BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
A creator of the universe does exist.

My argument is that there is scientific proof that a creator does exist. My faith guides me to believe the Christian God is the creator but science tells us that a creator exists. DNA is the proof. DNA is hard coded logic in a cell which is alive. To say that the world derived by chance (big bang theory and other theories), is to say that material (or matter) came before logic. This is simply impossible. If I we're to mash up the exact composition of a human body in basic elements (water, carbon, etc.) it still would not be a human. It is the logic that creates us and dictates what we will become. But who created this complex logic, which puts computer software complexity to shame? An atheist would have to argue that the logic came from material. In other words the elements came together somehow to create this logic. It just doesn't make sense to the human mind. If you believe this, you have more faith in atheism than I do in Christianity. Think of everything created in this world. What was the root cause of all these things, matter or logic? Of all man made things you must say logic because someone had to think of it before bringing it into fruition. But what about all natural things? If it is alive and has cells, you must argue it derived from logic as well. But who created the logic?
That the voting age should be lowered to 15

I will just clarify the rules, but, as stated they seem to be correct. Pro has the BoP. Specifically, if Pro cannot prove why the voting age should be lowered, then Pro has lost the debate. It is not enough to simply argue that it doesn't matter whether or not the voting age should be lowered (i. e. lowering it has no effect)--Pro must make the case that's it's beneficial in some way or another to lower the voting age.
That the voting age should be lowered to 15

My opponent seemed to believe that this resolution was undebatable. I'm here first of all to prove him wrong, and second of all to show why I've long thought that the voting age restriction should definitely be lowered. Some ground rules. There are four rounds, 72 hours per round, 8000 characters in each round. Debaters should post all their arguments and sources in their rounds, and voters should consider nothing except the arguments and sources presented in the debate (comments not being considered part of the debate). I (obviously) have the burden of proof. The first round is for acceptance. The presumption of the resolution is that the voting age is currently 18 or higher. I'll presume that the debate is set in a reasonably western society without regard for any particular jurisdiction or legal code. Because the cultural, educational and social background of youth may be relevant to the debate, I think it is fair that all cultures are considered, given that most reasonably western societies are quite multicultural. The vote we're talking about specifically is any general vote to determine legislative and/or executive office, as the case may be in that jurisdiction, in a national election format (so local body elections could be excluded etc).
The Dark Net

My opponent needs to explain his arguments a bit better. He does not deny that the darkweb is used by the miitary and is good for national security. My opponent would harm national security by shutting the deep web down. Besides the national security aspect, there are real actual corrupt governments out there that will kill political dissidents, giving people a safe place to criticize their corrupt government. My opponent would see political dissidents have no outlet for their voice.My opponent says:"The safety net around users will allow these individuals the opportunity to hide from law enforcement."What does that even mean? Like if they get pulled over by the cops they can pull out their phone and log onto the darkweb to hide? Sorry con but that is not how it works. Not to mention that even if my opponent is referring to the anonymity of the dark web he fails to realize the regular web has a lot of anonymity. I have no ideal who he really is, and he has no ideal who I am. I don't think I would feel any safer if I did know who he was. My opponent says:"so do others who have the ability to hide there without capture. Examples could include but be limited to Pedophiles."The dark web once again cannot hide anybody from capture, it is not a physical location. It does grant some anonymity, but as I pointed out before so does the reguar web. As far as child molestors are concerned, most children are molested by somebody they know, they are not molested by a stranger on the dark web. When the show "To Catch a Predator" was on the air they caught thousands of predators on the regular web, and none on the dark web, showing he regular web to be more of a dangerous place to meet bad people.Aonymity helps the government be more secure so another 9-11 doesn't appen, it allows political dissidents a safe place to speak so they are not imprisoned for their political beliefs.
Naruto (con) vs. Sasuke (pro)

Remember I have many clones out. You may have burned some not all 2000 or over are gone, and so here goes Kurama bijuu mode is six paths of sage mode with the orbs around his back too. Many also escape instantly. I too have them, you are still tagged any Justu can hit you checkmate instantly. And so, Kurama and I also make tons more shadow clones 1, million forming planetary-shurikens bijuu bombs 500,000 while the others are charging you with Kuramas holding massive bijuu rasen-shurikens and massive bijuu rasengans hitting that amarertsu, and blows up and charges straight towards you and the susanoo in the amarertsu form. They then instan.y transport behind your back hitting you with double- massive bijuu rasengans barrages half of of the other 500,000. Actually all are surrounding from high below and all to cover those blind spots.
Naruto (con) vs. Sasuke (pro)

Naruto and the clones escapes the great fireball with Minato's Kunai. Although a quater of clones get proofed distracting Sasuke. Coming from behind with 2,000 half throwing bijuu rasen-shurikens the other 1,000 using bijuu rasengans. 5 clones grab Sasuke with chakra arms he is tagged. Sasuke gets hit by the rasen-shurikens. Avoiding is inevitable now. he will get hit because he is tagged. Naruto prepares to do more with the bijuu rasengans. Dude I've been doing tons of these imaginations even come up with my own creative techniques with this stuff. I call this technique the bijuu rasen-shurikens rasengans barrages.
the breath of my ice dragon will silence the escape of your unicorn

My unicorn has rainbow spots and a chocolate mane. It procreates faster than the speed of light. It is like a shape shifting salamander. It sits on my shoulder. It smokes pot. He was supposed to convince me to not have sex the last time, but he hadn't been laid in a while and forsook me on the issue. It has 3 things. It's humping style is wierd. It is super wierd. And getting wierder as I go along...
the breath of my ice dragon will silence the escape of your unicorn

Pretty dam* fast. My unicorn has the mating speed of jack rabbit on crack. It was raised to be on my stud farm. It has the sexual capabilities of a hundred men. One time it ate a lion and burped out the bones. My unicorn flies around spreading ots seed, fertilixing unsuspecting ladies into pregnancy. They awake one day to the sound of little hooves going cloppity clop in their bellies. We ca him the '"Corn". This where we got "Children of the Corn". From my unicorn. This bastard has fathered over 100,000 unicornlets.
The Book of Bunny Suicides should be banned from public schools.

now, here are my arguments. First off, censorship is a necessary procedure. There is a reason why we do not have Child Pornography, anywhere, despite the fact that this is censorship nonetheless. Things that are obscene, graphic or harmful, especially to children, are censored. ERSB ratings exist for the very same purpose. No one is advocating taking every copy of the book and burning it. However, we are advocating the removal of this book from public schools, where children from as young as 12 years old, study at. Secondly, what possible educational purpose could this book provide? The only thing i could possibly think of, is to teach children how to kill themselves comically, or to teach children what black humour is. I would never let my child watch Lewis Black, especially if he or she was only 12 years old. And for this very same reason, most if not all black humour comedy shows have either parent advisory warnings, and time slots that are late in the night. This is why we call it BLACK humour, or Dark humour. There is no reason why children should have access to such a book at their public school libraries. I look forward to hearing from my opponent.
The Book of Bunny Suicides should be banned from public schools.

Good day to you all! Though I have a pending engagement in a tournament of sorts, the inspiration to debate has struck at this odd time, and at the encouragement of a fellow debater, have decided to put this topic up on the market: The Book of Bunny Suicides (Andy Riley) should be banned from public schools. This topic is near and dear to my heart, as I work for the school district in Oregon who became internationally famous for about 15 minutes when a parent spearheaded a movement to ban this book from our library shelves. In fact, I was on the review committee who made the recommendation to keep the book to our school board. So, I'd like to know if someone can prove me and my committee wrong! Since I am taking Con, I'll allow my opponent to make initial arguments, and we'll go from there. I'll lay out the following framework, though: This topic is meant to be treated as if the deciding body is a nebulous school board weighing the pro's and con's of keeping a book in its high school library. Though the resolution is worded a bit funny for this, there's not much of a choice. However, keep in mind that I don't intend to argue about strange, unconstitutional federal bans on specific books, nor do I want to argue about categorical banning. That would be lame, since it eliminates a pro advocacy. Here are some links that describe the book: http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.independent.co.uk... http://www.amazon.com... Here are some links that describe the controversy in the given school district: http://www.dhonline.com... http://seattletimes.nwsource.com...
Space is an intangable reality

To the contrary, we have calculated and observed black holes [Dense gravitational bodies] interacting with the spacial plane. Since you have conceded that the emptiness of space is the cause of a hard vacuum, we in turn are experiencing space through the vacuum. We interact with space in so many simplistic ways, its impossible not to experience. Its a matter of perception. We traverse space through its dimensions. Its simply a matter of perceiving the subtleties.
Space is an intangable reality

I have conceded that you can feel every thing that's within space not space its self. As you said SPACE is the CAUSE OF a hard vacuum to be generated. The tangitable expirences aren't space being touched its the reaction of spaces emptiness that causes them. And gravity doesn't interact with space it interacts with the vacuum caused by emptiness to this extent i've conceded humans cant expirence space but what's with in it. So therefore its an intangible reality. Thanks for debating , B.Packwood
Space is an intangable reality

The emptiness of space is the exact cause of a hard vacuum to be generated. The absence of matter creates a negative pressure zone [AKA. vacuum]. You also completely ignored my point that space is the very reason we can move in three dimensions. Both of these are tangible experiences. You also ignored the fact that we can observe gravity interacting with space, as well as radiation. To this extent you have conceded that humans can experience space, and it is not an intangible reality.
Space is an intangable reality

You are correct about the vacum THEORY. Imagine this you have a bubble inside that bubble is nothing. Then you add planets and stars and trillions of partials in that bubble. What do you feel? Now imagine the bubble is never ending. See you can't its impossible. Now stick your hand in the bubble what do you feel?You feel the gravitational pull and vacume of the things in space. You can't feel distance or emptiness which is what space is. Space is made of absolutely nothing, that's why its space
Space is an intangable reality

You cannot possibly touch space space is an empty matter. You cannot possibly feel it you can only feel the great vastness ofspace and such a thing will never be achieved Einstein realized that many of the effects of non-uniform motion are similar to the effects of gravity. (Perhaps you have experienced the sensation of feeling heavier in a lift that is accelerating upwards.)Space is associated with our interaction with surroundings through instinct senses, which allow us to view our world.
Space is an intangable reality

Before I begin, I just want to point out that your previous response is your loss. Definition: [1] Intangible Reality - [Noun] Something that cannot be defined on empirical, sensory, or temporal terms. [1] Cosmic background temperature: minus 455 F [2] Hard Vacuum Both of these are observable and quantifiable traits of space that we can apply data and sensory terms to. Pro must disprove this in order to win. Sources in comments.
Space is an intangable reality

Seeing as Pro has not specified parameters for this debate, I will do so to the best of my ability. I dictate the following: Structure and Rules: [1] There will be five rounds. - Round 1 is ACCEPTANCE ONLY. - Within round 2 both sides present opening arguments. - Round 3 presents the opportunity for rebuttals. - Round 4 is the time allotted for final arguments. - Round 5 is specified for brief rebuttals and closing statements. [2] Equitable Conduct. [3] No profanity. [4] Empirical Evidence.
Space is an intangable reality

the nature of Reality, universal Consciousness and the subjective Self found in monistic systems of India, particularly in many s$3;tras of Vedanta and Kashmir "6;aivism. These monistic systems do not consider time (or space) as primary but treat it as a derivative of consciousness. A brief summary of monism"s process of manifestation of all objective existence, including time, greatly adds to the present special volume. Monism complements western science. Indian schools of monism complement. Bp
Dueling should be legalized

This debate was inspired by this clip: . http://www.youtube.com... A duel is a scheduled, consensual, and organized fight between 2 or more individuals, to the death or otherwise. Many states in the United States have prohibited the practice, and it is that that I will argue against. There is no need for a duel to have specific steps taken in order to be legitimate, although most duels would follow the old method in which the challenged had the choice of weapons and seconds would agree upon a place of battle (the seconds would only fight if they too agreed to the duel).
Legalizing Gay marriage

Divorce rates are even higher than ever today, for both homosexual and heterosexual marriages. Heterosexual marriages fall apart in some cases of domestic violence all the time. It doesn't make a difference that a gay couple will do the same. Homosexual couples married or not, do the things they do either way. AIDS is a worldwide epidemic, especially within the gay community. Married or not, the virus will still spread if they are not protected. Being married won't spread the disease even further. Yes, a child does need a father AND a mother in their lives. But not all gay couples will molest their adoptive child. I'm pretty sure there are many cases of child molesation in mother and father households. Just to be clear, I am not only talking about male couples, but the marriage of female couples as well. They have the least chance of spreading AIDS, or molesting a child. My arument against gay marrige goes for both men and women, not just gay males in society.
Legalizing Gay marriage

R1: divorce gay rebuttal Well yes they all have divorce problems but I have proven gays have higher divorce rates. In fact their divorce rates where 1.5 times higher. (1) So yes both have problems, but homosexual relationships have higher divorce rates. Also the reason for the difference is loggical, gays have higher abuse rates. Violence in gay couples is 2-3 times more likely. (2) it is logical, homosexuals abuse eachother more which leads to higher divorce rates. R2: Aids You prove my point. But you also think that dating is the problem. Married couples have this problem too. Aids infections among married couples are on the rise. (3) Legalizing SSM may lead to more aids cases. (4) R3: Adoption The thing is, is it good? No: Child molestation is far more common from homosexual couples then from heterosexual ones. (5) Gay men are more likely to be peoria who abuse. (6) Also kids need a mother and father: 2 parents are not enough, a mother is needed asit is better for the child. (7) Men and women act differently, both are needed so the child can get a balance. (8) Also I have seen no rebbutals. Extend arguments. http://www.robgagnon.net... (1) http://www.acpeds.org... (2) http://www.medicalnewstoday.com... (3) http://bigthink.com... (4) http://www.wnd.com... (5) http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com... (6) http://www.mercatornet.com... (7) http://www.citizenlink.com... (8)
Legalizing Gay marriage

Many people in heterosexual relationships have been getting divorced more than ever these days. Gay couples, like straight ones, have issues as well in relationships. A relationship consists on trust and honor (main points), goes for straight and gay couples too. At some point, a person you know or even, God forbid, you end up in one. That makes you another statistic in society. With gay couples, as you mentioned, have a much higher percentage of not staying together for a period of time. But if gay couples want to become married and risk the chance of getting a divorce, its their choice. Many homosexuals have HIV/AIDS. Does getting married or even dating be the cause? I think not. It's their own responsibility to know to protect them selves and also protect others. They can get tested and not have to live life on this earth having a disease they don't even know about. Yes gay couples cannot produce an offspring. But this gives a higher rate of adoption. Many gay couples adopt a child so they can be one happy family. Children would have opportunities to live in homes where they are wanted. Now I'm not saying only gay couples adopt, but a majority of them do. It hires standards of kids to have a home. Though some gay couples have unhappy endings, some can have happy endings, and some do.
Legalizing Gay marriage

Um your case lacks a coherent argument... But it's good. Well... I will just do my case. C1: marriage is an institution that relates to marriage. The reason the state still by and large rejects gay marriage for this reason. I am not saying that it is soely about procreation, but this is the reason the state is involved in the issue. (1) " Because a marriage between two unrelated heterosexuals is likely to result in a family with children, and propagation of society is a compelling state interest" (1) There is a definite link between marriage and procreation. (2) So I am not saying that is the purpose, I am saying that's why the state holds straight marriages above gay ones. C2: health problems with gay sexual activity "At the end of 2006, more than half (53%) of all people living with HIV in the United States were MSM or MSM-IDU" (3) Ok their 53% of the people that have aids, but are they at higher risk? Yes. "In 2007, MSM were 44 to 86 times as likely to be diagnosed with HIV compared with other men, and 40 to 77 times as likely as women." (3) So a small segment of the population have more than half of this STD. 4 million gays, (4) have 53% of this STD. Odd huh. C3: benifits of marriage hurt the economy Tax benifits: Allows you to divide tax by family members. (5) Ex: 10k tax, 2 people in family=5k tax. Now how is this bad? It would decrease revanue to the goverment raising the deficit. One dollar spent here = 1 not spent on healthcare. Goverment benifits: "Receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses." (5) More people on this leads to higher deficits. The list goes on. C4: the institution would be hurt. Current meaning of martiage is it should be 2 people living together for a long time. Gays have shorter relationship spans: 66% of heterosexual couples have relationships of over 10 years. (6) 15% of gay couples have relationships that last for over 10 years. (7) It hurts the institution. Open marriages: Gays have 8 partners per year. (8) Hurts institution here too. Divorce rates: This study says that gay divorce rates are higher than straight ones. (9) It would hurt it there too. Out of room Vote con sources: http://tech.mit.edu... (1) http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com... (2) http://www.cdc.gov... (3) http://www.huffingtonpost.com... (4) http://www.nolo.com... (5) Matthew D. Bramlett and William D. Mosher, "First Marriage Dissolution, Divorce and Remarriage: United States," Advance Data, National Center for Health Statistics (May 31, 2001): (6) "Largest Gay Study Examines 2004 Relationships," GayWire Latest Breaking Releases, www.glcensus.org. Xiridou, 1031. (8) https://same-sex.web.ined.fr... (9)
Legalizing Gay marriage

Gay marriage in the United States has been an issue for years. People who are against gay marriage believe marrying someone from the same sex is frown upon and is immediately dishonored. We spent years ridiculing others who love the same sex, and for what? Because they are supposed to love the opposite sex?Growing up, I had always been around others who hated the idea of gay couples, let alone them getting married. As for myself, however, I never had an issue with the idea. If a man and his male partner are in love, why not be married and live a happy life? Even for a woman and her female companion, both deserve to wear dresses on their wedding day. I believe everyone deserves a love that lasts a life time, whether its a man and a man, or a woman and a woman. This is a free country after all, we all deserve to marry the person of our choice.