BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Evolution is Flawed

It appears that I am going to repeat myself. The idea behind the law of thermodynamics is that things tend to decay rather than get better. Energy is being lost in the universe. The Sun can sometimes help the process of creating new life but sometimes it destroys the ability to make new life like a plant when already dead.[1] The Earth is a closed system. Energy enters and leaves but material doesn't. [2] The evolution mentioned includes DNA mutation which destroys genes. In vitro or man-made evolution doesn't account for all the negative effects of evolution in nature which would be its undoing.[3] Mutations are only beneficial in certain environments.[4] Just because people, who are intelligent, are able to induce beneficial mutations in plant doesn't mean nature is just as successful.[5] The coach roaches fossils sited earlier are very specialized for their environment.[6] In more evidence that Dinosaurs lived alongside man, we found footprints of Dinosaurs with Humans.[7] I'd also like to note that there wasn't any information of the CMAH Pseudogene in any of the websites I use. [1]http://www.christiananswers.net... [2] http://www.google.com... [3]http://creation.com... [4] http://www.answersingenesis.org... [5]http://creation.com... [6]http://creation.com... [7]http://www.bible.ca...
Evolution is Flawed

The reason I dropped some of those arguments was because I already addressed them. Evolution on a small scale or micro evolution, such as the four cited, doesn't prove molecules to man evolution to the degree of macro evolution.[1] Entropy refers to any energy exchange, so genes and order can be some. The idea that if you leave a system alone without someone working to bring more genes or order will destroy it. The example of a watch spring driven watch is presented. It will eventually run out of energy and decay unless someone else reapplies new energy.[3] Missing links are still absent in some areas where we can find a few in others that can be debated. We should be able to find more missing links of what we have.[4] [1]http://www.answersingenesis.org... [2]http://www.ucg.org... [3]http://www.emc.maricopa.edu... [4]http://www.genesispark.org...
Smoking in public should be illegal

K-The government wouldn't necessarily be telling citizens what to do and when to do it. It would simply be preventing other people from being made sick from second hand smoke. This is wrong and should be banned. (c) I think alcohol has a very different effect on people than smoking cigarettes do.(ri)ultimately smoking has bad effects on people and it should be banned in public areas. If people would like to smoke they should do it in their own homes and away from the general public to keep them away from health harms. (ri)
Smoking in public should be illegal

Back in the 1920's the federal government attempted to ban alcohol supporting it as destructive to the individual.(ec) This only lasted a decade until it became repealed.(i) The ban had proven as ineffective and had given rise to gangsters working an underground business.(s) So not only did it create angry people it added to illegal procedures. (s) Another reason why smoking should not be banned is because the government is ultimately telling people what to do and when to do it. It is actually a little scary to understand what will come next? Will fast food be banned because it causes people to gain weight and lead to obesity or the fact that heart disease is the 2nd killer in America. It will only give the government more control to tell citizens how to live. K- Considering that smoking in general is bad for your health, it should be left up to the smoker, fast food eater.
Smoking in public should be illegal

Smoking in general is very bad for your health, but then to put someone else in the same place you are and to smoke in front of them is wrong (ec). It would be very difficult to change how things have been and to prevent any smoker from smoking in a public place, but then again it would be more beneficial to do this than anything else. (ri) Smokers are already know to litter more than anything else. It would cut down a lot on littering and at the same time prevent people from breathing in second hand smoke. (s). K- Non smokers are said to have been sick from second hand smoke. It is said that people who are around smokers are twice as likely to die from heat disease than any other person. (ec). http://www.reuters.com... Times were very different when people were allowed to smoke in restaurants and inside other buildings. Now everyone's health is at risk and that is why smoking is banned inside buildings. (s) Therefore I think it should be banned in all public places. (c)
Smoking in public should be illegal

Banning smoking in public places is considered nothing but social engineering and to outcast those who smoke.(ec) This is considered discrimination and as stated in the fourteenth amendment.(s) Listed as discrimination as the Equal Protection Clause.(s) Going against any amendment is pretty much re writing history and this is very difficult to do hence the reason for pushing smokers away from public buildings and not completely making it illegal. K- Non-smokers do not really get "secondhand smoke" There is no proven evidence to provide such statistics that second hand smoke causes the effects listed above. People used to smoke inside buildings, hospitals, airlines and no such evidence can still be provided. References: www.usconstitution.net http://www.helium.com...
Smoking in public should be illegal

Smoking should be illegal in public places. (ec) Second hand smoke is very dangerous for people who are non smokers. (s) The effects that second hand smoke has on a person are endless, breathing problems, cancer, heart disease, and headaches (s) K- Smoking in public places will bother people that t is around because of the traveling of the smoke. The smell and effects of the smoke will still continue to linger even if it is away from other smokers. Smokers should choose to smoke in the comfort of their home or their car, not in public places. (c).
The more one knows, the more one knows one doesn't know.

Increases in knowledge, increases the realization that one lacks knowledge Increased knowledge results in the understanding of increased complexities. In turn, a wider and deeper range of possibilities for knowledge becomes apparent. This leads one to realize that they don't know what they thought they had. Before learning about something, one doesn't realize how little they know about what they thought they knew. A new discovery of a subject contradicts what one thought one knew about that subject, leading one to question further. After perception and intuition, upon deeper inspection and questioning, one will realize that something was not what it had initially seemed. That new-found knowledge is a realization that one lacked knowledge.
Should Gun Control Be Implemented Into American Law

I'm going to assume, based on the way you worded the topic, and by your use of the constitution to back-up your position, that you would concede to the fact that the US government is a necessary entity, and one of its responsibilities is to create and enforce domestic laws in the interest of protecting it's citizens. The constitution makes black and white statements about human rights, such as the right to bear arms. But as soon as you admit that the government needs to create and enforce law, you also admit that there are cases where individuals forfeit certain freedoms, and those freedoms need to be removed by force if they are not surrendered. For example, when someone commits a crime, they go to jail, lose basic human freedoms. So rights, such as the right to bear arms, are there, but can be lost. I'm not sure if this is bad form, but a quick Google search yielded these statistics from BBC.com: "Mass shootings: There were 372 mass shootings in the US in 2015, killing 475 people and wounding 1,870, according to the Mass Shooting Tracker, which catalogues such incidents. A mass shooting is defined as a single shooting incident which kills or injures four or more people, including the assailant. Source: Mass Shooting Tracker School shootings: There were 64 school shootings in 2015, according to a dedicated campaign group set up in the wake of the Sandy Hook elementary school massacre in Connecticut in 2012. Those figures include occasions when a gun was fired but no-one was hurt. Source: Everytown for Gun SafetyResearch All shootings: Some 13,286 people were killed in the US by firearms in 2015, according to the Gun Violence Archive, and 26,819 people were injured [those figures exclude suicide]. Those figures are likely to rise by several hundred, once incidents in the final week of the year are counted. Source: Gun Violence Archive" So there is clearly a problem here. I think its obvious that guns are not committing crimes. I've never heard anyone defend that ridiculous claim. But, people are definitely using guns to help them commit horrible crimes. As soon as you admit that the government is responsible to create and execute legislature to reduce gun related crime, you concede the debate. Anything you do to lower the above mentioned numbers, as well as the other huge numbers for gun related crimes not listed above, is, in fact, gun control. You mentioned women using guns to protect themselves. If any of those women are using guns to protect themselves from someone intending to use a gun to harm them, then they are actually controlling gun use with their guns. If you think its good to use guns to deter gun related crimes, then you concede that gun control is a good thing. Therefore if you think the American government is responsible to control crime, then you concede that gun control should be implemented into American law.
Should Gun Control Be Implemented Into American Law

Beginning Argument: The United States has 88.8 guns per 100 people, or about 270,000,000 guns, which is the highest total and per capita number in the world. 22% of Americans own one or more guns (35% of men and 12% of women). America's pervasive gun culture stems in part from its colonial history, revolutionary roots, frontier expansion, and the Second Amendment, which states: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Proponents of more gun control laws state that the Second Amendment was intended for militias; that gun violence would be reduced; that gun restrictions have always existed; and that a majority of Americans, including gun owners, support new gun restrictions. The is in fact not true! The Second Amendment protects an individual"s right to own guns; that guns are needed for self-defense from threats ranging from local criminals to foreign invaders; and that gun ownership deters crime rather than causes more crime. Now for some statistics: 270 MillionAPPROX. # OF CIVILIAN FIREARMS IN AMERICA 200,000TIMES A YEAR WOMEN USE A GUN TO DEFEND AGAINST SEXUAL ABUSE4 3/5POLLED FELONS SAY THEY WON"T MESS WITH AN ARMED VICTIM5 Closing Statement: With the given data we can assume that Guns do not kill people, People kill People... therefore it can be assumed that Gun Control Should not be Implemented Into American Law. Thank you.
which is most likely to kill you smoking weed or getting a disease

most diseases tat you get arent bad. most ppl who have diseases just hav the flu or cold or whatevr. and that stuff don't kill ppl yo.weed is psycologgilly adictin, and it wants u to use it alot... wen you do though it messes wit yo head and stuff. trust me tho.. i smoke dat sh!t all da time so you can beliedat. weed be killa fo yo health. dat's dat.
which is most likely to kill you smoking weed or getting a disease

okaay yes, it does mess with your brain and u do stupid stuff but it cant kill u! disease does cuz lik if u get lung disease or aids or stuff lik that can really kill you. smoking weed or others like myth or cigarettes can't kill you in less you smoke it like every minute of the day. or if u jus smoke for 30 years then it can kill u after a certain period of time. disease also has a certain time to die but, its lik 6 months or weeks even!
Soccer is a more exciting sport than Baseball

The topic is as follows: "Soccer is a more exciting sport than Baseball" The definition of exciting is as follows: "Causing great enthusiasm and eagerness." - https://www.google.com... Since what causes one person great enthusiasm and eagerness may not have the same effect on another, the feeling of excitement is subjective. Therefore, Soccer cannot objectively be a more exciting sport than Baseball...as the effect of enthusiasm and eagerness is dependent on the individual experiencing either sport. Thank You
God loves you.

I've read your reply in the comments section, would gladly paste it here but then I'd run out of characters and I feel like making a last statement as well. I'm glad you enjoyed discussing with me, I've recently joined this site with the sole purpose of improving my ability to debate and I have no will to get into useless fights, I'm glad we managed to discuss in a civil manner. I don't consider myself a believer but regardless of this I don't feel God's love is something that can be proven. I'll be glad to discuss this again in the future though.
God loves you.

Con's arguments and manners are honest, logical, and gentlemanly here unliike the two kids who took this debate in total disregard of the guidlines and put up all kinds of bizzare arguments and denials of their rule violations before the voted for each other. Ajah or whatever that Muslim kids name is another peanut gallery hater who will vote against me.......I told him Muhammed was a liar, not a prophet. Muslims don't appreciate the truth.
God loves you.

I understand your point, but I think you're using an argument that can't be considered valid since we can't foresee what my future will be like. I simply pointed out that until now I've never had much proof of being particularly loved by God Of course I can't debate that any disappointment I've encountered in my life could somehow turn out to be part of a better plan for me, but that kind of reasoning shouldn't be considered in our debate since it's not provable in any way yet. If I may, I'd like to ask you a question not to divert the conversation, rather to understand better your position. Would you say that God loves any human being? If so does he love everyone the same way?
God loves you.

Two other people accepted this debate and forfeited by agreed to rule violation, yet the voters award them a victory. It's a sad victory when you are proving that God does not love you. I think the definition of love is understood by us both for this debate. A father loves his children, A man loves his wife, a mother loves her children, God loves you. I think the meaning of "love" is clear enough. I'm sorry you feel unloved because you didn't get more help in fullfilling some of your wishes. It could be that God saw the troubles that would come along with the fulfillment of your wishes, and for your best interest He withheld them from you. It could be He has better plans for you. God loves you and knows what is best for you. The question here is not about other people, the question is about you. God loves you, He wants you to know that He loves you.
God loves you.

I've read your guidelines carefully and will either respect them or forfeit by the rules. I have to begin by saying that I find the concept of "love" to be quite differently interpreted between different cultures, therefore I'd like you to define what your definition of "love" in theological terms is. My argument is that God doesn't love me as a human being in particular, because if he did he would have surely helped me more into fulfilling some of my wishes. I'm also sure there's plenty of other human beings that God doesn't love, just think of everyone who is born in miserable conditions and was never given a chance to improve his/her life, or those who have died even before getting to know about any form of religion.
One cannot be gay and go to heaven.

In this debate we both will be assuming that the Christian God is real and that the Bible is God's Word (although Con will probably not assume that the Bible is necessarily true). My opponent says that BoP is on me, (pro), but if we share the same assumptions, why wouldn't burden of proof be on him also upon the statement "a gay Christian automatically goes to heaven"? First off I don't believe a person who practices homosexuality can be Christian period. Anyone going to heaven is a question too, not only a gay, but I will argue to the best of my ability and try to prove a point one way or another. You start, Con.
No School on Festivus

I think that a good salesman can sell a fur coat to a polar bear, so I think he can sell a pole to a Festivus celebrator. I'm sorry I forgot the main point of discussion. I think Festivus itself is a poor idea. Therefore I think no school on Festivus is a bad idea. Unless there is no school on Festivus, but people use it for things other than Festivus. Festivus being a bad idea is based on Frank Costanza being the head of a terribly failing household. Their son has big insecurity issues, mental problems even and as shown is the opposite of success. I think anyone else would be more fit to come up with a holiday.
No School on Festivus

I am glad you are educated about Seinfeld and familiar with the tenets of Festivus. You point out that there are people selling Festivus Poles but I think these are really the exception. The true spirit of Festivus isn't so much about the pole as it is about taking (or making) a stand. The Festivus pole can be used for hundreds of years, passed down from generation to generation. There are no status markers such as height, foliage or unique genus. Could you be clear as to whether you support schools in America, not making kids attend school Festivus this year? If not what is your opposition based on?
No School on Festivus

First of all let me say that I am a big fan of both Jerry Seinfeld. I think that on the show, in the Costanza household, Festivus was a great idea. I think the rest of us could really use a holiday. At the same time I think Jerry didn't use Frank for any good ideas. He collects TV guides and poisoned his own platoon thinking some spices would help. The feats of strength and airing of grievances might not bring families closer together. I think the Costanza family itself as only Festivus celebrating family shows that perfectly. I am a big fan of your idea of kids making their own aluminium foil pole and writing down their grievances. But I'd agree on making your own anything and I think writing down grievances is good for your mental health. And on the non-commercial part. I think that in this world we can safely assume they will be selling Festivus poles, Costanza cardboard cut outs, basically anything Costanza/Festivus related.
No School on Festivus

Some would call it a Festivus Miracle. Twenty years after the TV sitcom Seinfeld introduced Festivus to the world most schools in the diverse and progressive cities will not require kids to attend school on Festivus. Those observing Festivus are expected to participate in "Feats of Strength," and an "Airing of Grievances," on Festivus itself. A more passive form part of Festivus is the "Festivus Pole," Which is a simple aluminum pole secured vertically. In the days leading up to Festivus kids can make their own pole using aluminum foil and write down their grievances about the everything wrong with the previous year. Festivus brings families together for a non-commercial evening that will be cherished in the memories for decades to come. I hope everybody with kids refrains from sending their kids to school on Festivus this year.
The Dropping of Atomic bombs On Japan in WW2 was the BEST Military Option

https://docs. Google. Com/document/d/1ZBROiaQVU7ben_Zau_DLZB0-1gLQlAlW-JkPWN3c4vI/edit? Usp=sharing My third Argument. I thank you for giving me this good debate. Didn't have this for a long time by now.
The Dropping of Atomic bombs On Japan in WW2 was the BEST Military Option

The United States was most definitely justified in dropping both atomic bombs in World War 2 directly on two of Japan's city's without any kind of preview or greater warning prior to the detonation. A mainland invasion of Japan was have costed hundreds of thousands maybe even millions more of American and Japanese lives by dropping the atomic bomb lives on both sides were saved. Japan declaring it dishonorable for a soldier to give into any kind of surrender created a costly strategy for themselves and their adversaries, With kamikazes and banzai charges the Japanese were not only desperate but a little crazy. By dropping the atomic bombs the United States brought a swift end to a war that would have been fought to the very death and costed the lives of many innocent civilians as well as soldiers.
The Dropping of Atomic bombs On Japan in WW2 was the BEST Military Option

Woah Woah Woah. . . . . I will try here to post one last thing. My second round argument. https://docs. Google. Com/document/d/11AB03ebhbfgbdwqiYGa9i09kW0oDaETnu7b-sVYW6_8/edit? Usp=sharing
The Importance of Advertisement

I'd like to apologize for the brevity of my final argument, but I simply don't have time to post a full response to my opponent. I would have put my argument together earlier, but I've been at work, making posting this problematic. With 6 minutes left to respond, I will have to make my points very simply. 1. People don't usually buy vehicles based on ads. Instead, in order to make an informed decision, a consumer must actually take the time to do research on the vehicles. The ads are far too biased to provide reliable information. Same for the McDonalds point my opponent made. Sadly I only have 2 minutes left now. I'll make this quick. Thank you to my opponent for the debate, and thanks in advance to the voters. I apologize for not managing my time more effectively, but there's nothing I can do about that now.
The Importance of Advertisement

I accept your challenge. Welcome to debate.org! This is only my second debate here, so we're both fairly new to this. Thank you for posting this debate, and good luck to you!Two questions:Would I be correct in assuming that we will be disregarding semantic arguments?Am I correct in assuming that my goal is to prove that advertising is only important for unnecessary things? If you could, so my questions don't make you waste characters in your initial argument, please post your answers to my questions in the comments section. I wouldn't want to limit the space you have to make your argument with initial questions like these. Thank you, and again, good luck!
The Importance of Advertisement

*Before we begin I would like to clarify that this is my first official debate on this website andï¿½I am still learning the ropes so I ask that you forgive me if I mess up on anything. Any corrections are appreciated.* Since the the very dawn of marketing advertisement has played a crucial role in civilization as we know it. In this debate I will be arguing that advertisement is an important cultural aspect of modern society. My opponent will have to prove that it is nothing more than a method used to convince the public to spend money on something considered unnecessary, or in other words: "Advertising is the art of convincing people to spend money they don't have for something they don't need." [Will Rogers] Round 1 will be for acceptance. My opponent may also take advantage of this time to ask question and clear up any doubts. I thank you(the reader)for your time and I also thank whoever my future opponent may be, good luck.