the whole of space-time, Which was non-existent before the Big Bang. There has been no scientific law so far claiming, Space and Time cannot be created or destroyed. Therefore there is no reason to ascribe the creation of Space and Time to some external agent. Anyways, Even the term "external", "internal", "inside" and "outside" are spatial ideas. Some agent "outside" space and time is a paradox. Likewise, "Before" and "after" are temporal ideas and some agent before the big-bang is as well a paradox. Given our present knowledge, The causation of The Big Bang is beyond us. Like we've run experiments on matter to tell if it can be created, We've not run experiments on and tested "Nothing" which is paradoxically outside of the space and before the time began. We do not know, Can't imagine, Can't test, Can't run experiments, Therefore all the possibilities remain open, Even something (space time and matter) coming out of "Nothing" which we have no idea about. In summary, If the Con has no clue as to what "Nothing" is, How can the Con assert our Universe cannot come out of the "Nothing"
Something CAN come out of Nothing.

The law of conservation of mass states that matter cannot be created or destroyed. We have no reason to believe that anything can suddenly come out of nothing, And to say such is illogical and scientifically impossible, Unless PRO is suggesting the existence of some higher-power, With the capability to bend the laws of time and space, Which PRO does not seem to be suggesting. I believe that the burden of proof lies on the PRO to affirm his position.
Something CAN come out of Nothing.

Something Can come out of Nothing. My argument would be there's no reason to believe something cannot come out of Nothing. The primary argument against this goes the following. " Everything we observe needed an external agent; rocks or mountains or computers, Ergo the Universe needs an external agent. " But there's a flaw in that statement. NOT everything we have observed has been observed to have needed an external agent. Hoe about the UNIVERSE itself? Do we not Observe the universe? And do we know that some agent created the universe or we've not observed so happen. This argument excludes the UNIVERSE in " EVERYTHING WE OBSERVE". That means not everything we have observed needed an agent. So the argument can't proceed.
The Cookie Monster promotes behavior that leads to obesity.

My opponent may continue to subject himself to the philosophy Epiphenomenalism. However he continually fails to realize that the Cookie Monster is indeed responsible for his own actions and his failure to control his eating habits. I am suggesting that there is a potentially an underlying psychological or emotional disorder at work here. This may very well stem from a plethora of things, but it is indeed apparent that the Cookie Monster does exhibit unstable behavior. In response to the promoting of healthy foods, this is indeed a rare occasion for the Cookie Monster, it is very likely that he was offered a large sum of cash or cookies to put this promotion of healthy food. I am well aware this is only speculation but take into account that in the second video he did not eat a single healthy food. He was also persuaded to consume healthy foods by a woman. This is indeed a dilemma as to the psyche of the Cookie Monster known for his compulsive eating of cookies, now promoting healthy foods. The modus operandi of the Cookie monster is to eat cookies not to promote healthy food. This conflicts with the very nature of the Cookie Monster, infamously known for the manipulating of others to receive his gratification from eating cookies. So the question becomes, does the Cookie Monster truly back healthy foods? I think not, but con will argue otherwise. http://www.youtube.com... This is obviously out of his character. What is in his character, however, is his addiction to cookies. To further fortify my arguments, in the video I provide the Cookie Monster goes through rampant mood swings and has a difficult time handling his emotional response to the the visual stimuli of food. Con may very well argue that he does indeed exhibit some form of restrain in saving the first cookie from being devoured.This would be an extremely weak argument however,as the ramifications for devouring the cookie gives the cookie monster pleasure. Once the cookie is consumed, the pleasure factor goes down, only to be matched with devouring of more cookies. This is a telltale sign of any addict once the pleasure factor goes down, it needs to be matched only with more of the substance whether it is chemical, emotional, psychological or otherwise. Without even being the Cookie Monster's physician, I will venture to make the Prognosis that the Cookie Monster suffers from a form of "Benign Eater disorder " "Studies suggest that people with binge eating may have trouble handling some of their emotions. Many people who are binge eaters say that being angry, sad, bored, worried" Citation - http://www.medicinenet.com... As I have attempted to demonstrated though the video, the Cookie Monster has had a difficult time handling his emotional response to the visual stimuli of the cookie. The Cookie Monster continually disregards the well being and interests of others or manipulates others to receive his cookies. Beyond the measure of unhealthy foods, the way by which the Cookie Monster devours his food is extremely unsafe and unrecommended. Con will try to prove otherwise, but I highly doubt he can. I await your response.
The Cookie Monster promotes behavior that leads to obesity.

http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... Many will manipulate to get their object of desire, it's simply the nature of the beast. If anything this segment is likely a break to provide comic relief more than anything, and while it may be questionable for Cookie Monster to use his friendship to obtain the object of his desire this in no way, shape, or form indicates any form of insanity. Furthermore it is ludicrous to link an eating disorder such as obesity to insanity for there are many obese people in society that are very rational of thought and of sound mind. While Front A may suggest that the Cookie Monster may favour cookies opposed to other foods, this does not exclude other foods in his diet however. Everyone has their own favourite food, be it healthy or unhealthy, but this however doesn't necessary have to interfere with a healthy, balanced diet, snacks are not bad so long as they are not taken to an extreme in ones diet. The two videos I included shall prove that while Cookie Monster loves his cookies, he does in fact eat healthy food as well as promotes it. In the first video Cookie Monster is persuaded into trying healthy snacks, and takes a liking to them, proclaiming that he should and I quote "eat sweets that are good for me". In the second video, in Cookie Monster's new hit single "Healthy Foods", he heavily promotes the eating of healthy foods over eating just cookies. Clearly Cookie Monster is bringing forth a very positive message by encouraging young children into healthy eating habits and a balanced diet, something no insane and irrational individual would promote. Pro would have you believe otherwise but I believe the fact is pretty clear here that the Cookie Monster promotes healthy food in addition to his love of cookies as shown in these videos.
The Cookie Monster promotes behavior that leads to obesity.

Although it may be stated that in the natural order of things, we are innately manipulative to acquire the things we want, the Cookie Monster has simply taken this to an extreme. I will prove his condition is not merely an eating disorder but an obsession and possibly an insanity. We may very well observe the Cookie Monster as in individual on one of two fronts. Front A. As a rational being who favors cookies as oppose to other foods. Front B. Or as an irrational being who's obsession with cookies deteriorates his interest in healthier foods. I say that the Cookie Monster should be observed from Front B. As shown in the following video, he uses Kermit to feed his obsession with cookies. The Cookie Monster even states, and I quote "One measly cookie?" How can a friendship out of such materialism even flourish? The Cookie Monster didn't even answer the question Kermit asked correctly, and somehow the Cookie Monster uses "friendship" to obtain his objective, the cookie. As one can see, the Cookie Monster can easily comprise anything, including friendship, for his cookie. Does this not sound like the mark of an addict? Con will try to argue otherwise. http://www.youtube.com...
The Cookie Monster promotes behavior that leads to obesity.

I will humbly accept your challenge. You see, the Cookie Monster from Sesame Street has been at times unfairly labeled as a promoter of unhealthy behaviour. Pro would have you believe that his love for his favourite snack; cookies, is encouraging unhealthy eating patterns which could lead to problems such as obesity and accompanying ailments. However I shall prove that this is not true, for such behaviour is encouraged by neglect of the parents in not choosing healthy food options and instead go with cheaper alternatives, or just the simple neglect of not caring what their child eats. While cookies may not be the healthiest food out there there are other foods being served daily that are many times worse than cookies. I patiently await your response.
Pink on Black is a terrible color combination

So, let me get this straigh: pro describes pink on black as gay-looking and too yucky. It only makes sense to define those words! gay (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...) 1. homosexual 2. Lighthearted and carefree yucky (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...)1. messy or disgustingCalling colors homosexual is kind of bogus. Chuck Norris (a famous actor), who is notably against gay rights, has many shots of him wearing both pink and black. He is generally considered by americans as a cool person, and he is generally considered not terrible. Here are two photos. One depicts him as a manly person, and the other shows him wearing a shirt with pink stripes. Also, many tough people (punk bands, workers, ect) wear pink and black together and these people are not gay or yucky. So therefore your argument is null because pink and black is obviously not "gay" or "yucky". It's quite popular, actually. It's certainly not terrible, also.
Pink on Black is a terrible color combination

Thanks for the debate, and I want to remind voters to vote with integrity. Pro said this: "your difficulties grasping meanings of simple words is dumber that wearing pink on black." I want to go for the facts. I like using sources, and facts are a lot better than stating opinions without knowing context. Word meanings are very important especially for words that can mean more than one thing. Pro also said this: "They would get beat up fast where I came from if they were wearing pink on black walking down the street." Men in suits, which I'd think is the opposite of pink on black, get beat up on the street. It's not about what you're wearing. Finally pro said this: "It makes a statement that is yuchy and punks enjoy taking out their aggression on flagrantly yucky people." First off, yuchy is the slain term for yucky, and I don't think using slang terms is very formal. Also, I proved earlier that punk rock bands wear pink on black sometimes. A punk beats up a punk rocker?
Pink on Black is a terrible color combination

I think you need to define "anything". I did tell you something. I told you that your difficulties grasping meanings of simple words is dumber that wearing pink on black. They would get beat up fast where I came from if they were wearing pink on black walking down the street. It makes a statement that is yuchy and punks enjoy taking out their aggression on flagrantly yucky people.Pink on Black is a terrible color combination.
Pink on Black is a terrible color combination

You didn't tell me anything in your round two argument. I'm allowed to define words to help me with my argument. I have another point. If pink and black is so terrible, "gay", and "yucky", why do so many people wear it? it's not like it's something that only girls and homosexuals wear like you're essentially claiming. What you wear doesn't define who you are, and you can't say that it's a fact that a color combination is terrible becasue it's just a matter of opinion. Pink on black is actually kind of tough because like I said earlier, punk and rock bands often wear it, and they're not necessarily gay or yucky. In fact, black is the color of authority and power, and it is the farthest from the way you describe pink and black (http://www.infoplease.com...). Pink is the color of kindness (http://www.empower-yourself-with-color-psychology.com...), and so mixing them together gives you the impression of power and kindness. That's a good combo in my opinion.
Pink on Black is a terrible color combination

you forgot to define "define". Do you really need a lengthy definition of "yucky" or "gay" when homosexual tendencies are indicated? Maybe you need to get a definition of "indicated". Pink on Black is a horrible color combination, it looks gay, and it's yucky. Can you define "English"? Do you need a dictionary to define "Pink"? Can you define "can"? Can you define "you"?Why do so many people here need lengthy definitions of simple words as if they can't discuss anything before they dreg you through a long study of a definition of a simple word? Do you need me to get a dictionary definition of "word" for you?
Being an teacher is awseome.

When you are a teacher, it is very likely that children will look up to you. The problem with that is that when they become fond of you, it is only to convince the teacher to give them better grades. This has happened many times in my school, and when the teacher finds out, I can tell she seems hurt. Plus, what is so great about getting along with children? It has no benefit at all. Of course, it might be for self-pleasure, but look what happens in the end; the teacher ends up getting hurt. Even if the bond is real, the teacher probably has friends of her/his own and the student too. The teacher would spend an overall of only 45-55 minutes with that student. As you teach, it is true that you review things from the past, but it gets even more boring every single school year that passes by. You would get tired of teaching the same thing over and over again. If it is boring to some students, it would just be a waste of the teacher's and the student's time. Being a teacher comes with risks. A report from the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, published earlier this month, found that threats and assaults were becoming a 'daily reality' for teachers. More than half of school staff had been attacked or intimidated by pupils or parents in the last year, according to the report. Of those, more than eight-in-10 said the aggressive behavior from pupils took the form of insults, seven-in-10 said they had been intimidated or threatened and almost half had been physically attacked. SOURCES: http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
Animal Research

Animal research is not wrong! The animals used for experiments are not treated bad! they are taken care of by multiple employees need by the IACUC including a vet, a scientists, and a animal tech. Other employees the institution wishes to hire also help to make sure the facility abides by the rules set by the IACUC committee. Also, cures and treatments such as cancer diabetes and HIV can now be developed to help save millions of lives. Also, not all testing hurt the animal. there are multiple behavior testing that don't involve hurting the animal at all. in fact, most behavior animals get a treat after the experiment. Multiple tests such as lymphoma and diabetes were tested through animals first before testing humans to ensure it is safe. All are successful cases. Behavioral studies in animals help scientists understand how human interact and help understand some evolutionary advantages. Genetic studies done on animals helped complete the genome sequence and show how animals are related to humans proving evolution of a common ancestor. Allowing scientists to do research on animals will allow them to find more cures to help save humanity. Who doesn't want that?
Animal Research

I would rather not breed humans or animals just to murder. And killing a rat that lives in the city is different. they are over populated and need to be reduced in number. not to mention they care numerous diseases and illness. Breeding a poor little rat just to kill is different. like you said they are bred to be genetically perfect so they don't carry diseases that are potentially deadly to us. so let them free. its like they don't have a will or rights. bound to cages when they should be out in the wild. animals should not be cut up or used for research. they need to have rights just like humans. It is wrong and immoral for poor animals to suffer while humans reap the benefits. its like celebrating death. its wrong immoral an inhumane.
Animal Research

Think of it this way, would you rather breed human babies to test or rats? Would you rather test on birds or humans? What researchers do in the lab is not brutal murder. The thing many New Yorker's do, such as hiring an exterminator to kill their rat infested homes is murder. And yet why don't animal rights activists like you stop that? Because you don't want dirty rats living in you home, a bit of a contradiction don't you think? And the IACUC is a government organization, they randomly check college laboratories to see if they are running to par. If they see anything sucisious, they will close the lab and fine the school thousands of dollars. the laboratory will not be allowed to open until the qualifications are met. Where are there thousands of stories about indecencies to animals? Please site a source with a specific example. Also, socartes says "the unexamined life is not worth living" therefore he is saying it is not worth living if he is unable to see it.
Animal Research

Sacrifice one?!?!?!? More like thousands!! It takes years to perfect a drug or find a cure and millions of animal lives are sacrificed! and how effective is the IACUC? does it check laboratories on a regular basis? What are the consequences? There are thousands of stories all over the world of indecencies to animals. And its evil to take a life. Socarets says so himself. it is not immoral to end the life it is immoral to end a potential of life. that life could hold tons of light.
Animal Research

How am I an evil person by saying its okay to do testing on animals rather than humans? I am not looking to better myself I am looking to better the world. Sacrifice one save a million human lives! I am not sure if you are aware how animal research is done. There is something called the Institutional Animal Care And Use Committee (IACUC). This is a protocol that the Animal Welfare Act &Public Health Service Policy requires for all institutions that do animal testing. The committee includes a veterinarian, scientists from within that institution, a non-scientist, an animal technician and a member not affiliated with the institution. There are several guidelines the committee requires all animal research labs to follow such as inspection of animal facilities, checking the well being of the animals and making modifications as needed to meet these requirements. In fact every scientists that is doing research right now has taken and passed a test that proves they will abide by such rules set by the IACUC. the committee also requires a certain space association to number of animals in a cage, change of cages frequently, new water bottles, food and nesting on a regular basis. There should be more than enough water and food cage. If an animal appears sick or in pain, the researchers will immediately take the animals well being into consideration and will euthanize animal. Therefore researchers are not brutally killing animals. they re not slicing them open or feeding them to other animals. After an animal has been injected, the animal is cared for per and post surgery or experiment. if it shows discomfort, scientists peacefully put the animal to sleep to alleviate it from its pain. Also, these animals have been specially and specifically bred in a laboratory for this exact reason. To do research! animals need to be genetically pure and control genetic drift to ensure there is no outside source that could influence results of the experiment. Therefore one cant say its evil to do research to animals. they are treated nice and safe. As for stem cells, Dolly contracted a rare disease. One could have tried to cure her but instead of putting the animal through pain we peacefully put her to sleep. The animals well being comes first!!!
Animal Research

Of course it doesn't matter to a evil person like you. you wouldn't care about killing animals! you only look at how to better yourself and your family. Do you have a pet? how would you feel if some scientist wanted to use your pet for research and then brutally kill it all in the name of helping humanity. What if they used your pet dog's pups for research? And the example of parents raising a child is not relevant parents don't kill their young. Actually most new medicines don't get a chance to reach human clinical trials because they are prove to be some weird side effect or long term potential life threatening disease. And obviously there is something wrong with stem cells if the sheep contracted a rare disease. Can you prove that the disease was not formed from the use of stem cells. I don't think so.
Animal Research

Everyone is going to be selfish, where the scientist trying to find the cure for a life threatening disease is selfish or not does not play a big deal. If he/she is able to find the cure, who cares what their intent was they are saving millions of lives. In fact, they deserve to get paid for spending years trying to find a cure to save humanity. Its like saying my parents only had a child or chose to adopt and spent years and a lot of money to raise this child in hopes that he/she will grow up to be rich and support them. I mean it could not be true maybe parents chose to have kids because they want to have a family and feel love. or maybe its to ensure their life when they reach their retirement ages. Either way, the parents spent years, time and love, they deserve to have the same in return. As for why don't scientists test humans? We do! Once a drug is deemed suitable to help humans and safe to test, there is a human clinical trial. This trial of course is the last phase of accepting a new drug to the market. It makes sense though. Would you like to test a new drug on humans without knowing side effects of the drug. It just seems morally wrong to do that to a human. Rats or rabbits are overpopulated species and some specific species are breed for this specific reason. to help save humanity. As for stem cells. they are only illegal in the US from human cells. Scientists can still use and culture stem cells from animals to study effects of these potential cells. Also, stem cells have proven to be useful in find cures. In 1997 scientists at Roslin Institute in Scotland were able to culture tissue form an adult sheep and clone them to give birth to an identically cloned sheep called Dolly. Dolly was able to be produced from an unfertilized egg and able to grow several limbs and organs all by itself. Unfortunetly it contracted a rare lung disease and was put to sleep- instead of making it suffer. Stems cells are illegal in the US for this very reason, the government is afraid that scientists will start to clone a specific set of humans and be a breeding machine no longer letting natural selection and generic chance take its account in nature.