BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Same-Sex marriage should remain illegal.

It appears Con hasn't logged in a while (4 days by the time he forfeited). They may have been some circumstances that shifted priority, but anyway I shall provide a simple refutation.Claim #1The opinions of a certain group of people should not decide the fate of homosexuals.The demand of the large amount of the G&L community assumes homosexual marriage is equal to or the same as mixed gender marriage. If Pro believed that to be true, there wouldn't be a debate in the first place.That is an argumentum ad populum, an "Appeal to popularity", otherwise known as the Bandwagon fallacy. We might as well use this to commend slavery and racial discrimination when the majority supported it. My opponent does not prove a valid argument, otherwise the LGBT community wouldn't have any right to gain any support in the first place.Claim #2Not allowing Same-Sex marriage goes against the responsibilities of an American citizen.In other words, the freedom of speech. Per that, by default stating that racial segregation should be implemented does not get any legal punishment (Unless it is within freedom of speech exceptions like inciting violence, lying in court, copyright violation, etc..). However, that doesn't mean racial segeration is legal.Being able to give opinions is a basic private right, however marriage is a public and social issue which taxes are involved.
Same-Sex marriage should remain illegal.

(Definitions:Same-Sex marriage: Marriage between two members of the same genderHomosexuals: those who are attracted to the same sexHeterosexuals: those who are attracted to the opposite sex )You are correct in your assumption, I wasn't able to edit the debate. Also, I would like to change the statement I made about links. They may not be used as your argument, but you may provide your sources. For example, you cannot link to a document and give no further argument, but you may cite the document and provide a link to it. With that, let's begin.Contentions:1. The opinions of a certain group of people should not decide the fate of homosexuals.There is a large amount of the gay & lesbian community that would ask, "If we can't marry, we should illegalize mixed gender marriage!" Would it be reasonable to illegalize heterosexual marriage because of this group of people's opinion? A poll taken this year by ABC News/Washington Post even suggests that this herd of people that do not approve this type of marriage holds only 34% of America's population. A minority should not hold such power in our government. ( Poll: http://www.washingtonpost.com... ) 2. Not allowing Same-Sex marriage goes against the responsibilities of an American citizen. The Official Website of the Department of Homeland Security has a list of basic rights and responsibilities of an American citizen. Among these is "Respect the rights, beliefs, and opinions of others." By banning same-sex marriage, we are not doing so for homosexuals. ( http://www.uscis.gov... )
Evolution vs Creationism

Ammonites, corals, graptolites, brachiopods, and trilobites are index fossils.http://en.wikipedia.org... "I don't see how that prves your claim."I was pointing out that your question "Did humans evolve from rats or chimps?" is not valid; that it is a common ancestor that we evolved from which the theory of evolution states. The chimpanzee-human by I Want This" href="#">last common ancestor is the last species that humans, bonobos and chimpanzees share as a common ancestor. In human genetic studies, the CHLCA is useful as an anchor point for calculating single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) rates in human populations where chimpanzees are used as an outgroup. The CHLCA is frequently cited as an anchor for molecular time to most recent common ancestor (TMRCA) determination because the two species of the genus Pan, the bonobos and the chimpanzee, are the species most genetically similar to Homo sapiens. http://en.wikipedia.org... I rest my case.
Evolution vs Creationism

But within the geological record is a definite ordering of fossils and rocks that is consistent, predictable, and useful to an understanding of change over time. Many strata are not dated from fossils. Relative dates of strata (whether layers are older or younger than others) are determined mainly by which strata are above others. Some strata are dated absolutely via radiometric by I Want This" href="#">dating. These methods are sufficient to determine a great deal of stratigraphy. Some fossils are seen to occur only in certain strata. Such fossils can be used as index fossils. When these fossils exist, they can be used to determine the age of the strata, because the fossils show that the strata correspond to strata that have already been dated by other means. The geological column, including the relative ages of the strata and dominant fossils within various strata, was determined before the theory of evolution.However, you need to give examples of index fossils and sources to support your claims, or else your claim is baseless and therefore unreliable.Yes humans and mouse genomes are similiar, but the thing is humans did not evolve from chimps or rats, humans and chimps evolved from a common ancestor. Mammals (humans, rats, chimps) have similar evolved from a common ancestor. My third piece of evidence was the endogenus retroviruses. These viruses can make copies of their genome and insert them into the DNA of species they infect. HIV is a retrovirus. If the viruses infect the cells of eggs and sperm, they can be passed to the next generation. The human genome has lots of such retroviruses, but they are all nearly rendered harmless by mutations. I don't see how that prves your claim.I rest my case.
Evolution vs Creationism

"We can compare DNA sequences since DNA collects mutations over time. By doing so geneticists can infer an evolutionary history of an organism. Now, DNA may be impossible to retrieve from fossils, however we can still look at living organisms and compare differences and similarities on species. DNA is also very strong evidence that humans and chimps share a common ancestor if you look at the fusion of two separate ancestral chromosomes." The human and mouse genomes are really similar in their chromosomes and the level of DNA sequence. [1] Therefore there is a problem. Did humans evolve from rats or chimps? Plus, if we just compare current species, how do we know which came first? The DNA record does not say anything about time. Therefore, we will have to use radiometric dating to date fossils, which I already proved to have an error margin in the last round. "Fossils provide strong evidence for evolution because long before we had dating tecniques, earlier paleontologists that dug up fossils from different stratas found that simpler organisms were on the bottom and more recent organsims were on top. It proves what evolution predicts in that more complex life was begotten from simpler life. If there were to be say human fossils in say the proterozoic period, we would have a problem. " We need to know that the time DOES have a correlation with the altitude the fossil is found in first for this to be true. "I have not seen any compeling evidence from the creationists side of the argument. The main argument that does get thrown out is that of Irreducible Complexity which states that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved from simpler, or "less complete" predecessors, through natural selection acting upon a series of advantageous naturally occurring, chance mutations." This is an argument made by creationists, not creationism itself. I rest my case. [1]http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org...
Evolution vs Creationism

We can compare DNA sequences since DNA collects mutations over time. By doing so geneticists can infer an evolutionary history of an organism. Now, DNA may be impossible to retrieve from fossils, however we can still look at living organisms and compare differences and similarities on species. DNA is also very strong evidence that humans and chimps share a common ancestor if you look at the fusion of two separate ancestral chromosomes.http://en.wikipedia.org... Fossils provide strong evidence for evolution because long before we had dating tecniques, earlier paleontologists that dug up fossils from different stratas found that simpler organisms were on the bottom and more recent organsims were on top. It proves what evolution predicts in that more complex life was begotten from simpler life. If there were to be say human fossils in say the proterozoic period, we would have a problem. http://en.wikipedia.org...; Also see Coyne, Jerry(2009) Why Evolution Is True.As for the dating of fossils, there are many different types of dating (1) Uranium-lead (2) Samarium-neodymium (3) Potassium-argon (4) Rubidium-strontium (5) Uranium-thorium (6) Radiocarbon(7) Fission track (8) Chlorine-36 to name a few. http://en.wikipedia.org...I have not seen any compeling evidence from the creationists side of the argument. The main argument that does get thrown out is that of Irreducible Complexity which states that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved from simpler, or "less complete" predecessors, through natural selection acting upon a series of advantageous naturally occurring, chance mutations.[1http://en.wikipedia.org...; This theory of Irreducible Complexity was destroyed in the court case Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District .where a public school district policy tried to make it a requirement to teach intelligent design.[1http://en.wikipedia.org...I will rest my case for this round.
Evolution vs Creationism

I am con and the Burden Of Proof was never stated; therefore Burden Of Proof (BOP) is on pro. "Evolution is the better explanation for the diversity of life on Earth than creationism. The evidence for evolution is extensive: DNA, fossils, endogenous retroviruses, and to the average person like me the most convincing and easiest piece of evidence is the vestigial organ." This does not have any proof as no source (the place where your information came from) is given. For us to know that your claims are true, it must be backed with a source or logic, however, no source as given. DNA Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is an informational molecule encoding the genetic instructions used in the development and functioning of all known living organisms and many viruses.[1] Pro claims that this proves evolution, but he has never said anything about how and why it proved evolution, therefore Pro's DNA argument does not work until he backs it up further. However, in most cases the recovery of DNA from fossils is impossible[2], therefore there is no direct proof of ancient genetic systems, how they worked, etc. Thus, DNA cannot completely explain or prove evolution. Fossils Pro claims that the fossil record has proven evolution. However, the dating method (method to know the age of the fossil) used by most evolutionists is radiometric dating, which has a problem: While large changes to the decay rate (the basis of the system) has not been observed, some changes WERE reported by Emery (1972). [3] I rest my case. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org... [2]http://en.wikipedia.org... [3]Emery, G. T., 1972. "Perturbation of nuclear decay rates" in Annual Reviews of Nuclear Science 22 , pp. 165-202.
Evolution vs Creationism

Evolution is the better explanation for the diversity of life on Earth than creationism. The evidence for evolution is extensive: DNA, fossils, endogenous retroviruses, and to the average person like me the most convincing and easiest piece of evidence is the vestigial organ. Creationism on the other hand only points out unexplained phenomena or certain features of animals that evolution has not explained yet, or has explained and ingnores the claim entirely to proof their case.
voting should be mandatory in Canada

No, voting should not be mandatory anywhere. Being forced into voting takes away so much freedom and liberty I don't even know where to begin. It sets up the stage for a totalitarian government. If a government can force you to vote, it can probably force you to do many other things as well which defeats the whole purpose of voting. If a government can decide if it's mandatory for you to go out an vote or not, whats the point of choosing a government? Another reason voting should not be mandatory is that the government would somehow have to punish the people that don't vote? How would you do so?? Tickets? Fines? Even Jail? Not to mention it would take time away from the police, and they would have to punish people for not voting, instead of finding criminals.
Brett Favre should go play with the Vikings!

1. I never said that the Vikings had a stellar or Heisman Trophy winning QB on their team, so please don't manipulate my arguments. What I said was that they would lose an opportunity for a younger QB - who is more likely to stick around - to achieve growth by gaining more playing time to enhance his own abilities, as well as learn how to mesh better with the team. 2. Just because the Vikings need a leader at this point in time doesn't mean that Favre is the best player to do so. The points I made in R1 (which were so conveniently ignored) detail why this might be the case (i.e. his reasons for retirement, including an injury, age, etc.). 3. Saying that Favre is the only way the Vikings can win a 5th Super Bowl is a bit of a stretch, and completely unsupported. 4. Revenge on the Packers would be beneficial for whom, exactly...? Certainly not Thompson or Green bay fans. The resolution does not apply to them. Additionally, you're assuming that Favre even cares about this revenge. He clearly doesn't (or he would have signed with them). 5. "If Brett Favre feels that his mind and body and his desire are good enough to allow him to play in the NFL and to win it all who are you to question it." ... But he doesn't. He retired. Not to mention the fact that one may be wrong about their capabilities. He may feel that he can physically play at full capacity, while his body (shoulder) may indicate otherwise.
Brett Favre should go play with the Vikings!

"Given Favre's mentality and physical deficits, not only would it not be in Favre's best interest to continue playing, but it is also unfair to the Vikings who would have to lose a QB (with an opportunity for growth) for an expensive one who will probably produce less than stellar results and only wind up leaving the team after one season." Who is this stellar, Heisman trophy winning quarterback your talking about. Last time I checked Tom Brady and Peyton Manning or his brother weren't on the team. Were talking about Tarvaris Jackson, this is the guy who is going to lead the Vikings to the promised land. If so why hasn't he done it already, Adrien Peterson isn't getting any younger. What the Vikings need is a leader now, Favre is a proven commodity. He has more ability at almost 40, in his left pinky then Tarvaris Jackson will ever hope to have in his entire career. The Vikings have gone to the Super Bowl four times they has also lost four times. The 5th time will be a winner, but only with Favre, as the pigskinner "as quote by my Uncle "Rico." There would be nothing so sweet, so desirable with such poetic justice as for Brett Favre then to win the Norse Division of the NFC as well as the Super Bowl as the leader of the Minnesota Vikings... The most hated opponent of the Green Bay Packer and their general manager the one and only evil emperor Ted "deer in the headlights" Thompson. If Brett Favre feels that his mind and body and his desire are good enough to allow him to play in the NFL and to win it all who are you to question it. Were talking about a three time NFL MVP as well as so many records to numerous to mention. Brett Favre has a passion to prove to the GM of the Green Bay Packers that he knows what it takes to win it all. Unfortunately Thompson would not allow Favre to accomplish it as a Green Bay Packer. So it comes to this, he will be the Vikings quarterback and he will take them to the Super Bowl. When he wins it finally the spell of the evil one Ted Thompson will be banished.
Brett Favre should go play with the Vikings!

1. Favre cited these reasons for retirement: A) A shoulder injury -- Which has negatively impacted his playing, and for which he has chosen not to have surgery to try and repair B) Being "mentally exhausted" C) Aging By choosing to sign with the Vikings, none of these issues will be addressed or rectified. His shoulder will not be miraculously healed; his mental exhaustion will presumably get worse; and obviously he cannot perform an age reversal. Thus his reasons for choosing to retire are still relevant, meaning his heart (and body) are not in any position to play yet another season of professional football. 2. Favre has also said that the only way coming out of retirement would be worthwhile would be if he won another Super Bowl in his final year of playing. He noted that the odds of that happening are extremely slim. Therefore, it's not worth it for him to play. 3. Given Favre's mentality and physical deficits, not only would it not be in Favre's best interest to continue playing, but it is also unfair to the Vikings who would have to lose a QB (with an opportunity for growth) for an expensive one who will probably produce less than stellar results and only wind up leaving the team after one season. 4. My opponent's only contention as to why Favre should play for the Vikings is so that he can "stick it" to the whole managing team of the Packers. However, Pro has failed to explain why this would be beneficial in any way for Favre or anybody else.
Euthanasia should be legal

I think that Euthanasia should be legal for a couple of reasons. By the way by legalising euthanasia i mean legalising voluntary euthanasia 1. The patients are going to die soon( very painful deaths in some cases ) and they are suffering from a terminal illness which will cause them lots of pain until they die and there isn't a cure, so why live waiting to die a painful death when you can die straightaway with no pain at all. 2. People have the right to die and in some cases such as euthanasia people don't have the right to die because they need a doctor's help. It is still the patient's choice on whether to have euthanasia it is just that the patient need the doctor's help to kill him/her self. 3. Putting a person in pain that is incurable and watching them die a painful death is evil which is why euthanasia should be legal, euthanasia doesn't even hurt so why let a patient die a painful death when they want to do it by euthanasia and not by incurable pain.
Euthanasia should be legal

I will do my rebuttals first 1. I kind of could use that argument to be for euthanasia. For example euthanasia has been performed illegally in other nations but if we legalise it the crime rate would drop and people would stop doing euthanasia illegally because it would be legal. 2. I haven't got a rebuttal for half of the cases being done without consent but I've got a solution, they record the patient giving consent so the physician's got proof that the patient that got euthanized gave consent . The same solution for murder. 3. Actually euthanasia isn't against a violation of a doctor's duty in countries that euthanasia is legal in so if euthanasia was legalised it wouldn't be a violation of a doctor's duty because it is legal then. People who want euthanasia but are not getting it are being forced to be alive and I think being forced to be alive when you don't want to be alive is very wrong, it is a person choice on whether they want to live or die. Suicide is legal so why can't this be for this reason.
Poems

Here's "Too Late" Too Late Yet again, another time, She fakes a smile, says "I'm fine". Trying to hide, The demons inside. They've broken her down, torn her apart, Her marks are a new kind of art. How long again? she doesn't know, She puts on a smile for the show. To be fine to everyone, she pretends. But her razor is her best friend. Always there when in need, It sets her free, makes her bleed. Her life is full of darkness and despair, It is not the end she fears. She wants to escape her life, As it's full of darkness, despair and lies. She tries so hard, yes she does. To ignore all the buzz. People talking about her, When will it go away?, this stormy weather. One day, she says, one day for sure, When they walk through that door. She'll be done, she'll be finished, Cause her life, its then diminished. Ashes to dust, dust to ashes, Maybe now they'd notice her wet eyelashes. They now wish they could change her fate, But now , i afraid, it's far too late ~Risha.
Poems

Now time for despair. Here is my poem BLOOD IS MY TEARS Pain is my sadness, rage, and fears, But despite all of that Blood is my Tears. It"s like a parasite that comes from below, Though, people can"t see it It"s there I know. I want to scream, I want to rant, I just want to, But I just can"t I Sometimes I think of the worse, that if not contained could become a hell on earth I feel really alone in the dark So shivering cold So dark and so deaf That I can"t hear my own thoughts It comes in many forms, death and despair, it will play tricks on the mind, It will pretend to be your friend But it will harm you like a bear So I said it once as I fear But just remember this Forevermore, until the end of time, end of life No matter what happens, Blood is my Tears.
Poems

Looks like i have to take note, from my opponent's piece on hope, Now i present my piece , if i might. Here is, entitled , "Fight". FIGHT Left, right. Left, right, I am going to fight. I am gonna make it out alive, And win this war tonight. The voices in my head, You don't know what they've said. Break me down, tear me apart, Then just leave me in the dark. Tonight i will, tonight i'm sure , When they enter through the door, I'll be ready to fight , I will win this fight tonight I won that fight, The one last night. In time i shall win the war, A hole in my hope, no one shall bore. By: Risha
Poems

HOPE Pain has ruled my life Telling me what to do Turning my world to a blight Until I saw her face Her beautiful face She was like an angel Who gave me grace My hope has been like a flower Every day, every month It has been gaining power She made my hope soar She made it fly like an eagle and she gave me my roar But when I see her smile my heart beats fast And then like a bullet. I felt no more vile So like the feet of an antelope Thanks to her, her eyes, her hair, her smile. She gives me hope
Poems

Upon my face there is a frown, Because this is our last round. Here is, "Maybe" I'm supposed to full this page with love, With words so pure as though from a dove. But how can I write something, That i've never been in ? I do not know if love is real, But I do know how i feel. When I look into his eyes of gray, I seem to forget the rainy days. His smile is warm like a summer's day, When he speaks, he takes my breath away. The words dance off his tongue, Fills the spaces between us among. Soft as silk looks his hair, Any other color I can not bare. He is tall, that's the best, So I can rest my head of his chest. One day i'll approach him, but not today, Now i'll stand my distance and i will pray. That one day if I persist, Maybe he'll know that i exist. ~Risha
Poems

Her By Brian Nagle For a long time I thought I would never know love until I found her, And my heart became like a dove. Her hair, oh her hair Is a beautiful brownish blonde With it this angel Just pulls me along Her eyes, oh her eyes. A beautiful color Brown Every time I look into them They spin me around and around. Her face, oh her face As pale as the moon Every time I see them It makes me want to swoon. Her lips, oh her lips A magnificent red When I see them I have happy thoughts in my head I wish I could tell her I wish I could But I am afraid of the Rejection I can get from her. I still have hope With a strong feeling thats for sure. No matter what, I love her.