BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Atheism and Ethics

Also Atheist can have morals. Morality is concerned with the question of what should we do and if we can deduce that from pure ratonality, we can substantiate that atheist can have ethics. I say we should act in the way that promotes the best well being for everyone. All moral systems in existence are concerned with creating a better world. As humans we naturally act in a way that maximizes the well being for parties involved. And this is because humans have a natural predilection for happiness and an innate dislike of pain. And since morality is naturally concerned with making the world a better place, it follows we shoulf act in a way that increases happiness/ well being for the most people. I would have much more detailed formal syllogism with premises and defenses but pro failed to debate.
American Idol is rigged

Let me go through my opponent's points before my own. The first couple of paragraphs seems like nothing of value: uncited, personal subjective rubbish. If I went on a forum and posted that I was a judge and that the whole thing was rigged means nothing. What some people say on a forum means the equivalent. On top of that, people have very subjective experiences, and would almost always think they did brilliantly, even if they sounded like a cat drowning. Regarding Colleen Smith and uncoverer, I reject this as a citation. The website is ridiculous and is pandering for attention, look at some of their other works [1]. Nothing cited, nothing written with any real value, except things that you'd agree with if you already did.And that is all. The final paragraph is simply copy-paste from their website. There is no reason to say with certainty of any value that it is rigged, and my opponent has not shown any. If there is no evidence to suspect foul play, we cannot rationally agree with this contention. Thank you.http://www.uncoveror.com...;
American Idol is rigged

It's true. American Idol is not a fair game. Aside from becoming boring after way too many seasons, it is not a true quest to find real talent. People think you walk right in and see Simon, Paula, and Randy (or now, Randy, JLo, and Steven Tyler) and audition your first audition. Um. . WRONG. You go to some arena near you, wait around with at least 17,000 other people for over 10 hours, and audition for some random dude who has no authority and who knows, he might even be a janitor. You sing for an average length of four seconds while he scratches his back and says you're not good enough. Then, the person after you comes in dressed as a Tellitubi and makes it to the next round. That's how it goes people. And that's only round one. You still have to pass a few more to get to the "official judges". It's not even worth it in the long run. This show is not played fair, and the most talented singers don't even get a shot.
religion (be it Christianity, Islam or Judaism) is immoral

High, saw your debate with that 'dumb' atheist. I am not an atheist (I am a pantheist). But I am against religion- it is basically being a control freak. I'll give you a few more points on the next round on why I think it is immoral. You say that I can't be moral without religion (or at least atheists can't)- please clarify You said that how can one believe in nothing- please also clarify Also, tell me about your stance on creationism in science classes Lastly, tell me why you think the so called 'word of God' is more moral, more factual etc. I'll 'riposte' next round
Evolution cant be proved its all fake

I'm definitely not upset. I still need to know what "kind" means. Pro keeps using the term "kind" and it's unidentified. If by "a change in kind" Pro means a change in species, then my source for the 3 spine stickleback demonstrates such. One could deduce that if in the last 50 years we've been able to observe the speciation of an animal, then in 5,000 years there would be greater genetic divergence. Another excellent example of genetic divergence is older ape to human (modern ape). One "kind" to another. So if Pro doesn't define "kind" then we're done here. I have not mixed up evolve and adapted. We are made of atoms...all animals have a common ancestor...and having only one explanation is not an indication of the explanation being authoritative or valid. Evolution is proven and isn't fake.
Evolution cant be proved its all fake

I must be making some kind of pint seeing as con seems to be getting kind of upset. But you mentioned the stickle back fish. well what did it turn into? Another kind of fish no change of kind therefore no evolution or evolving has taken place. Same with the chromosomes they are still chromosomes so they haven't evolved. I think con is getting evolved and adaptive mixed up. Just like Darwin's Finches for example, the finches didn't evolve they adapted to there environment. Con says we came from apes, well some say we came from fish or some kind of atom. theirs so many different explanations but Christians only have one, God
Evolution cant be proved its all fake

Pro made this 5 rounds long?I guess they figured that if they were to include every version of every "creation" quote from the bible, it may take 5 rounds to do it.So, the bible...Why should I consider the bible (any of its versions) authoritative or valid on matters of the biodiversity of life on earth?There is something that I would like to focus on and it has to do with this ambiguous idea of "kind."Could Pro, explain what "kind" means in terms of species, genus, family, order, class, phylum, kingdom, or domain?Or if Pro likes, Pro could choose a color that best fits the idea of "kind." https://en.wikipedia.org...Then if Pro feels like it, could Pro explain how "kind" fits into that particular taxonomic rank?Pardon the tautology, but species speciate. Speciation has been observed.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...The three spine stickleback fish has been observed speciating.At one observed point, a member of the parent species could reproduce with other members of the parent species group and their offspring, and at a later observed point, the newer offspring were genetically incompatible with the parent species group.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...It's a new species (the lavender on the diagram)!This speaks to genetic divergence, and ultimately different "kinds" as Pro might put it.Whatevs. I'm sure there's some bible quote that pro is itchin' to throw at us anyway.The chromosomes were ape, and now they're human! The chromosome DID change into a new, fused chromosome. So now, we are modern bipedal apes. If Pro doesn't consider a chromosome fusion a change, then there's not much more to say on Pro's opinion of genetics and its relation to evolution.I don't care about "for sure" words. I care about demonstrable evidence, and if the evidence that Pro requires is certainty itself, I reject Pro's idea if evidence.But yeah, mountains of genetic, geologic, radiometric, and fossil evidence increase my certainty, and I would go as far to say that I am certain that evolution is a fact given the genetic evidence alone!
Evolution cant be proved its all fake

Evolution-Chromosome 2Human chromosome two is a fusion of two ancestral ape chromosomes.Humans have one fewer pair of chromosomes than the great apes...because two ape chromosomes fused to make our 2nd chromosome.http://genome.cshlp.org...Single chromosomes typically have two ends and a center.Telomere - Centromere - TelomereTelomeres (the red ones) - - - - - Centromeres (the green ones) --- But humans' 2nd chromosome looks like (the single chromosome is on the right): Which is Telomere - Centromere - Telomere - Telomere - Centromere - Telomere This shows fusion.How do we know what fused?Base pairs on the ends of each chromosome are unique to that chromosome.We found the base pairs that match ancestral ape chromosomes on our 2nd chromosome. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...Evolution just states that organisms that live long enough to reproduce pass on their genetic characteristics that helped them live long enough to reproduce.As organisms migrate to different environments, different genetic characteristics lead to "living long enough" to reproduce.Those that live long enough to reproduce pass on their genes more successfully than those who do not live long enough to reproduce in the different environment.Genetic changes over time lead to different species from a parent species. The new species would have remnants of the parent species in their genetics. Our 2nd chromosome is clear evidence that apes are our ancestors and our parent species is ape. We are in fact modern apes.This fusion of chromosomes is exactly what you would expect if evolution were true, and it demonstrates how changes over time lead to different organisms completely.Due to its mechanistic explanation and subsequent demonstrations of the biodiversity of life on earth, and that human chromosome 2 is a fusion of two ape chromosomes, which is an accurate prediction from evolution, evolution is true.
Evolution cant be proved its all fake

kind1 /kīnd/ noun noun: kind; plural noun: kinds a group of people or things having similar characteristics. "all kinds of music" synonyms: sort, type, variety, style, form, class, category, genre; More genus, species, race, breed; flavor "all kinds of gifts" "character; nature. "the trials were different in kind from any that preceded them" synonyms: character, nature, essence, quality, disposition, makeup; More type, style, stamp, manner, description, mold, cast, temperament, ilk, stripe "they were different in kind" "each of the elements (bread and wine) of the Eucharist I ink co is really beating around the bush when it comes to Darwin's finches, a supposed example of evolution. and enough with the stickle back fish they haven't evolved they are still fish therefore they cant have evolved they have adapted. And if Con could please explain to everyone why there is so many different THEORYS about where we came from if there is facts to support us coming from apes. I think evolutionist don't know what to think.
Impact of age on getting a job

Age Group Analysis Previous age research has shown that the Team Management Profile Questionnaire is reliable for all age groups. Additionally, reliability increases with age, possibly due to the greater chance of workers experiencing several types of work and being in a better position to identify their preferences consistently. Table 3 displays the means and standard deviations of the major Team Management Profile Questionnaire sample broken down by age groups. The age group of 70 and over has not been included here due to insufficient sample size. Here we see the mean score for Extroversion-Introversion becoming more Introverted with age. The Practical score also appears to increase with age. The Analytical score declines with age, as people become more Beliefs-based. There is also a slight shift in the Structured-Flexible scores towards being more Structured as age increases. This trend towards Introversion, Beliefs and Structure may be interpreted by some as a reflection of the "creeping conservatism" of aging while others may interpret it as the result of experience and the decrease in importance of experimentation at older ages. In interpreting these results, care should be taken to remember that we are not measuring the same people over time and factors such as the changing management beliefs and methodologies over the past 60 years have not been taken into account. It should also be noted that the differences found are small and the effect may be negligible in many circumstances. Nevertheless these results may facilitate useful discussion on age and work preferences.
Marilyn Manson should not be banned in any part of the United States.

All right, in the model of my opponent's final round I'll also just post a conclusion paragraph. All I'd like to remind the audience of in this round is that my opponent cannot change the resolution after the initial arguments. Although I tried to change my argument to include the legal aspect on musical bans, the problem with altering the resolution after people have built their cases is that it completely scews the argument to favor the one who altered it. This is a perfect example, after I built my case, my opponent attempted to alter the resolution in such a way that it completely obliterated my case without any legit argumentation about them. I'm not saying that my opponent did this with malice in mind - I don't think that's the case at all - but you can see how unfair that shift is. So, in the aspect of fairness, the argumentation should be over the resolution as shown in the debate and clarified in the first round (pre-argumentation). And so, because we need to look at the resolution that was originally stated, you can see that both my opponent and I agree that there some places in the United States that where it is legally and morally justified to ban Manson's music, and as such the resolution is negated.
Marilyn Manson should not be banned in any part of the United States.

Alright, obviously I made a mistake in the original wording of my claim. I realize it was left open to loopholes, which I do apologize for. Rather than saying ". .. in any cities or states," I oversimplified to ". .. in any part," which I now see left considerable room for differing interpretation. While my original intention was to debate whether or not Marilyn Manson should be legally banned from states or cities in America, the mistake was on my part and I cannot make any further arguments. Technically speaking, my opponent is correct. Marilyn Manson can be banned in American households and businesses--it is their legal right, and they deserve this right no matter what. However, my intended resolution still stands untouched: Marilyn Manson should not be banned in any area (i. e. , city, state, district, etc. ) in the United States. Because no additional arguments can be made in this round, I will not bother rebutting my opponent's criticisms of my previous points. I would, however, very much like to debate my originally intended resolution at another time if my opponent would agree to it.
Marilyn Manson should not be banned in any part of the United States.

Thanks for your response, TheOrator! It seems, however, that we’ve taken on very different interpretations of what exactly is up for debate. My argument was targeted more toward legal bans—such as those created in certain cities and states in the United States. I am arguing against such bans being created to prevent bands like Marilyn Manson from playing concerts based on unverified reasons. My opponent has taken a bit of a different approach, so hopefully we will be able to merge the two together as we rebut and present additional points. Opponent’s Contention 1: I do not disagree that households possess the right to ban musicians from their households. If a parent feels that Marilyn Manson is inappropriate for their child to listen to, by all means they have the constitutional right to prevent his music from entering their home. Therefore, while your first contention remains intact, I do not argue its correctness and was referring to city/state bans being upheld rather than household ones. Opponent’s Contention 2: Again, any business or household has the legal and moral right to ban music from being played—but only within the limits of their property. The issue I have is not with personal bans, but rather those that are upheld by a city or state to prevent Marilyn Manson from playing there. At one point, a Florida school even threatened to expel students who attended Marilyn Manson concerts (1). THIS is wrong, and this is exactly what I’m arguing against. The right of privately owned businesses and households to ban Marilyn Manson should obviously remain under all circumstances; however the right of controversial bands to play in all areas of America (cities, states) should remain as well. Additional Argument: In addition to my previous argument, I’d like to present one to counter what I’m sure will be brought up: illegal activity taking place at concerts. One might say such activity would permit the righteous banning of a band whose concerts contained this, however I dissent. While Marilyn Manson has been caught engaging in illegal acts onstage, this is no reason to ban him altogether. A more reasonable approach is to terminate illegally charged concerts as they occur, but to still allow the artist to perform in the future. This would leave it up to him to decide, ultimately, whether or not he will perform without having his show terminated due to illegal actions.
Marilyn Manson should not be banned in any part of the United States.

Don't worry about specific cases. Although they're used as evidence, debates are normally better when you focus on the justifications behind the actions rather than the actions themselves, as you're doing :)I guess we should have defined ban after all, I had no idea that the word "ban" implied legal action... However, I guess we can just define it now and debate over it in the rebuttals/last round.Ban: (tr) to prohibit, esp officially, from action, display, entrance, sale, etc.; forbid; to ban a book[1]I will not be focusing on legal practices, but rather justifications behind the act of banning the musical works of Marilyn Manson. Contention 1: Households in the United Statessubpoint a.) Raising a child.When raising a child, a parent may feel that the lyrical content of Marylin Manson would be inappropriate for their children. As parents, they hold the right to bar this music from being played in their household. As this househould would be inside the United States of America's borders, a parent's right to ban music in the household disproves the resolution.Subpoint b.) Scaring Children.This somewhat deals with subpoint a. I am personally a fan of Marilyn Manson, and as such I've seen a good number of his music videos. Although I personally enjoy them, I remember a time when I was younger that I would be scared by creepy images on the television or computer. Marilyn Manson videos can certainly be included in the things that can scare a young child [2, 3, 4]. Just like a parent can block certain television shows to keep this "scary" content from their children (at least so they can get to sleep at night without being plagued by nighmares:P), they have a right to ban these videos in the household. As this household is in the US, the resolution is negated.Contention 2: Places of Business in the United StatesThe evidence for this section comes partly from my own work experience. I'm currently employed at a roller rink that plays music during work area to help keep the customers entertained. However, we get customers that range from grown adults to toddlers. Because of this, we can't play music that can be found as innapropriate to certain age groups or risk losing business. Therefore, there are certain musicians and songs (like mack city :P) that we ban. This includes profane singing and screaming that could either introduce small children to new curse words or scare the children, respectively. Marilyn Manson songs contain both of these [2, 3, 4], and so our boss has banned them from the playlist. Because she has a right to ban these songs, and the workplace is in the US, the resolution is negated.I anxiously await rebuttals from my opponent :)Works Cited:1.) http://www.thefreedictionary.com...;2.(first video) http://www.youtube.com...3.(second video) http://www.youtube.com...4.(third video) http://www.youtube.com...;
Marilyn Manson should not be banned in any part of the United States.

I'll accept, but I'd like to clarify the burden of proof. There isn't really any way for me to even have a burden of proof in this round let alone fullfill one simply because I'm not presenting a statement and holding it to be true, Pro is. However, I'm not suggesting that pro fulfill a burden of proof in the round. It would seem that attempting to uphold a burden of proof will simply lead to trivial nitpicking in this specific debate, and so I propose that neither side attempt to fulfill a burden of proof. We simply both provide valid reasons supporting our side and the audience votes for the one who provides the best reasoning, not on whether or not someone provided sufficient proof. I'm assuming everyone's clear on what banning is? I think it's too simple to provide definitions for it :P
Marilyn Manson should not be banned in any part of the United States.

This debate will regard the issue of musician Marilyn Manson being banned from certain areas in the United States. I will be arguing that Marilyn Manson should NOT be banned (at any point, current or not) from any part of the United States. My opponent will be arguing the contrary; that Marilyn Manson should, indeed, be banned from certain areas. Because musicians are not banned from areas by default, the party holding the Burden of Proof will be Con. Debate Round Structure: R1: Acceptance and clarifications. R2: Opening arguments. R3: Rebuttals and (optionally) additional arguments.
The Beatles are better than Justin Bieber

I'm not able to address every single point Con mentions due to spacing limitations.Pro has now stated his definition of better in the last round. Unfortunately, I don't agree with his premises. I believe a very talented band may remain unknown and have no effect on music for generations, lack a "legendary" following or be necessarily "revolutionary" but still be an excellent band. Con Case1. When have we validated artists by whether they have a 2 hour slot on Sunday morning radio? The Rebecca Black comment is a true scotsman fallacy. You clearly lay forth popularity as a criteria, but selectively shrug off RB as a "youtube phenomenon."2. Source? I'm sorry to say, but your personal experience does not quite cut in making an argument.3. I consider Yesterday to be beautiful, but not deep. I do not consider the mourning of a loved one to be considered a "deep" emotion. Deep songs express deep thoughts. 4. If the numbers you quote are true, then they have around 13 years of experience plus tours and songwriting in the post-Beatles period. The fact is, the Beatles have had a much longer time period to have their music exposed as opposed to a teenage Bieber.You never mentioned "writing your own songs" as a criteria for betterment, so this would be irrelevant.ConclusionPro never clearly defines his idea of better. He throws around the idea of popularity, but selectively dismisses Black because he does not like her. No where does he mention vocal qualities as a singer, which I personally weigh as crucial (much more than whether the band was fixated on changing the current musical atmosphere, i.e. revolutionary). Obviously Pro never counters my point about knowing Bieber past, present, and future because he has no idea. Unfortunately, the premise was laid out in the first round and he had nothing to dispute. The burden of proof was entirely on Pro, and through his own murky, changing definitions and inability to know future Bieber he has not fulfilled it. Sources in comments.