BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
There Is Reasonable Cause To Doubt The Theory Of Common Descent

Firstly, let me say to you Con that I'm sorry you aren't amused. Let me just point out that you aren't alone, because the Kiwis aren't amused either: As for your concerns regarding my knowledge of the Theory Of Evolution, I have to say that they are unfounded. Thanks to Facebook, I understand it perfectly: Many thanks for the couple of links to talkorigins, by the way. They look very interesting and easy to understand. That is something my only partially-evolved brain desperately needs. Am I serious about this debate? Yes, I am serious about this debate. Not too serious, though. I know a guy who would like to have a word with you... Anyways, I'm surprised you say my only burden of proof is to prove the existence of God, because that simply isn't true. My burden of proof is only to prove that there exists reasonable cause to doubt the Theory Of Common Descent. I'm kind of offended that you are trying to strawman me, twist my words around, and convince the voters that this debate is something totally different than what it actually is. I'm also offended that you say only “peer reviewed accredited scientific journals” are acceptable sources, as if I had not provided SEVEN of those. You know who else is offended? The person from my 5th source: Don't mind him, he hasn't finished evolving yet anyway. I now hand the debate back to my opponent. Please note that every single of my arguments still stand as Con hasn't provided any rebuttals. Remember the resolution: There is reasonable cause to doubt the Theory Of Common Descent.
There Is Reasonable Cause To Doubt The Theory Of Common Descent

Firstly, let me apologize to the readers and the voters.To my opponent I am in a state of amazement. I actually am not sure what to say, I rechecked if this was a science debate. I rechecked if it was a debate regarding holes in the Theory of common debate. Turns out I did accept the correct debate, and I am not amused. If I wanted to debate the creationism/intelligent design versus evolution I would have but this is a waste of my time.If my opponent is serious about his topics I will have to explain the theory of evolution to him and this is far better done in another format. Is there even a point in presenting the DNA evidence for common descent when you have to contend with ridiculous arguments like why are there still monkeys?(1) I will put two links here for my opponent to read regarding DNA evidence if he wishes to.(2,3) Now, I ask again is my opponent serious about this debate? If you are and you want these arguments to hold in a scientific debate. You have one burden of proof, prove the existence of your Biblical God. The only acceptable source will be peer reviewed accredited scientific journals after all this is the science debate section.I hand the debate back to my opponent. (1) http://humanorigins.si.edu...(2) http://www.talkorigins.org...(3) http://www.talkorigins.org...
Death penalty should be banned

"I would like to remind my opposition that the purpose of judiciary is not to save time or money but rather to provide justice."The value of justice can only be measured in the weight of one's burden on society to begin with. There is no justice in fifteen years worth of appeals processes when you openly admit to committing a crime. Ironically a convoluted "Justice" system provides nothing and wastes far more time, effort, and money than anything else."Killing is killing. We can not award such a punishment to anyone when other better productive alternatives are available."Yeah, and slavery is slavery. Forcing people to work as part of imprisonment for the betterment of society without adequae pay is nothing short. It isn't a form of rehabilitation or anything of value but instead is merely a way to create a self-regulating community of social rejects and the criminally minded. Your sanctity of life argument is meaningless; lives are measured entirely by how much they produce for society and that can be measured in cashflow. Maintaining your own personal perspective on the matter of the value of life in a debate is unprofessional at best and completely illogical at worst; I'll spare you the shame of having to "prove it" since I already know that one cannot prove life sanct."In round 1, I have stated how imprisonment can be used as an alternative which will not only be productive for the economy but also provide true justice."Locking people up in cages until they die is the same thing as a death sentence. Unless you intend to release them, and clearly you don't as the death penalty holds the same weight of never being released thus the only comparable option, this holds no water whatsoever. "True Justice" is equivalent to "slavery" + "caged existence"? Oh the value of their days is quite great, is it not? So now not only are we feeding people condemned to live in a cage because we're too afraid to actually put them down but these entities are extremely dangerous and without hope for rehabilitation thus why they're facing life imprisonment.4% of defendents were innocent. 4 whole percent. 30 years ago before strong modern forensics a whole 4% were innocent. That is immaterial. The only way that works as an argument is through emotion, the "shock and horror" that we got it wrong, but even with a failure rate of 20% that means that we're really, really good at what we do. The other converse statistic is 96% of person's decidedly dangerous to the point of needing to be put down for the good of society were guilty beyond measure. Human justice is always going to be flawed and the system the same but holding that as a Damocle's Sword against humanity is unfair.At current due to this climate it is more expensive to put someone to death because of the appeals process which rarely turns over a case than it is to feed a prisoner for life. Perhaps humans have grown soft and faihless in their own technologies and deductions.
Death penalty should be banned

I would like to request the opposition to take out time to actually read my argument. I was disappointed with the response as I had already provided appropriate explanations for all the points mentioned above.Yet, for the sake of argument, I will counter your points. "1. It saves time." "5. It eases taxpayer burden." "2. It saves money."I would like to remind my opposition that the purpose of judiciary is not to save time or money but rather to provide justice. "6. It can be done humanely."Killing is killing. We can not award such a punishment to anyone when other better productive alternatives are available."3. It can be used on criminals proven without shadow of a doubt such as those who confess to (or are caught performing) of heinous crimes." "4. Not all humans are capable of rehabilitation."In round 1, I have stated how imprisonment can be used as an alternative which will not only be productive for the economy but also provide true justice.If an individual is deemed incapable of rehabilitation, that individual could be imprisoned till he naturally passes away. What is the need of eliminating an individual when a far better alternative is available?
Death penalty should be banned

Firstly, I would like to define the death penalty. The death penalty is a punishment by death. It is usually awarded to criminals who have committed extreme crimes.Now I would like to put forward a few points:(a) From a humanitarian perspective, we all should be pro-life. (b) Death penalty is an extreme form of violence. Killing is always too extreme for any kind of crime when there are other alternatives such as imprisonment available.(c) Let us discuss the economical advantage that can be put forward by this motion. We can utilize these prisoners for mining and other economically beneficial jobs to benefit our economy. Even if a prisoner, due to any reason, is not able to earn a profit for the nation, we can not take a life just to save money.No amount of cash can equate a life.(d) Death penalty seems to promote an eye for an eye, that is, a revenge policy which is the complete opposite of what we trying to teach the society.(e) We can imprison people till their natural death rather than opting for such extreme measures.(f) In several cases, the prisoner might be falsely acquitted and might end up being killed despite his innocence. Who will be answerable in such situations?Such prisoners can be delivered justice whenever the evidence comes through. Thus, promoting justice.As a source for point (c) According to http://www.prisonpolicy.org..."The county economic development director in the small New York town of Romulus, for example, states that economic development experts throughout the state consider correctional facilities to be positive contributors to local economies, providing good-paying jobs and benefits in communities where employment is scarce."As a strong source for point (f)Refer to http://en.wikipedia.org..."Newly available DNA evidence has allowed the exoneration and release of more than 17 death row inmates since 1992 in the United States"Another source to enforce point (f)http://www.theguardian.com...It states that 4% of the defendants are actually innocent.I will now conclude my side for this round. I look forward to a healthy and positive debate.
Christianity or Atheism

I am sadden to see my opponent was unable to "debunk" me in round 2 like he said. Having 72 hours to reply, I was planning for a response. However, I will make my statements as planned, and hopefully my opponent will reply not only to this round but the previous. I wish him the best of luck. As stated earlier, God is omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient. However, it's impossible for these 3 to coexist with each other under one definition, as they contradict each other. For example: Omniscient and omnibenevolent: As I stated in round 2, God creates evil(Isaiah 45:7). When something bad happens in our life, Christians often say, "It's God testing us". However, by being omniscient(all knowing) he would already know how we would respond to his "test", therefore there would be no need to do it. This proves he is not omnibenevolent(all good), for if he was he wouldn't be inflicting the pain for no reason like he is by putting this "test" on us when he already knows the results. Omnipotent and omnibenevolent: Now let's say it's not God doing this. Let's throw out the information I've presented and tell me no. God doesn't create evil(even though he said he does in Isaiah 45:7 KJV), God is all knowing, and God is omnibenevolent(even though he's inflicting pain on you and there are countless stories in the bible of him killing people including pregnet women and their unborn children AND the slaughter of children...Hosea 13:16 King James). No, that is NOT the acts of God, but acts of the devil. The devil has come and has made all these horrific things occur. Now, you worship God, you praise him, and you preach his word daily. Why are the events still happening? Why hasn't he stopped it? God is omnipotent(all powerful) so he should be able to stop the devil or at least stop the chaos the devil is causing. These proposes an interesting scenario: Either God CAN'T stop the devil and the horrible events occurring, so he is not truly omnipotent. OR God CAN stop the devil and the horrible events occurring, he is CHOOSING not to. If he is choosing not to, he is not all good as he is not doing good by helping the people he created, that proves he is not omnibenevolent.
Christianity or Atheism

If you insist, I will start off. It's hard for me to believe in something that has so many contradictions. Did you know that's Gods own definition contradicts itself? The definition of God in the Christian Bible is that he is 1.Super natural 2.Omnibenevolent 3.OmniPotent 4.Omniscient I'll start off with the first one. Now, being supernatural means you are inmaterial, which means it can't be tested as in science you can only test material things. With that said, you couldn't prove for a supernatural being to be right or wrong since you can not test it. With that said, you say God is the higher power, while I say Zeus, and another one says a flying spaghetti monster. As ridiculous as that sounds, you can't prove one to be more right or wrong than any other one, therefore all 3 answers are equally valid. The second on is God is Omnibenevolent or all good. Now let's use examples of horrible things: War, disease, natural disasters, almost anything bad you can think of. Now, do you think that is the work of God, or the devil? If you said God, that proves you disagree in the defintion of God. If you said it's the devil, you are also wrong. God says In Isaiah 45:7 KJV, "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things". He says himself he creates evil, proving he is not all good, contradicting his own definition. The next one is Omnipotent or all powerful. Now here's a question in which you've most likely heard before but stands true and proves my point. Can God create a boulder so big even he himself could not lift it? If you say God can, that proves he is not Omnipotent since he is not powerful enough to lift the Boulder, and if you say God can't them that proves he is not omnipotent as he could not create a boulder so big. The last part of this definition is he is Omniscient or all knowing. If God knew everything, then he would know what you need or what you want, and therefore there should be no reason to pray for it. I will go much more in depth in the following rounds with God's definition, including how different parts of his definition contradict with each other!
Should middle school students own a cell phone

Personally I do not think that middle school students should have phone ,because its kind of a distraction myself am a middle schooler at West Middle School in Traverse city and ever where I look I see textured if you are a parent reading this I would not recommend getting a phone for your child until their older like when they are in high school,Some parents think that their kids are using their phone for educational uses at school,and if you think that your wrong say no to phones!!!!!!!!!!
There should be no signs that prohibit walking on grass.

Let me thank XStrikeX for what has been a somewhat strange and yet enjoyable debate. Voters take notice, this debate is not about whether or not walking on grass should be prohibited or punished by law. The resolution states that, "There should be no signs that prohibit walking of grass." We are only debating whether or not there should be signs which state that grass walking is prohibited. As such, much of what my opponent has written about legal prohibitions of walking on grass is simply orthogonal to the issue at hand. Contention 1: My opponent's first contention is completely and utterly irrelevant to the debate. Contention 2: My opponent asked: "How does walking on grass reduce the aesthetic quality of the grass to make it so noticeable by the public?" Grass that continually gets walked on ends up dying and often times gets replaced by dirt tracks. "My opponent has said that groundskeepers have to fix the grass. Well, that's what their job is. They have to take care of their grass! That's what their job is paid to do." I don't see the strength of this rejoinder. The fact that it's the groundkeeper's job to keep up the grass doesn't make it acceptable to mess up grass. It's simply mean-spirited to make people's jobs harder by creating more problems for then. Consider, for example, the logical conclusion that could be drawn from my opponent's own argument. By my opponents own logic, it would be acceptable to go into grocery stores and spill gallons of soda on the floor since it's the janitors job to clean up spills. Clearly, my opponent's argument is misguided. Contention 3: "Just putting a sign there WILL NOT prevent someone from breaking a law." Sure, I will admit that signs don't always discourage people from doing something. However, they do at least some of the time, and this is the whole point. As I have stated earlier, people's conformity to norms is very influential on the way other people behave, and lots of evidence bears this out. [1] If some people don't walk on grass because of signs that are in place, other people will likely follow their example. Simply put, grass signs are a relatively effective and cheap way to prevent people from walking on grass. Therefore, they should remain with us. ::Conclusion:: My opponent claimed that grass has no aesthetic value, but I don't see how he can conclude this. A lush green lawn is more aesthetically pleasing than a lawn that has wear tracks on it. Moreover, walking on grass in certain areas makes the lives of groundskeepers more difficult. For these reasons, I encourage everyone to vote against the motion. (References) 1.http://www.medicalnewstoday.com...
There should be no signs that prohibit walking on grass.

I certainly agree that this is an unusual topic. .. hopefully it'll be fun though. :D Refutation 1. Uh, red herring? Could you clarify, please. .. ? 2. How does walking on grass reduce the aesthetic quality of the grass to make it so noticeable by the public? As I previously stated, no one looks at the grass and finds it beautiful. There's no such thing as grass sight-seeing. My opponent has said that groundskeepers have to fix the grass. Well, that's what their job is. They have to take care of their grass! That's what their job is paid to do. 3. My opponent has connected stop signs to no walking on grass signs. He has said that people accept safe driving standards because the stop signs are there. This is completely false. Just putting a sign there WILL NOT prevent someone from breaking a law. Just because you're told not to do something, doesn't mean you won't do it! That's why crimes like murder, rape, and robbery happen! My opponent even admits that rules preventing walking on grass are hard to enforce. For these reasons, prohibiting walking on grass is not effective and it is useless. I'd like to thank my opponent for taking up this debate. .. it's been fun!
There should be no signs that prohibit walking on grass.

I must admit that this is a bit of an unusual topic. Hopefully we can come to some kind of a consensus towards the end of the debate. Contention 1: Red Herring Contention 2: My opponent points out that walking on grass won't reduce it to a "dry, arid desert". However, walking on grass does wear it out over time. This occurs often when lots of people travel on it every day in one specific pattern. Yes, this is a very minor consequence of walking on grass, but it still reduces the aesthetic quality of the grass itself. Moreover, wearing out large patches of grass by having lots of people continually walk over it isn't a very nice thing to do to the poor groundskeepers that have to fix it. Contention 3: My opponent points out that rules regarding walking on grass are, in practice, hard to enforce. However, there are all sorts of rules that are difficult to enforce in practice. For example, there are hundreds of thousands of Stop signs in the United States. And it would be nearly impossible to put a police cruiser at every one of them so that people don't drive straight through them. However, the mere fact that they are there helps people conform to driving safety standards –for good reason I might add. Likewise, the fact that there are signs discouraging people from walking on grass is a good way to get them to conform to such standards. Moreover, rules don't always need to be enforced for them to be effective. ::Conclusion:: In summary, grass signs represent an easy means to encourage people not to walk on grass. By doing this, these signs promote the aesthetic value of college campuses and other public venues. Additionally, these signs help make life easier for the groundskeepers that have to repair damaged grass that has been worn out by lots of people walking on it. In total, the signs are a good idea, and they should remain with us.
There should be no signs that prohibit walking on grass.

Hello, I am XStrikeX, debating the Con side for the motion,"There should be no signs that prohibit walking on grass." Short, short background: Signs that say, "Please do not walk on the grass," are sometimes put on fields of grass. One reason for this is because walking on the grass supposedly harms it. As Pro, I am saying that signs that prohibit grass-walking should be eliminated. Contention 1 Football players and soccer players walk and play on grass. Are you going to tell them to get off the grass because it hurts the grass? Contention 2 People put up these signs because they don't want their grass to be ruined. Grass really isn't that pretty. No one walks by grass and says,"Man, look at that grass today. It's so green and lustrous!" And walking on grass won't reduce it to a dry, arid desert. Contention 3 It's simply too hard to enforce such a rule. People will walk on grass no matter what you put there. Monitoring grass-walkers with cameras is a waste of money and time. For these reasons, there should be no signs that prohibit walking on grass. Sigh, I have way too much free time...
Voters should be required to post their reasoning behind each vote they make.

Greetings. First, I'd like to thank my opponent for starting this debate. Second (AND MOST IMPORTANTLY), I'd like the voters to vote based on who supported their position better rather than which side you personally agree with. With that said, let us proceed carefully. First, my opponent insinuates that it is difficult for one to modify their strategies and improve their debating skills without commentary from an audience, but this is certainly not so. Having been an online debater for a number of years, the audience's opinion has almost never been of much help in letting me know when I've sorely been pummeled intellectually; the ones who were helpful were almost always none other than my adversaries (regardless of whether or not it was their intention). As my opponent suggest in his profile, debate is a game. Like any game, it is your adversaries who help you increase your skill level. The most beneficial debates are the debates where you've debated on an equal footing or have been sorely defeated. If both of these cases, you've allowed your opponent to make more good moves than you have been willing to allow. You get better by understanding these good moves your opponent has made and by coming up with ways to prevent them in future debates. When debating in the eyes of an online audience (such as the kind of audience's you'll run into on debate.org), their concerns on the debate (which are mostly represented through the votes) are hardly ever beneficial to the many of the votes being made for partial reasons. Sure, there are times when a voter will actually provide some beneficial reasons as to why he/she voted impartially on the debate, but this is sadly not often. Thus, the debate.org votes should not be used as a means of determining the level of your argumentation skills. My opponent then proposes that voters be required to post a reason as to why they voted, but concedes to the fact that many comments will undoubtedly be unhelpful. There are two problems that come to mind merely from reading this statement. 1) My opponent is aware that this plan will no doubt encourage irrelevant posts in the comment section. If he is aware of this, he is aware of the fact that this system won't be of much help in solving the problem he brings up. So if that is the case, what is the point? Why should the administrators allow more bandwidth to be wasted if this solution will hardly be beneficial to the members of this website? 2) If the majority of voters who vote don't comment now, what will be their incentive to actually take the time to EXPLAIN (to the level my opponent wishes) why they voted when this program is initiated? Voters who don't feel like typing much (which is most of the voters on this website if you take the time to compare the number of votes in the debates to the number of comments from different members in most of these debates) would merely have to say something along the lines of "Oh, I thought PRO won because he argued better. 25 character limit." I now stand ready for my opponent's first rebuttal.