BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Is Christianity True

first off note I do not make a claim my claim is that you can not say god is true my stance is not god is false. this is the first thing you must realize about every agnostic atheist( which is most atheists). so how the universe was made? well we actually know that its called the big bang. the chances are not a thing science uses as an argument because science only says something is true if there is 0 doubt it is true see how science works is a claim is made. then we work to disprove the null ( which is the reverse usually that the claim is false) if we can no prove for certain the null is false we accept the null. advanced? that word has no meaning unless you compare it to something else are you saying other substances? because at the end of the day DNA is the start of life but is not life. this is how abiotic genesis works. a simple genetic material, RNA, formed and RNA competed until they came together giving them better chance to continue to be around forming cells and eventually evolution continued and we got all life. now if someone deigned DNA why does it have error? in fact did you know that's why we currently can't live forever because even the DNA you have now has error in it as you live longer the ends which we know are junk used to shield the important DNA from error becomes too small to keep it safe. so then these errors start harming our DNA and those will eventually kill you no mater what so your argument is prophets? well lets just put this out did you know that in the old testament there is a mistranslation? when it said the messiah was born of a virgin the word that it should have young woman. now think a god would A) never make that mistake and B) he would not necessarily apply to the mistaken version. now on the topic of Jesus's miracles here is a possibility hear me out that the disciples actually just had the old testament and just made sure Jesus met all the requirements your move...
Is Christianity True

Christianity is true for multiple reasons: 1.) Have you ever wondered how the Universe was created? The chances of there not being a God and still a Universe is extremely low. 2.) Your DNA is really advanced, in fact, much more advanced than anything else in the World 3.) Everything that happens in this world has a reason. At this point in the Argument, you may be asking, "So what makes Christianity True?" If you check from the beginning, there has been many Prophets in the world who have done many miracles. All of them has said they were not the Messiah. But, when Jesus came, he alone admitted his identity as the Messiah, and proved it many times.
Should teens be allowed to take bodybuilding supplements (not steroids)

I liked your points but Sometimes , what you talked about can happen. But the rules are strict now. The company called "ConsumerLab" tests rach and every supplement that is made. Parents can check the reputation of the company and also go into the depth of the ingredients used. Parents don't want teens to take supplements because they think that they are shortcuts and "steroids" where as they are not. Supplements arae sometimes important for teen bodybuilders because they add an amount of protein that is difficult to obtain from a natural diet. I do agree that supplements should be used not abused, but doesn't that apply for everything in our life? Even consuming 15 apples a day can harm you.
Should teens be allowed to take bodybuilding supplements (not steroids)

In this round, I am going to construct a negative case as to why teens should no be allowed to take bodybuilding supplements.Negative CasePremise: Peer pressureIt is no secret that teenagers are quite susceptible to peer pressure. Often this peer pressure can lead teenagers to make dangerous choices about important things like [3]:- Drugs, alcohol and cigarettes- Sex- Stealing or shoplifting- Driving without a license or speedingSo, when it comes to big decisions that can potentially cause a lot of harm, teenagers can often not even make the decisions themselves, but can choose purely by what other people pressure them into. A1: Lax governmental regulationAccording to Consumerreport.org, bodybuilding supplments are largely unrestrained by governmental policy. A report completed by JAMA Internal Medicine, some supplements have been found to cause "serious adverse health consequences or death" [1]. This is largely due to the fact that manifacturers are not required to put much information about the ingredients on their products, leading to unsafe ingredients being used in some supplements without the knowledge of the consumer. A similar kind of story can be found with Craze, a bodybuilding supplement brought to the consumer by Matt Cahill. The supplement became quite popular among bodybuilders, of which includes teenagers. However, a USA Today report into the consumer product found that there were many unlisted products in this supplement that were dangerous. Again, as the industry is not held to high enough standards, there are many undetected, toxic substances that are not required to be registered by these companies [2].Due to the risks involved in a largely unregulated consumer market, and due to the relatively inexperienced age of the teenager in regards to consumer consumption, teens should not be allowed to consume bodybuilding supplements.ConclusionDue to (Premise) teenagers being sometimes wholly unable to make decisions based on rationality, and instead making these decisions via peer pressure or inexperience, the potentially life-changing decision of choosing to take body-building substances, especially when the industry is not held to a high enough standard (A1), is going to have teenagers take unreasonable risks and potentially greatly harm themselves. Therefore, teenagers should not be allowed to take bodybuilding supplements. The resolution is negated.References[1] http://consumerreports.org...[2] http://www.usatoday.com...[3] http://www.kidshelp.com.au...
Caillou has cancer.

You're right not all bald people have cancer, but science shows that people with cancer can exhibit fatigue, just as Caillou often exemplifies in the show. Also we have never seen Caillou get a haircut. It is unusual for a kid of his age not to have any hair, and to suggest hair loss is even more unusual. Caillou has cancer and he knows it. He is often moody and irritable, and is very emotional. In these moments, he often lashes out or bawls in frustration. Caillou's parents hesitate to discipline him for his actions, because they know he has very little time to live. They hesitate to say no, for the same reason. To say Caillou is just a bald kid is false. Both of his parents have brown hair, and his sister Rosie has orange hair. Since both parents have brown hair, and produced an orange-haired child, each has to have one dominant brown allele and one recessive orange. Caillou should have either brown or orange hair. He has neither.
Repeal the Second Ammendment

By your response you are not fit to decide who lives and who does not. You think you are able to be a dirty harry and live in a deranged motion picture fanasty where you are a robo cop or underhero, Able to save the innocent even it means killing in public in an awful way, But hey, They had it coming, As if the old west values still are the best. What you can not accept is that after colombine bullets were harder to get, Rubbish, Guns were harder to get, No, And everyone is sick or at least can be undetected as there is no way to know. If you condone shooting metal into another person is ever justified, Then you are like a projectile, Why not carry a knife and stab? Because its far more easier to shoot from a distance and be detached from the moment of death, Better to watch it like in a movie, And revel at the adrenaline rush. . Joker, If you really cared, You would get rid of guns and carry a knife or learn the law, And how to save someone using social and police resort. S A D
Repeal the Second Ammendment

1. Sure it's old. But the 1st amendment is just as old, And it's awesome. Old does not always mean dumb and stupid. And America being colonized had nothing to do with the amendment, The amendment was to protect us against a tyrannical government. 2. Again, Native American tribes had nothing to do with the amendment going into effect, Again tyrannical government. 3. Again, My 1. Point, Old is not always dumb and stupid. 4. Doesn't make any sense. 5. Why? 6. Obviously, It takes NOTHINGS to destroy SOMETHING. Obviously, It's more expensive than Medicaid and welfare. 7. Sure, But people with mental disabilities can't buy guns anyway. Most shooters have no record of mental disability, Mental problems, Or they bought the gun illegally (which we can only do so much about). 8. You are incorrect. Since I have and many times carry my Glock-19, I am a "local militia" and can protect anyone obviously including myself if anything like a robber/criminal comes and does something to me/anyone.
Repeal the Second Ammendment

Stop the Insanity 1. The 200-year-old second amendment made U. S. A was being colonized 2. It is NOT relevant anymore. . The threat of Indians is gone. 3. America, It's over 200 years old! . . . . OUTDATED, NOT relevant. Time to get Civilized. 4. Grow up, ENOUGH or DIE Young. 5. The Government buys them back and destroys them! 6. And that is cheaper than generations legal, Medical and welfare. 7. Only Dumb people with Guns kill, Remove Guns and Dumb people just throw tantrums. 8. No Community Militia to counter attack criminals, That is NOT relevant anymore.
Death Penalty

My first point will be that capital punishment is a barbaric violation of basic human rights spelled out in our first amendment. How hipocritic is it of us to say that killing people is wring and never to be done, only to kill that person in return. We are saying eye for an eye is right no matter what constitutional rights we are taking away. Currently we are the only Western nation to still allow the death penalty. 97 countries worldwide have outlawed the death penalty for all crimes. 9 countries only permit the death penalty in cases of treason or terrorism. 35 countries have temporarily banned the death penalty and are currently attempting to ban it. We are in the same group as North Korea, Afghanistan, Chine, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Syria and Vietnam (find the statistics here: http://www.infoplease.com... ). Yes a study done by Princeton shows public disapproval of 36% but that number has been on a steady incline since 1986 and it"s projected to rise to 45% by 2020. Not only that but the second part of the study done by Princeton shows what age group disapproves of the death penalty the most, and that would be 18-29 year olds with a disapproval rating of over 45%. In fact, the study starts with 65 years old and as it goes down, the disapproval rating goes up showing that future generations are more aware of the brutality of capital punishment and even more hope for even higher disapproval ratings in the future. This shows how as the generations progress, the younger generations are more aware of the violations if the first amendment captial punishment creates. I believe I have thoroughly gotten my first point across and I will turn the debate over to the con. I thank you for your patience in my response.
Death Penalty

I totally disagree with Con,"Death Penalty" for murderers, terrorists and other serious crimes should not be abolished. In opinion of many other people including me, even rapists need to be sentenced to death. Severe crimes such as murders, terrorism etc just can't be tolerated and should be sentence to death. Though I believe exemptions should be given for people who commit murders for self protection. Other than that no provision should be given for murderers and terrorists. How can murders and terrorists can be allowed to live? These people just kill innocent people just for their selfish deeds and "Death Sentence" is the only solution.
The media destorying the self-of-steem of too many teenage girls.

Girls want to be beautiful! This is a fact and a perfectly natural part of life. However, beauty magazines and cosmetic adverts are changing society"s perspective of beauty and this is having a very negative effect on our younger generation. Nowadays the idea of beauty is based on young skinny figures with perfectly even skin; we should go back to the time where everyone is seen as beautiful in their own skin. I completely support Dove and their campaign to abolish the use of Photoshop on models in magazines and adverts. You will be shocked at the effect this has on teenagers mostly girls, many teenage girls who aspire to be a model would consider surgery to make them-selves look more attractive. Dictionary definition (Merriam-Webster): Beauty- 1. The quality or aggregate of qualities in a person or thing that gives pleasure to the senses or pleasurable exalts the mind or spirit 2. A beautiful person or thing 3. A particularly graceful, ornamental, or excellent quality. This defection has nothing to do with a stereotype of beautiful, so why should society create this stereotype.
'Human' More Likely Than Not Only Radio-Capable Life Form In Observable Universe

I accept the terms of this debate! I may use CAPS, but only for emphasis - not for shouting! I will remain mindful in the objection to using philosophical principles as arguments, as stated in the debate rules, without "factual and/or observational support." I don"t expect to have any theological arguments, but, if so, will also abide by the outlined rules. As the con in this debate I hope it is realized, by both my opponent and the voters, that I am not arguing that there IS a non-human life form in the universe capable of achieving radio technology or better; rather I argue that the biological design of humans is not a requirement of radio, or a superior, technology. Obviously I cannot provide an example of any non-human organism having achieved this technology, but I can, however, certainly show that it is more likely than not - in fact more than likely - that our specific biological design IS NOT one of the requirements of radio technology or better. Also, this is my first debate here at debate.org! I've read the terms of service, and will comply accordingly, but please be sure to let me know if there are any community rules, customs, or courtesies I am missing or not following. I look forward to the debate that is to follow!
'Human' More Likely Than Not Only Radio-Capable Life Form In Observable Universe

Resolution : 'Human' is more likely than not the best the observable universe can produce in terms of technological advancement, defined as achieving radio or better. I think it likely any other intelligent, radio-capable life (if any) in the universe ... past, present or future ... will be carbon copies of homo sapiens. Rules : This is not a theological or philosophical debate. Purely theological and/or philosophical arguments automatically forfeit debate. Opinions expressed must have factual and/or observational support. Pro will argue it is more likely than not our specific biological design/configuration is one of the requirements to achieving radio technology or better. Con will argue it is more likely than not our specific biological design/configuration is not one of the requirements to achieving radio technology or better. Round 1 is for acceptance. Round 2 is for arguments.Round 3 is for rebuttal/closing arguments.
The US should legalize all drugs

I'm not sure if my opponent intends to take this debate seriously so I reserve making my arguments more in depth should he choose in engage in a more in-depth discussion. C1) Paternalism is bad The government should not tell us what to do with our own bodies when we do something that harms no one else. Drugs would fall into this category. C2) Criminal networks According to Seth Jones of RAND Corporation, the Taliban gets 70-80% of their funding from the heroine trade. If drugs were legalized, US agrobusiness would be able to compete the Taliban out of business, meaning we would nearly instantly win the War in Afghanistan by denying the Taliban most of their funding. In addition, the Council on Foreign Relations points out that our drug demand fuels most of Mexico's cartels and much of the violence that spills across our borders. http://www.cfr.org... If we bought all our drugs from American companies, Mexican cartels would all go out of business. C3) Makes the government money We'd save about $15 billion a year by ending the useless war on drugs. http://www.drugsense.org... In addition, we'd gain about $30 billion a year by taxing drugs, although it could be significantly more, since we can progressively raise taxes (as we've done with cigarettes). The Global Commission on Drug Policy points out, ""The global war on drugs has failed . . . prohibition has failed in tackling global consumption of drugs, and has instead led to the creation of black markets and criminal networks that resort to violence and corruption in order to carry out their business. This drug-related violence now threatens the institutional stability of entire nations." C4) Decriminalization decreases drug use When we treat drugs as a matter of public health, not criminal justice, people feel less stigmatized and feel better about seeking help. This is why a Cato Institute study of Portugal's decriminalization policies shows decreases in drug usage and safer drug use over time. http://www.cato.org... ==Rebuttal== 1. Drugs are bad for you This is answered by paternalism. Cigarettes and alcohol are also bad, but we are allowed to make these decisions for ourselves. In fact, alcohol is more likely to affect others than any other drug (drunk driving). 2. Drugs hurt others No, they really don't, except that when we hurt ourselves, we hurt those who care for us. But this still doesn't justify paternalism, unless you believe loved ones should make all your decisions for you just because your decisions tangentially affect them.
The US should legalize all drugs

Thanks Willie. I meant no offense, but your case was one line long; I didn't want to write a huge case if you didn't intend to take the debate seriously - I often do that and my opponent forfeits. ==Rebuttal== 1. My opponent argues that Heroin kills people in Russia. However, this is responded to by the Global Commission on Drug Policy analysis that the War on Drugs has failed to curb demand. Hundreds of years of evidence show that criminalizing drugs does NOT decrease usage. There will always be people who want to do heroin, but the average person on the street doesn't REFRAIN from doing bad drugs MERELY because they are illegal, otherwise they'd huff paint and do other damaging things which are technically legal. This is also answered by the Cato study of Portugal's decriminalization that found when the stigma of drug use was gone, addicts found it easier to seek help and stop using. Children find it harder to find drugs when they are legalized and behind a counter, rather than easily accessible through a social network (knowing the "right person"). Ask the average high schooler - it's easier to get marijuana than it is to get alcohol. Lastly, decriminalizing drugs takes most of the allure away from them, especially since addicts use more openly, which just looks disgusting. 2. Drugs are all addictive and tear you apart. The book Legalize It points out that there are many high functioning drugs addicts, but we choose to focus on the lowlifes in our PSAs, and the high functioning addicts don't want to admit they use because of the stigma they would face at work. But many people function extremely well on marijuana, which is actually not addictive. Even people addicted to cocaine can be extremely high functioning. House (from the tv show) is a high functioning addict. 3. The government can't tell us when to breathe. No they can't. The government SHOULDN'T be able to tell us what to do, when it hurts no one. This is just the is-ought fallacy. Currently, the government DOES engage in paternalism but that doesn't mean it ought to or that it's okay to do so. 4. New drugs that melts your skin off Drugs would have warning labels, like alcohol and cigarettes. If you take a drug with a warning label "may melt your skin off," that's your fault. Survival of the fittest. Drops: my opponent concedes that the War on Drugs has failed to decrease drug use and only created dangerous criminal syndicates, that would ALL be eliminated by legalization. He also fails to address the incredible Portugal study, that decriminalization actually DECREASED drug use.
Haldane's Dilemma

What is Haldane's Dilemma? Haldane's Dilemma is a problem in Evolution first pointed out in the 1957 paper, "The Cost of Natural Selection".(1) In this paper, Haldane mathematically demonstrated that the rate of ape-to-human evolution would have been to slow to have actually occurred within accepted evolutionary timescales. Extrapolating on Haldane's data, one finds that, in a hypothetical 10 million years of ape-to-human evolution, only ~1,600 beneficial nucleotide substitutions could have occurred. In other words, there could only be 1,600 “letters” in human DNA that could be different than those of their ape ancestor. This means that all the remarkable adaptions humans supposedly underwent since we diverged from our great-great-great[...]-grand-ape-parent would have to be the result of only 1,600 letter substitutions in our DNA! Supposedly, since they evolved from apes, humans tripled their brain size, gained bipedalism, physical endurance, an appreciation for music, ability to speak, perform calculus, build pyramids and fly to the moon! And all this while losing two chromosomes! Is it possible that all of these things which distinguish us from our hypothetical ape ancestor can be explained by a mere 1,600 nucleotide replacements? No. 1,600 is miniscule compared to the 3 billion nucleotides we have in total. Here is a demonstration of how one arrives at the 1,600 number: A population of our hypothetical ape ancestors could not absorb more than 1 beneficial single-point mutation every 300 years. When I say “absorb”, I'm referring to the spread of the new mutation to every living individual of the population. In other words, from the time the first beneficial mutation occurs to the time every living member has it, it takes at least 300 years. Let's say it's been 10 million years since the human lineage broke off from our hypothetical ape ancestor. (I'm being generous with 10 million years since Evolutionary Theory actually posits less time for humans to evolve from apes.) (10 million / 300) = 33,333 That would gives us enough time for 33,333 nucleotide differences, but wait, we have to account for recombination due to sexual reproduction which cuts the chance of a mutation being passed on by half! So... 33,333 / 2 = ~1,600 To resolve Haldane's Dilemma as I've presented it, my opponent must show that either A) My math fails to account for relevant factors that would increase the number of plausible substitutions within evolutionary timescales, or B) Argue that a mere 1,600 letter differences in DNA composed of 3 billion can account for all the differences between humans and our hypothetical ape ancestor. If he fails to do so, the Dilemma remains unresolved as a fatal flaw in Evolutionary Theory. Haldane died before he solved the problem, so I wish my opponent luck! _____________________________________________________________________________________________ (1) J.B.S. Haldane, "The Cost of Natural Selection", Journal of Genetics, Vol. 55, 1957 p:511-524