BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Overall, humans are generally worse than they are good.

Thanks for accepting my moot. However, I must unfortunately give this win to you because, upon further contemplation, this subject is much too open to interpretation to accurately debate. How can you compare effect of 1 murder to the effect of saving a life? You cannot, because the analysis of both is much too qualitative. It involves the experiences of everyone involved and you really cannot quantify the brutality of the murder or the gratefulness of the life saved. And, we would have to define morality and get into all of that which would probably spark 5 more debates. So, while I fully maintain my opinion, I concede that my set up of this debate was rushed and not well thought out. I completely agree that it is very interesting, but I cannot see either of us "winning." We perceive things differently, and while I "know" that I am right, you "know" that you are right. I also agree that the media is very sensationalistic, and that many people simply think the world is a bad place because they are only fed doom and gloom. However, my view tends to be that, because of evolution, humans will innately choose more selfish acts in the act of self-preservation, even at the expense of others. Humans are simply not wired to be the moral beings we should all be striving to be. Anyway, sorry about all this and have a good day.
Overall, humans are generally worse than they are good.

I accept your challenge since this is a really cool topic. Kudos to you. I would like to begin by defining the word human in this topic as a healthy human that has been educated, and raised under a normal family, meaning people with mental illnesses, or people who have not properly been educated do not count, as they are not evil, just mentally ill, or misguided. Now I would like to rebut a statement made by you, you said that "For every random act of kindness, humanitarian effort, or charitable work done, there are countless wars, murders, acts of sheer brutality, and continued human ignorance/arrogance that outweigh them", but there is no way to really measure the amount of good things, or bad things really happening. For every good thing can be a bad thing, but there could be two good things for every bad thing, and so on. It changes, we could one day wake up to a heartwarming story about a man that saved a puppy orphanage, and one day wake up to a mass shooting. It changes, so I believe this point is invalid. Now to my argument for round one, which is that my view on this debate that there is more good done than bad, we just tend to focus on the bad more. If someone holds the door open for you when you enter a room, it's a nice thing, but would you go around saying "aww, someone held the door open for me" to people? Not very often, usually people tend to forget about these things. If someone shut the door on your face purposely as a joke, or they are just a jerk, that's when you'd usually complain about it. The fact could boil down to nicer acts tend to be forgettable which makes more evil acts leave a bigger mark, and the reason nicer acts are more forgettable are because they happen so often that you tend to forget about them. The media also influence peoples views on these things heavily, the news likes to cover conflict, as it is simply more interesting than the nice doings of others. Would people rather hear about a terrorist attack, or a man donating a lot of money to charity? I mean, it's heartwarming, but at the end of the day, the news will report something that can actually end up harming others. We see that the news report this, and it makes us forget that there is a lot of good in the world. There is evil, no doubt, but we forget about how much good there actually is.
Overall, humans are generally worse than they are good.

Overall, humans are definitely worse than they are good. The damage that has been done by humans since throughout the last several thousand years is far greater than any good we have done. The pain we cause each other as well as other species is of a much greater magnitude than the amount of good we have done. For every random act of kindness, humanitarian effort, or charitable work done, there are countless wars, murders, acts of sheer brutality, and continued human ignorance/arrogance that outweigh them. Furthermore, the aforementioned acts of kindness are often in response to negative events, which have often been caused by humans as well. For example, the climate change awareness movement is great, but it has been in response to the massive damage humanity has already caused to the environment. Despite the obvious threat this phenomenon poses, many people continue to ignore it. I am confident that others who support the moot will further my points and strengthen the argument that I have presented. Thanks
All Tacos Contain Chicken.

Vote your conscience and since this is about tacos, we know the facts A) Only tacos come in chicken, and lip service does will not change that (googling "chicken tacos" is proof) https://www.google.com... B) When you eat a taco, it WILL taste like chicken. http://en.wikipedia.org... and C) Anyone that makes a debate like this deserves to eat a chicken taco, because hey, chicken tacos are awesome and hers is a credible source to back that up. http://www.mountainmamacooks.com... Vote Pro.. not because it is right.. but because you want to!
All Tacos Contain Chicken.

In this debate, my opponent will have to make the argument that all Tacos contain chicken. In order to accept this argument, you must also accept this definition of a Taco: An often crisply fried tortilla folded over and filled with seasoned chopped meat, lettuce, tomatoes, and cheese. According to the definition above, a Taco can contain any seasoned chopped meat, which means that it is very likely that a taco has contained a meat other then chicken some time in history. Not only this, but Taco Bell, a well known fast food restaurant, sells and has sold Tacos which contain beef. Therefore, it is only logical that all Tacos do not contain chicken.
Debate.org should sponsor a Presidential Debate with the candidates on various issues.

The proposition never said that the candidates should be forced to participate, it merely says that Debate.org should sponsor the debate. Of course candidates could have a staff write entirely or contribute to the exercise, that would say a lot about their decision making in staff selection, but the candidates would still be responsible for the message. The debates are all optional. No candidate has to participate in them, it is just a societal expectation. In addition, many of the debates are framed on current political faux pas and don't necessarily get into the details of the issues. If you look at Trump's website, there are hardly any actual specific plans or rationales, just the assertion that whatever he is going to do will "make America great" without offering any real reason why or how this will be done. The Debate.org forum is centered upon rational arguments along with statistical and cited examples that help boost an argument dependent upon their validity. Wouldn't it serve the public to see how a candidate reasons and logically constructs their beliefs? You say that the President of the United States does not write very often. This is completely untrue. There are hundreds of communications that are sent to heads of state, ambassadors and politicos as well as ordinary citizens every year. In addition to seeing the candidate's perspective on an issue, it would be a great exercise to force, yes, force a candidate to argue the counter-point of something that they disagree with. It would show if they truly understand the best arguments of the other side. This is what makes a person of reason and intellect a mature decision maker, if they can, in fact, truly understand and argue in favor of their opponent's perspective. I don't know what the down side would be to seeing our Presidential Candidates participate in a written and formalized debate. I'm fairly certain it would be very revealing for the public and demonstrate clearly points in which logic has given way to political expediency.
Debate.org should sponsor a Presidential Debate with the candidates on various issues.

First off, Pro says the candidates should be "forced" to debate on this site which is not something positive. Force should not be required. If the candidates see a benefit to a social presence on this site, that is fine, but it should not be forced. The benefits of having candidates post on this site are two-fold: we get to see their positions on the issues and we get to see them compare their platforms, and defend their platforms against their opponents. But the candidate's websites and other sites comparing them already tell us where they stand on the issues and how the candidates differ from each other. http://2016election.procon.org... The candidates participate in multiple debates throughout the campaign, so we already get to see them debate live in real time and in person. On this website, candidates would probably have one of their staff members post their talking points. Real live debates are more personal. We would not get to see the candidate's "written communication" showed off here, and plus politicians do not really do a lot of written work while in office so it's irrelevant. People campaigning have better and more important things to do with their time. If there are already places people can see them explain their views (like interviews, rallies, appearances) then having the candidates on this site doesn't give us anything new or useful.
Debate.org should sponsor a Presidential Debate with the candidates on various issues.

As part of the race for President of the United States, major candidates should be forced to participate in a Debate.org on a series of issues. This would allow the public to see how the candidates express themselves through written communication, how they reason and what opinions they take. If it were opened up to the public as a whole for comments, it might do a great deal of good to inform the electorate. (Please comment if you agree and want to actually make this happen)
IVF Debate

Statistics do show that IVF results in a slightly higher chance of twins or multiple births. However, we should not discourage women from using IVF because of the chance of multiple births. As a society, we should start preparing for a future where a significant percentage of the population is born through In Vitro Fertilization and start accounting more for multiple births. In Vitro Fertilization is becoming more and more common regardless of your views on it. This is because women"s fertility generally decreases as they age. As of 2002, the average age of a woman giving birth is 27.3 years. This is up from 24.9 years in 1968. As a result, it will be necessary for In Vitro Fertilization to become more common in the future due to a higher amount of older women wanting to have children ("In Vitro Fertilization").
IVF Debate

According to AttainFertility.com, "miscarriage rates do not seem to be significantly higher for those using IVF." Instead, they only rise higher naturally according to a woman's age. For example, a woman over 50 will have a 50% chance of a miscarriage, whereas a woman aged 20 years old will have about a 15% chance. These statistics are the same for IVF pregnancies and natural pregnancies ("IVF Statistics Revealed"). The cost is indeed high right now, but it's likely to decrease in time as the process becomes more commonplace.
IVF Debate

Even so, multiple pregnancies are associated with maternal and perinatal complications such as gestational diabetes, fetal growth restriction, and preeclampsia as well as premature birth. Miscarriage is also a possibility ("IVF: risks may outweigh benefits, say experts" Honor Whiteman). In vitro fertilization is an expensive process. One round of in vitro fertilization can cost between $10,000 and $20,000. Also, there is no "return policy" if it is unsuccessful (Raquel Hunter "Pros and Cons of In Vitro Fertilization").
IVF Debate

As a medical treatment, IVF comes with a small chance of developing side effects, the most severe of these being severe ovarian hyper-stimulation syndrome (OHSS). This is where too much stimulation of the ovaries become swollen and painful with side effects such as abdominal pain and weight gain (createhealth.org). In addition, there is a slightly higher chance of ectopic pregnancy to around 1-3%, especially pertaining women who have damaged Fallopian tubes.
Teaching Creationism (Theory of a Young Earth) Should Be Prohibited in Public & Private Schools

In further support of my 2nd premise, I make the additional arguments:Recent hominid discoveries show claimed evolutionary tree a 'messy bush'A slew of recent hominid discoveries over the past decade show that previously claimed missing links between apes and man coexisted or were excessively complex. According to Encyclopaedia Britannica's current dating of Australopiths, Ar. kaddaba and Ar. ramidus coexisted; A. afarensis, K. platyops, A. bahrelgazali, and A. africanus all coexisted; P. aethiopicus, A. africanus, A. garhi, H. habilis, and H. rudolfensis all coexisted; and A. sediba, P. boisei, H. rudolfensis, and H. habilis all coexisted as well.[1] It's highly improbably those which coexisted evolved from one another.[2] This has led to major publications acknowledging the human evolutionary tree has become a 'messy bush.'[3] These discoveries included the following: Orrorin Tugenensis: Revealed in 2000, it is of the 3 oldest hominids discovered. However, it was bipedal and in a "more advanced state of evolution."[4] Afarensis and Ramidus Coexisted: After discovering in 2001 'Lucy' coexisted with another major claimed ancestor, the New York Times declared for the first time the evolutionary tree now looked like a bush.[5] Sahelanthropus Tchadensis: Discovered in 2002, it is one of the 3 oldest hominids. It was not only bipedal[6] but had too modern a face for its age.[7] Neanderthal an Offshoot: In 2003 it was acknowledged Neanderthal wasn't part of the human lineage.[8] Homo Floresiensis: The discovery in 2004 this diminutive hominid lived until the last few thousand years led to an effort to declare it a form of diseased human.[9] Orrorin and Sahelanthropus: In 2007 unusual early complexity of the two oldest hominids led to science declaring them offshoots not part of human linage to keep evolutionary theory intact.[10] Ardipithecus Ramidus: In 2009, one of the 3 oldest hominids showed early humans walked upright and definitively disproved the existence of a chimp-looking transitional link between apes and humans.[11] Habilis and Erectus Coexisted: The discovery in 2009 two major descendants of the human evolutionary tree had coexisted and couldn't be evolved from each other further jolted the scientific world.[12] Erectus Modern Foot: In 2009 footprints showed Erectus had a modern foot, suggesting bipedalism.[13] More examples by me here.[14]Sources:[1]http://news.bbc.co.uk... http://www.nature.com... [2]http://www.britannica.com... [3]http://www.nytimes.com... http://www.thedailybeast.com... http://www.msnbc.msn.com... [4]http://news.bbc.co.uk... http://www.esi-topics.com... [5]http://www.nytimes.com... [6]http://www.nature.com... http://www.nature.com... [7]http://www.nature.com... [8]http://news.nationalgeographic.com... [9]http://www.nature.com... http://www.esi-topics.com... http://www.nytimes.com... [10]http://www.livescience.com... [11]http://news.nationalgeographic.com... [12]http://www.nature.com... http://news.bbc.co.uk... [13]http://www.nytimes.com... [14]http://www.bereawiki.com...
Teaching Creationism (Theory of a Young Earth) Should Be Prohibited in Public & Private Schools

This is a two faceted debate in which I will defend the ideology, not the implementation (so as to avoid empirical debate), of a ban on teaching the theory of creationism in both the public school systems and private school systems when it is the primary education source. I.E. A private school which fulfills the state-imposed obligation of attending school, cannot teach creationism. However, one that does not or is not intended to fulfill the obligation (Sunday school or after-school tutoring) can teach whatever they want. I will use the following main arguments. I. Creationism is empirically false II. Children have the right to true information III. Children have the right to be free from indoctrination
Matt Smith and David Tenant in Doctor who Matt smith is better

For the purpose and simplicity of the debate, David Tennant will hereby be DT, while Matt Smith will be MS. I believe David Tennant is, rather was, the better to play the Doctor for many reasons: 1. DT put more emotion into his acting 2. DT more easily transitioned from a light, jovial style to a serious, solemn one 3. DT's features more accurately fits the description of the Doctor in the book series (facial shape, style of acting, dress, etc. ) 4. While we can't hold this against the actors, the episodes of Doctor Who in which DT played were better than those of MS 5. DT filled the persona and uniqueness of the Doctor better than MS All in all, all arguments in this debate will be based on opinions, not fact. However, I ask that all voters look at the debate on which side to vote on, rather their personally opinion. I look forward to my opponent's response.
We the students should be allowed to have phones in school

Yes I see your point but why should we not just have phone in classrooms in stead of risking the chance of having our phones being taken away why not just have new devices that can help send emergency help with just a click of a button at least then someone could here us. I'm not saying that an emergency veichel can get to it destination on time I'm just stating the fact that we need a new device that will enable us to call for help in a quicker amount of time.
We the students should be allowed to have phones in school

Introduction: In this debate I am going to be exploring the idea of Nihilism as it relates to policy making. Specifically, my stance is that it is foolish to suggest than any particular decision 'should' be made because there is no legitimate basis on which to determine what 'should' and 'should not' be done. My stance is that the administrators of can make any policy they want about cell phone use. It does not matter. My opponent has proposed that there could be an accident would require the use of a phone to resolve. Why does this mean that it is necessary to have cell phones? My opponent first has to demonstrate that resolving accidents is favorable, which I do not accept. It is quite true that a person could die as a result of not getting medical attention quickly enough. Is it unfavorable for a person to die? I do not believe so. My opponent will have to demonstrate why the death of a person is necessarily a bad thing. There is also disregarding the extreme unlikelihood of a potentially fatal accident occurring, compounding with the extreme unlikelihood that a cell phone would be necessary to resolve this problem. The odds of the scenario my opponent has described actually occurring are astronomically low. Without evidence, there is no reason to believe that a human being being badly hurt or killed is a bad thing. The odds of this happening and requiring a cell phone to resolve favorably are incredibly low anyway.
We the students should be allowed to have phones in school

I think we should have phones in schools because if there was say an accident and there was no phone around anywhere and the front office was a ways a away then what would you do and if infact you run up there as fast as you could and by the time you came back the person who had an accident die then it would be the schools fault and they are the one to blame, but if the school board would allow us the students to have phones in school then that person may had a chance to still be alive and then the school would not be the one to blame.
Fiscal and Monetary Stimulus is a net positive during recessions

Welcome to DDO, young Padawan.As an avid defender of freedom, sound economics, and morality, I accept this challenge as I love to debate with those deluded into religious and political dogma. Please accept this as a better stated, full resolution: Resolved: Government fiscal and monetary stimulus is a positive response to economic downturns.DDO is pretty insistent that resolutions be clear and straightforward as the entire debate structure derives from it. This is sure to be a classic clash of Keynesian witchdoctor economics vs. Sound economics!For those of you readers who do not know what Keynesians are, this is what your typical Keynesian economist looks like:..................... However, many of the esteemed Keynesians over the years have been specially groomed to fit in with the government, academia, and socialist circles such as Ben Bernanke in his traditional Muslim garb and Paul Krugman in his homosexual attire: And here's Keynes rocking a legit T of himself from back in the day: Overall my opponent has a vast arsenal of arguments in which to utilize such as: Now, I look forward to a very mature and intellectually erotic debate with my opponent and wish him great luck in crafting his opening arguments. May someone have mercy on his soul.-WSA
Nihilism

Nihilistic views are often caused by a lack of that so-called "pleasure", which causes the loss of some, if not all of a person's moral. Nihilism is a philosophy in which most Nihilists became Nihilists without knowing, it is a process and not a choice. As people start thinking more realistically, they start questioning those things a certain "God" placed on this Earth. "If...then why..." That is the question Nihilists faced in the first stage of "conversion". "If...then that can't be..." That is the second stage question. "If...then it is meaningless." That is the final outcome. No matter which question a person may ask, or no matter what statement a person makes, the outcome is always that all human struggle is needless and meaningless. As far as I know, that is the true being of a Nihilist. The ability to feel pleasure lies within the ability to create a pleasurable environment. If something or someone disrupts that environment, then there will be no pleasure or joy. There will be pain because you were hoping so dearly for something and it didn't come true. If you ask a psychopath why he killed something, he'll answer that either he does not know, or that he simply loved the feeling. Wrong. People are violent, aggressive animals. That is our nature. Whether you kill someone or see someone die, there is always that little spark lighting up in you that is loving all the violence and bloodshed. As for your Systemism, even though it sounds logical, if a being has once pursued happiness in one way and failed miserably, then that same person will need to be persuaded to try that same thing again. It isn't going to try again after having such a bad experience the first time. That much is simple instinct. As such, this theory is incomplete.
Amazon is better than ebay

I have been an Ebay member since 2002 and I can honestly say that I have been ripped of probably only about 3-5 times. If you use common sense and good judgment, you can reduce the chances of being scammed. I would first like to point out, Ebay is not like craigslist because you actually get to see the sellers feedback. If the seller has a low feedback rating, don't buy from them. In the event that you do get scammed, you can file a claim with Paypal and you will get a full refund for the item and shipping cost, you lose nothing. Amazon used to be great, until they decided to build a warehouse in IL; I now have to pay tax on every item I buy. I can buy the same item and in many cases save money because I don't have to pay tax on Ebay purchases. I have used Amazon for price matching purposes. Stores like best buy will match their price.