BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
PC is the best console

So here are my three points: a. You have access to far more exclusives on PC (by a massive margin) that are of equal or greater quality than console exclusives. b. A PC equipped with medium level specs will outperform any console by a long shot. Although PCs can be money sink holes, you save a lot on game deals, and monthly subscriptions. Not to mention the price of a medium level PC is only around 1 grand, and it'll last longer than any console by two or more generations. You can upgrade your PC as time goes on, making it basically immortal. c. PCs are more flexible as they can be turned setup for couch, desk, lap, or mobile play. They can also run emulators making them able to play console exclusives from any era. PCs are much more versatile.
Evolution by way of natural selection is a fact.

I'll be brief. Pro claims that evolution is a fact. I have provided sources that discredit radiometric dating. I have also shown how fossil layers, each millions of years old, have been bent 90 degrees without fracturing. Something that's totally impossible. I have shown that evolutionists like to twist words to fit their theory by claiming the inability of certain species of the same kind, such as finches, to interbreed makes them a new species. Excuse me, but aren't they still finches? There is not one uncontested intermediary fossil evolutionists can point to. If evolution were true, we would see millions of these fossils. Instead, we see none. We see series of snapshots. think about that. It is also clear that pro did not read the article I posted about these fossil layers, since he asked what kind of rock it was. Everyone knows that fossil layers are sedimentary rock. I'll finish up by reminding everyone that pro has the burden of proof, and that he did not even provide any sources for his arguments. That means guaranteed points for me, since I DID provide sources. No matter how convincingly he argued, Pro did not meat his burden of proof. He offered his unsubstantiated opinion. Nothing more.
Evolution by way of natural selection is a fact.

Let's start with a definition of the word "fact". To keep it simple, a fact is something that is KNOWN to be true. Do scientists know where life came from, and how it supposedly evolved? No. They do not. No one was there to witness these events. Evolution is a theory, and not even a well supported one. You claim that similarities in DNA are proof of evolution. But are they? The answer is no. I could make the claim that every computer program ever written is descended from a common ancestor, because they all have similar coding. Scientists claim that the similarity between humans and chimps DNA prove that we have a common ancestor. Once again, this is false. While there are many similarities, there are also many differences. There are around 35 million base pairs that are different. There are also 45 million base pairs that chimps have that we don't, and 45 million base pairs that we have and chimps are missing. That's a huge difference, when you consider that sickle cell anemia is caused by the trans-location of a single base pair. There is also the fact that this similarity of DNA could have another explanation. Like a common Creator. Now. On to radiometric dating. I guess you've missed all the articles written about how these dating methods really work. Many people don't know this, but the values they use for these are guesses. That's right guesses. You see, they have no way to know what the original values for the parent a daughter isotopes were. So they made a guess. And, finally, we'll discuss your claim about geology. Another thing that many people are unaware of, is the fact that the Grand Canyon has several examples of multiple geologic strata that are bent. What I mean by this is that there are several layers from different geological era's stacked on top of each other, and ALL OF THEM are bent 90 degrees. Why is this a problem? Because fossilized rock cannot be bent without breaking. This is just one of many things geologists cannot explain. There is also the example of a fossilized tree that is standing upright in multiple geologic layers. This is another impossibility, since the part of the tree in the first layer might have been fossilized. But the rest of the tree that was above that layer should have disintegrated long before it could also be fossilized. Both of these examples can, however, be explained by a global disaster; such as the Flood mentioned in Genesis. To sum up this stage of my argument, I'll simply say that I do not dispute the evidence. I dispute the interpretation of it. And rightly so.
Evolution by way of natural selection is a fact.

Because of demonstrable genetic, radiometric, and geologic evidence, evolution is a fact. Genetics show common ancestry among all life by demonstrating the same DNA between different species and even kingdoms. Radiometric dating shows time periods of fossils based on fixed atomic half lives that allow enough time for evolution to occur; this time frame matches the time it would take for the types of changes you would expect to see between fossils if evolution were true. Geology explains the various inorganic materials found around fossils and the age of these materials based on their placement in layers of rock that you would expect to find if evolution were true. The debate is open to any way you want to argue about it, but here is a general guideline: Pro has the burden of proof. The claim is that evolution is a fact. Pro R1- Evolution is a fact + guidelines Con R1- Rebuttal/Counterclaims/questions Pro R2- Rebuttal/counterclaims/questions Con R2- Rebuttal/counterclaims/questions Pro R3- Sum it up. Con R3- Sum it up.
When a tree falls in a lonely forest, and nothing is near by to hear it, it still makes a sound.

>>the purpose of sound like said is to be heard. And the purpose of light is to be seen? And yet, we cannot see the light of many galaxies unless we focus an amazing piece at the right part of the sky for a long time. Sound doesn't have a discrete purpose. Sound is a wave of particles clacking against each other like one of those click-clack metal ball toys. There's a lot of useful information in those waves and we've evolved ears to detect such sounds. The ear is to detect sound. The sound is not to be detected by the ear. It's a flipped up bit of nonsense. >>getting out of philosophy and going into grammar sound means something that is capable of being heard. Certainly it is capable of being heard. If a tree falls in outer space, and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound? Categorically no. Because there can be no sound in outer space. However there can be sound within an atmosphere and trees are well known to produce sounds. What is the difference between these two hypotheticals? The existence of atmosphere. It is the existence of atmosphere rather than existence of hearers to judge whether sound is made or not. Do electric fields exist? There are organs on sharks which allow them to detect electric fields. Humans lack these. So Humans are electric-field blind and cannot detect them. Do they therefore not exist? >>Sound was coined to describe what is heard. Our ears are well evolved to detect sound, you make it seem as though we invented sound by the very nature of being human and egoistic. ---------- I could go on and on, but simply because we are bad at detecting something or don't detect it does not imply that that doesn't exist. We are limited not only in our perception of things but in the interpretation of those things we do perceive. The philosophy that suggests that those things which aren't detected aren't real is a very narrow view of the world hardly a step above solipsism.
When a tree falls in a lonely forest, and nothing is near by to hear it, it still makes a sound.

For my last argument I will like to say that all those examples are in the end irrelevant. Just in case Ill say this is about sound. the purpose of sound like said is to be heard. getting out of philosophy and going into grammar sound means something that is capable of being heard. This definition of it relies on how you interpret the literal meaning of capable. I hope that those reviewing this article will agree with me when I say that since that pressure wave is not capable of being heard therefore it cannot be called a sound. these sound waves will not actually sound like anything. Sound was coined to describe what is heard. If nothing is heard then no sound happened. Sound is not an essence and is a perception not an actual law of physics. thanks for your input on this debate Tatarize. :]
When a tree falls in a lonely forest, and nothing is near by to hear it, it still makes a sound.

>>Sound -the sensation produced by stimulation of the organs of hearing by vibrations transmitted through the air or other medium. Hardly. Sound is a particle/pressure wave regardless of anything sensing it. Do the stars shine when the sun is up? Does the sun shine when my eyes are closed? Does Jupiter exist if I don't know where it is? Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. Likewise, when you don't see, feel, taste, or smell it... it doesn't lack the characteristics it possesses. I understand the philosophical underpinnings of the argument, but to me it has always seemed the peak of egoism to say that if I never perceived it... it didn't fricking happen.
When a tree falls in a lonely forest, and nothing is near by to hear it, it still makes a sound.

I originally went against the notion of a tree falling and making a noise because sound as it is understood will not occur. Sound -the sensation produced by stimulation of the organs of hearing by vibrations transmitted through the air or other medium. Under this definition of sound, no noise occurred cause their was nothing to pick up the sound. further, that dust could have been caused by anything :] so In conclusion even if the conditions for sound were present no sound happened since no body capable of hearing was around to hear it. George Berkeley responded to this question with something that sums it up. "to be[the sound and the tree creating the sound] is to be perceived"
When a tree falls in a lonely forest, and nothing is near by to hear it, it still makes a sound.

A large part of our ability to speculate on events is our ability to extrapolate from previous events. Nobody has encountered a silent tree fall. Therefore, even without an observer we should assume that it makes noise. It may have once been an acceptable model to conclude that there cannot be sound without anybody to hear it. However we now understand what sound is and how it propagates. Sound is a particle/pressure/heat wave rapidly moving through a large group of particles. For example, lightning causes thunder by rapidly heating the air it travels through. This causing it to explode outward which, in turn, causes a pressure wave (sound). This is why exploding things in general create large amounts of sound (move a large amount of air). Now in the example of a tree falling. The instant before it collides with the ground it will cause the remaining air between the tree and ground to rapidly move and cause a soundwave. Tree falls by the laws of science create soundwaves. For a tree to fall, with or without an observer and not make a sound would require a unilateral negation of the laws of physics only when there is no observer. Further, even without initially being there to hear the sound. Careful observations of the dust at the ground of the sight could show clear signs of rapidly moving air towards the end of the fall not otherwise directly affected by the tree. Thusly, one could have evidence that a sound was produced even without an observer. Next, allow me to quickly note that there are great numbers of sounds produced consistently which are observerless. If I were to blow on a dog whistle, you wouldn't hear anything. Does it make a sound? Quite certainly! The sound can easily be measured and quantified by a number of devices. At the very least, and for these reasons, anybody claiming that trees falling does not make a sound (even in an observerless setting) must assume the burden of proof in this regard. Why doesn't it make a sound? As I have aptly shown that sound is the logical conclusion of a tree falling, setting this conclusion asunder would take a remarkable argument indeed.
The U.S should slowly ban gas powered cars and invest in hydrogen powered cars.

Well this is the first debate I've ever been forced to forfeit in. My computer wouldn't work for a week and is still not working. I'm posting this via phone. I'm not going to post anything else because I can't keep up with large paragraphs via phone. I do however need to point out one thing. MY opponent did not follow the rules nor the structure of this debate. 5herefore he should automatically loose points just for not being able to follow the directions he stated to understand upon acceptance of this debate. I clearly stated in round one and two there is to be no refutation. My opponent clearly violated this rule. I could have tackled all of my opponents claims very effectively but unforseen occurences happened to my computer so the fact that I was forced to forfeit and the fact that my opponent violated the terms of this debate gives me very valid reason to claim this debate to not be a proper debate and should not be voted upon at all. So I ask all of the audience not to vote on this debate due to my technology issues and my opponents failure to follow debate rules. For the reasons just stated above I once again ask all in the audience to not vote on this debate.
The U.S should slowly ban gas powered cars and invest in hydrogen powered cars.

Environmental issues has always been a favorite of mine to debate. As this first round is acceptance and intro I will leave it quite simple. My first statement is that my argument will stem from the idea that the US is not the primary concern when it comes to this issue and that subduing our emissions through banning gas cars is an inherently bad concept that will not solve the problem that my opponent claims we are facing. This debate relies on my "recognition of the worlds co2 emission problem" which, I do recognize that there is a growing level of CO2, however, my acceptance of it as a major concern of the world is strictly for purposes of this debate. I will respect my opponent's wishes and argue from a point that would consider this but my personal acceptance is varied from what my opponent has stated.
The U.S should slowly ban gas powered cars and invest in hydrogen powered cars.

This debate is about the future of our planet and decreasing Americas and the worlds mayhem in the next 60-200 years. I won't state my main reasons right now but I will say this. Carbon dioxide emissions are melting the ice caps and Greenland at an incredible rate. If the world of the U.S doesn't do something to slow this down by the next 60- 100 years the sea level is going to rise approximately 6 feet. That means stronger hurricanes many flooded cities including New York. massive migration of people to other states, possibly overcrowding, an increased risk of pandemic and disease,and the destruction of the earths ozone layer. If we don't do something fast to reduce our co2 emissions my generation or the next generation may possibly be the last generation on earth. This is serious issue that will affect ours, and our children's future. Let's not be the civilization that could have stopped its extinction but was so obsessed with money that they practically committed suicide. In 2015 the world leaders are going to have a meeting to figure out how to save our planet. I think my suggestion should be raised at this meeting as something we can do to save our planet. If someone disagrees with this resolution I encourage that person to accept this debate.round 1- acceptance/ introround 2- positions ( no refutation)round 3- refutationround 4- refutationround5- summary ( no new arguments or contentions, refutation allowed.)Acceptance of this debate equals recognition of the worlds co2 emission problem.
Why does the government regulate marriage

First of all, you should make it clear which side of the issue you are on. The truth of the matter is that nothing really does give the government the right to decide whom it is that you marry, or what gender, just whether or not to actually recognize it as marriage. This specification is required because there are specific tax benefits and responsibility risks/requirements that result legally from parenthood or legal marriage. Gay marriage should be legalized only because the government does not have the right (or possibly the authority, even) to say otherwise. A person should be recognized as legally married as long as an actual church says they are married, and the paperwork is taken care of... good luck trying to get a church to marry two gay people, though. Marriage is soley a religious ceremony in the first place, therefore religion should determine marriage, not the government. P.S. I'm American don't hate
Vegan Diets are Healthier

Resolved: Well planned vegan diets are healthier than their meat-based counterparts. Terms: Well planned diet: A diet which can be designed by a layperson with a reasonable amount of research Vegan (or plant-based) diet: A diet that excludes animal body parts, animal milk and eggs Healthier: Greater longevity and freedom from disease Meat-based (or animal-based) diet: A diet which regularly consists of animal products (body parts, animal milk and eggs) In this debate, I will argue that plant-based diets are healthier than meat-based diets. I will highlight the virtues of vegan diets and the vices of meat-based diets. My opponent will do the opposite; pointing out the flaws of a vegan diet and arguing in favor of a meat based one. This debate will be based on dietetic evidence obtained from modern, reputable scientific studies. Discussing what evolution "designed" us for or what our physiology "proves" we should eat can be interesting. However, I would encourage my opponent to base his or her arguments on modern dietetic science as I think this is more relevant to the resolution. During the debate I will point out the role animal-based foods play in cardiovascular disease, cancer, obesity and diabetes. I will respond to criticisms of well planned vegan diets as my opponent provides them. In this round I will begin with cardiovascular disease: World-wide, cardiovascular diseases such as ischemic heart disease and cerebrovascular disease end more lives prematurely than anything else[1][2]. In North America, CVD accounts for 40% of all deaths[3]. The American Heart Association estimates that "79,400,000 American adults (one in three) have one or more types of cardiovascular disease"[4]. Dietary cholesterol is only found in animal foods[5] and is not necessary for humans to consume as it is naturally produced by the liver[6][7]. Scientist estimate that for every 1% increase in cholesterol levels, the risk of heart disease raises by 2-3%[3]. Saturated fats, transfatty acids and dietary cholesterol are the most significant causes of hypercholesterolemia (elevated cholesterol levels)[3]. Of all dietary groups, vegans have the lowest levels of these substances in their blood[3]. Furthermore, the substances that mitigate hypercholesterolemia are soluble fiber, plant protein (especially soy protein), polyunsaturated fats and phytochemicals[3]. These substances are only found in plant foods and are, as a consequence, more abundant in vegans[3]. In summary, vegans have the lowest risk of developing cardiovascular disease; the leading cause of deaths. 1 http://en.wikipedia.org... 2 http://www.who.int... 3 http://books.google.com... (page 20) 4 http://www.americanheart.org... 5 http://findarticles.com... 6 http://heartdisease.about.com... 7 http://cholesterol.about.com...
Animals should be freed from zoos

All good zoos try to recreate an animals natural habitat. Animals will get the care that they need and the animals may not be aware of this but generally there quality of life will be improved and there food supply will also be generally higher. Animals are not being taken to zoos for no reason. They are taken there either because they are injured or are not fit to be out in the wild; because they are being hunted in the area that they are living in or they are on the verge of extinction. In response to your question of (how would you feel being ripped from your family at a young age only to get thrown into a cage as subject to human entertainment) I would say: Would you rather die or be taken away from your family*? To contradict your second paragraph, generally zoos in developed countries receive no abuse and if they do then the issue is not the zoos it is the governments issue. The only reason that we know about zoo abuse is because in the news we have seen arrests. This means that employees who harm animals in zoos are punished. The final question that you have asked me wont make sense if you are referring to zoos in general. Your question is aimed individually and is therefore irrelevant. In the grand scheme of things the occasional abuse zoo isn't a reason to abolish zoos completely. Anthropomorphism is the word associated with animals having human characteristics - you have been using this throughout you debate. You have also said that animals are abused daily. In care homes elderly people are sometimes abused. Do you also propose that we close down all of the care homes?
Animals should be freed from zoos

Have you not taken the time to think that it maybe wrong to deprive them of their natural habitat? Taking animals and putting them in a zoo is like taking you from your house and putting you in a total different location it's not right to take animals against their will, away from their habitat's and family's and put them in zoos. Not to mention family's of the animals. how would you feel being ripped from your family at young age only to get thrown into a cage as subject to human entertainment. Not to mention abuse, animals at zoos are abused daily by employee's and costumers at the zoo. Often animals at zoos are subject to abuse, experimentation, and depression. So ask yourself this question, is it really okay to keep animals in zoos?
Animals should be freed from zoos

Before, zoos actively sought out animals to showcase. There was no understanding or appreciation of animals. Zoos were never a prison. Living conditions and social conditions weren't taken into account. The animals weren't necessarily put in zoos because they did something wrong. Zoos were more so and (I will accepts, still are) circuses and fairgrounds. There is still that elements of attraction but we don't actively seek out animals to put in zoos for entertainment. We do it for their safety. The fun aspect of zoos is there purely as a bonus not as a matter of priority. Now that, that's sorted we can move on. My argument may be seen as contradicting the Darwinian perspective - survival of the fittest. But I say to this - who says that our intervention is a negative force. Our interventions supports the evolutionary journey so beings have no need to die out. Many zoos also protect endangered animals. In fact many animals would have become extinct by now. You may decide to contradict this by saying that more species are killed than saved but without zoos then that as I said previously that statistic would be higher without zoos. The modern zoo is a progressive force for the betterment of all animals.
Animals should be freed from zoos

Round 2: Introduction First we need to establish in our understanding of what exactly a zoo is. But first let us start with what a zoo was. A zoo was a place where animals were showcased for people's entertainment and amusement. Conditions were appalling. Understanding was limited and lets not get started on the rights of animals.... but that was then. Now zoos are for conservation and protection for the rights of animals. Many zoos and zoological societies petition against governments who don't protect and enforce protection legislation over animals.