BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
What came first: The Chicken or The Egg

I agree that chickens are a result of evolution, but the chicken did not come before the egg. The DNA that determines the species does not change after the egg is formed. [1, 2, 3, op cit] Whether chickens evolved from flying dinosaurs or from other precursors, it remains true that an egg with chicken DNA preceded the first hatched chicken. Pro has only reasserted that he believes the resolution true. He did not provide a rebuttal to my argument that the process of evolution requires the egg to be first. Pro provided no sources to support his claim. Therefore Pro should be judged to lose both arguments and sources.Pro challenged me to this debate, and I accepted because the evolutionary process is interesting. Thanks to Pro for the opportunity. I hope the debate has been interesting to readers.
Resolved: Current American Economic System Need Reform to Decrease Inequality.

It is true; the current American economic system needs reform to decrease inequality. One very important area that faces inequality, on the economic standpoint is, according to oecd.org, labor income. First labor income inequality is the main contributor to the dispersion in household market income. This type of inequality, labor, is influenced by structural policies, such as the areas of education and product markets. Labor, which is a crucial aspect to the American economic system, is affected because of inequality. The two main aspects that are affected are the dispersion of earnings between the individuals that have jobs and the employment rate. Without a substantial dispersion between individuals the economy is not balanced and regulated properly. By implementing a growth- enhancing policy reform(s) we would help to reduce the income inequality and thus cause a much-needed reform in the current American economic system. Morally it is important for individuals that are in the same position/ job to obtain the same pay. According to businessweek.com women earned only 82.2 percent of what men earned for the exact same job. This is discriminatory against women and this here is inequality. For those reasons, the current American economic sustem needs reform in order ro decrease inequality.
Dumbledore was a horrible person

Hey. I am sorry I missed round 2. So I will make a quick and brief statement. The reason that Dumbledores knowledge of Harry's death is relevant is because of the decisions he had to make. Let's put it this way. If you knew that a baby boy was going to save the world by dying for it, would you allow it? Because the opposite, Sure, let Harry have a luxurious childhood, keep him away from Voldemort, and Let him choose what he wants to do for a career. But then what are the repercussions? Voldemort becomes the ruler of Hogwarts, starts recruiting to go fight other places and there is a huge wizarding world war on our hands. The Order knew about a previous world war that took place, and they wanted to do whatever they could to stop it from happening again. And Dumbledore was not the only one who had knowledge that Harry would have to make drastic measures to save the world. There is a scene where Sirius wants to tell this to Harry but Mrs. Weasly says that he cannot. The information was not revealed to Harry in order to protect him. It had to be told to Harry, as Snape says, "At the proper moment." Lastly, I don't think that other wizards saw this as a hateful act on Dumbledores part. Dumbledore told Snape that at the proper moment Harry would have to be killed, and Snape decided to follow Dumbledore at all cost. And in your first round, you stated that "Dumbledore had knowledge that Lily and James were going to be killed." But in round 2 you said, "There is no discrepancy whether he knew or not that Harry's parents would die." Which is it? Because if he did, I think I refuted your point, but if he didn't know that they were going to be killed, then that is not a reason for him to be considered evil.
Dumbledore was a horrible person

Dumbledore was already dying from drinking the potion in the cave. He knew the other death eaters were on their way. He was also already dying from the horocrux he placed on his finger that spread dark magic throughout his body. He previously told Snape that when the time came, he needed Snape to kill him before another death eater could. His death holds no relevance other than he didn't want anyone to see how weak he was becoming. Furthermore, there is no discrepancy over whether or not he knew Harry's parents would die. Snape told him himself and dumbledore did nothing. As far as his knowledge that Harry would die, that's almost even worse because he allowed Harry to live a shitty life in an abusive home despite knowing he would die young. Dumbledore was obsessed with power and magic and didn't care who had to die for him to get it. He only was a good wizard because he didn't want any dark wizards becoming more powerful than him.
Dumbledore was a horrible person

Dumbledore did indeed let Harry grow up in the home he let him grow up in, he did keep Harry in the dark about most things (even though he was the chosen one), and he probably did have knowledge that Lily and James were going to be killed, or at least that Voldemort was gunning after them. But I think that there is a key thing that you have missed. Dumbledore, with all of the knowledge that he has about the prophesies, the books, the things Voldemort would do, the knowledge that Harry was the chosen one, etc., he knew that Harry was going to have to be killed by Voldemort. I think that that is the key. I think that because he knew that that was the reality that would have to happen, he made all of his decisions about where to act, where to stay hidden behind the scenes, whatever he did, he did because he had to get Harry into the position that he could have time to look for the horcruxes, but also had to get Harry into the position that he would be ready to die after he realizes that he is a horcrux. Dumbledore was power hungry because he knew he was fighting for good. He knew that if he was the one that went into power, Voldemort would try to recruit Snape (his right hand man) to join the dark side. He knew that if he put on this face that he was not actually controlling all of these situations (which as we both agree, he was), that would be the only chance that Harry would have to stop the dark side. I believe that Dumbledore even knew that Harry would be able to come back to life after Voldemort destroyed the horcrux inside Harry because he gave him the sorcerers stone. I think that everything Dumbledore did was because that was the only way he knew how to put Harry in a position to defeat Voldemort, and I think that his willingness to die for that was the ultimate example of this. There is no doubt that if Dumbledore knew that Malfoy would be ordered to kill him, and Dumbledore told Snape that if Malfoy could not do it, then he wanted Snape to. If he was doing everything for the soul purpose of being power hungry, he would be the first power hungry man that I have ever heard of that told someone to kill him.
Dumbledore was a horrible person

He 100% let Harry grow up in an abusive home, despite his full knowledge that Harry was not in a positive environment. He didn't tell Harry anything in most of the books and just left him in the dark even though Harry was supposed to be helping and saving the world. Everyone knew Harry was the chosen one. Shouldn't the chosen one know what is going on? He should have moved Harry to a wizard home where he would a.) not be in danger of abuse anymore & b.) would have been in the loop on what was happening with Voldemort and the Death Eaters. He also had knowledge that Lily and James Potter were going to be killed. Snape tried to tell Dumbledore but he ignored it and basically let Voldemort murder two extremely powerful members of The Order Of The Phoenix. Dumbledore was also a member of The Order. Why would he let two members of his army be killed by a powerful dark wizard? Also, it is explained that Dumbledore had an extensive history of being very power hungry. He essentially did everything to protect his power and magic. One exhibit of this would be his possession of the Elder Wand. Dumbledore overall just sucked and he's way overhyped.
The Universe's Existence is Explicable

I will defend the proposition that the universe as an existing "whole" can be thought to more plausibly have an explanation for its existence than its negation. In other words, is it more plausible to think that there is an explanation for why the universe exists or should we think the universe to more plausibly have no explanation for its existence? This is not a debate on what that explanation is (e. g, the necessity of the universe, God, multiverses, etc) but on what is in principle more epistemically plausible - an explanation or no explanation. The burden of proof should be mutual.
Cutest animals.

This was heavily inspired by bsh1's "hot guys battle" This is a battle of who can present the cutest animals. No arguments should be presented for who is cuter--the photos should speak for themselves. In each round, each debater will post 7 to 10 photos of a given animal model. All of the photos posted in a debater's portion of the round must be from the same model. So, all of my Round 2 photos must be from the same model/actor/person-who-exists, and all of my opponent's Round 2 photos must be from the same model. However, we are not allowed to use the same breed as each other in the debate--so the animal breed I pick for Round 2 cannot be used by Con in Round 2 or in any other round. Moreover, we may not repeat Breeds\species, so I cannot used the Round 2 model in any other rounds. DDO users are off-limits. We should post the animal name and breed of our selected model in each round. Also, while I use the term "animal," it can really be any plant or insect we thinks is cute. And before you ask humans are not considerd animals in this debate. Round 1 should just be acceptance and acknowledgement of the rules. Rounds 2-4 are for us to post our images. Images may be linked to our photo albums on DDO or embedded in the debate. They should not be outside links. Rules 1. No forfeits 2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be provided in the text of the debate 3. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere 4. No trolling or semantics 5. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a loss Judges will vote on 75% cuteness 5% originality and 20% in exoticness. I look forward to a awesomely cute debate ;)
In some cases, abortion can be ruled as a justifiable homicide.

First, let me specify that I oppose elective abortion, but I support it for the following reasons: The health of the mother is adversly effected by pregnancy, the child will suffer anyway,, the mother is a mental patient who is traumatized by (pregnancy would make me suicidal),, and so on. If the mother is raped, abortion can be justified if the pregnancy causes her to relive that trauma. I am a modeerate when it comes to abortion.
Clinton Shouldn't Be Allowed To Run Until The FBI Finish Their Investigation

I am not sure if you want me to make an opening argument or not, so I will. Hillary Clinton not being allowed to run due to an FBI investigation is ludicrous for several reasons. The first is that an investigation is not cause for punishment; otherwise, anyone brought to court would be considered guilty, not presumed innocent. Another would be that the FBI has already investigated her, and the new emails are not from an investigation of her; because that case has not been reopened. It is from an investigation of Anthony Weiner, whose estranged wife was an aide to Clinton. The FBI determined that she did not break any laws and did not intentionally mishandle classified information(1). Additionally, Donald Trump is also being sued for child rape and apparently even raped his ex-wife (2). Obviously, he has denied this and his ex-wife has rolled back the comments about him raping her, however, one of his lawyers said that "You cannot rape your spouse", implying that he did rape her. (2) 1. . http://thedailybanter.com... . http://www.politifact.com... 2. . http://www.thedailybeast.com...
In no way was this country founded on christian morals. . . Thankfully

When you don't present any valid evidence, You thus invent excuses that don't pan out into anything that can be taken seriously and its not "your" faith to begin with, Which is something that you don't understand, Then you automatically lose in life and in here, Because really if you check, Who is going to vote in your favor other than those who attempt to play god by shifting invalid point their way which is what dsjpk5 to get his jollies does even though he's been disqualified from the voting process? No, You not only need but require a lot more than that. Sorry kid. Bye.
God is Illogical

Your whole thing on logic is inductive and therefore self refuting. It's also self refuting again becuase to know about logic you must read about logic using logic! But that would assume you know about logic. Fail " I believe you are saying "How could we exist on Earth with ethics without evil?" Oh my what?! No thats not what I was asking. Pro failed to answer. The question refutes the poe good its deader than elvis. You think your views are 'good' and I believe mine are, but it has no real truth behind it. So evil doesn't exist then? Wow he refuted his own argument! Since theres no absolutes theres no evil self refuting! Pro ignores me on the gluons. Wikipedia sucks it's ot accurate at all. He doesn't refute this If gluons existed they would force centipical force to be in a spherical motion instead of a curved motion, becuase a gluon would bind the atoms to a spehical motion when applied force is happening. He drops the argument from motion Vote COn! Pro failed
God is Illogical

Yes all of those things in the bible are logical. Logic is subjective. Maybe contradictions in the bible arent contraditions at all! They can both be true because God can make contradictions true! It much more simple to say God done it than to say all this other bs thats complicated.He then talks about evil but I already responded he failed. He still hasn't responded to this questionHow can we have an a temporal existence with a force of the existence of our goodness as a sentiant bay without evil?He hasn't answered.If you expect God to do an illogical thing expect illogical power! We don't understand God God can do anything illogical and make it logical! Othergu failed.His response to the induction part fails. He is using induction to say it! Thus he failsThere's no evidence of gluons. If gluons existed they would force centipical force to be in a spherical motion instead of a curved motion, becuase a gluon would bind the atoms to a spehical motion when applied force is happening.My philo argument isn't from Aristotle's physics, but from his metaphysics of motion. It doesn't matter that heavy and light objects drop at the same speed because there still must be a herarichal mover. The heavy objects and light objects are still potentialized by the speed of cir air. And still follow this motion laws of Aristotle. A virtual particle is still potetaled by the vacuum. Also by the laws quantum mechainics a virtual particle must be caused by a pomped vaccum energy growth. Since you calulate the energy before and after in the vaccum youll find no increase in energy so the particle is just a theft of energy to be caused.Pro hasnt made a good case
God is Illogical

1. There is no need for a God in logical terms, as Occam's Razor would say. Science can explain our universe's creation without complex theories added. If there is no need for a complex theory, it is illogical. In syllogistic terms: a. God creating the universe is more complex than the universe not having a cause (a realistic theory) b. Occam's razor advises we deny the more complex theory in favour of the simpler c. We must deny the theory that God created the universe The Christian concept of God is thus illogical. 2. The Christian God is described with the traits of omnipotence and omni-benevolence. It follows, however, in the presence of evil that the two traits cannot both be correct - God would want pain to cease and would be able to cause the cessation of the pain, and yet the pain remains. The Christian concept of God is thus illogical. 3. The Christian God is described with the trait of omnipotence. Omnipotence is a contradictory state, because by logic, either God is unable to be unable, or able to be unable, both of which result in impotence. This is often summed in the phrase, "can God create a stone He cannot lift?" Because either response results in the denial of omnipotence. The Christian concept of God is thus illogical. I await rebuttal and perhaps an argument for God's logic...? Up to you. Thank you.
Hitler was not wrong in all of what he did to provide for Germany.

Of course people were going to believe with Hitler. He was possibly one of the strongest men in Europe at the time. Nobody is going to betray him. He most likely was going to execute them if they did betray him. Next, he was running the government. Even if people did not like his laws, he liked them so he passed them. Once again, people were afraid of Hitler. Peoplewho were afraid of him are going to belive that his interests are their interests. He was wrong to help Germany. He basically used the people as slaves to rule the country. Anything you say is going to come back and haunt you. Next time you speak, think about it. Your turn.
Hitler was not wrong in all of what he did to provide for Germany.

I am going to be more verbose this time in my approach. #1. Morals are tools created by humans to regulate individual societies. #2. Since they regulate individual socieities, the morals of societies differ from one society to the next. #3. Therefore, morals are subjective. #4. Since morals are subjective, determining whether or not Hitler was wrong would depend on the society he was in. #5. Hitler's actions were backed up by German laws which stemmed from morals. #6. Hitler's interest were of the best interests of Germany since he intended to increase its power. #7. Therefore, Hitler was not wrong in all of what he did to provide for Germany. This argument is irrefutable!
The mind is a purely physical substance

If we take mind simply to be the physical brain, this would make this indisputable and a pointless resolution indeed. We are discussing here that mysterious thing named "conscious thought". It's the part of us that isn't there physically but is only experienced in the subjective non-physical plane of reality. If you start a car with fuel and get the fuel running does that make driving the same thing as fuel? NO! Thinking and feeling emotion are non-physical but are merely represented physically and ignited physically by chemical activity in the brain. The actually mind itself is a non-physical entity that is merely ignited and controlled, and perhaps represented, by the physical structure called the brain and the neuron activity within it.
The mind is a purely physical substance

The mind-body problem is perhaps one of the greatest problems in science and philosophy. Over the course of many years, philosophers and scientists tried to imagine the two, either intercepting with each other or being on two parallels. I solemnly believe that everything we encounter in our everyday lives is purely physical. The objects around us have a shape and a certain dimension. That is objective truth. One cannot oppose this argument. But on a smaller scale, like the brains insides, things become a lot trickier. Because of the brains complexity and richness, scientists are confronted with a brain that consists of trillions of neurones that form an entity. This entity, also has the extroardinary capacity of perceiving itself and question it`s own existence. But even this phenomena is physical. People that normaly oppose my idea tend to say that there is something called the non-physical entity. Something beyond our reality. example:Numbers, complicated ideas etc.. Now these might seem non-physical, yet these things are all ideas that come from a physical entity, with a shape and dimension. (The brain) By the way, have you ever imagined something non-physical? It"s impossible. The non-physical is an invention because we looked around with our naked eye and began to wonder, what might be the opposite of something physical. I thought at first, that love, happiness, and anger are untouchable entities. Yet, I later on discovered, that chemical reactions in our brain are physical and they are the reason for all these phenomenas. I will be excited for my opponents arguments.
The Government Should Regulate Masturbation

Both a rebuttal and my presentation "Excessive masturbation is hazardous to your health." First of all, if it were hazardous to health, it wouldn't affect anyone else but yourself. From the restraint (Which is what you meant) of masturbation, it would've kept you healthy (Let's just assume that it is indeed, hazardous and has a negative impact on health). But with YOUR free will (YOU decided to masturbate), regardless of health, that wonn't affect anyone else but yourself. However, excessive masturbation is actually healthy! Relieving stress and releasing tension (including the obvious, sexual tension) Providing a sexual outlet for people who are not having sex with a partner (whether by choice or by circumstance) Alleviating pre-menstrual symptoms in some women Helping to induce sleep, or conversely, helping to start the day with an energized calm Strengthening muscle tone in the genital region Promoting a couples' level of sexual satisfaction in their relationship Providing treatment for some types of sexual dysfunction I await my opponent's next set of arguments.
The Government Should Regulate Masturbation

Excessive masturbation is hazardous to your health. As a compulsive masturbater myself, I can say from a first hand perspective (pun intended), that masturbating every 3-4 hours has had a negative effect on my life. If the government regulates masturbation habits amongst youth, by the time they are 18+, they would have developed a kind of immunity to their sexual urges. This will promote healthier choices when thinking about masturbating in a germ infected environment such as a bed or a moist basement.