BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
My oppenent doesn't care as much for me as I care for him

haha well as awesome as ur resolution sounds, i wont axcept ur challenge because I dont want to know who would win. Sorry Christina, all I can say is that I really really do love you to death christina and that ive never cared for anyone else like i do now for you. and that you are the most important person in the world to me :) nothing you could ever say could change that :) i love u :)
Evolutionary biology

I'm sure they will be interesting :)The case for Evolution: Endogenous retrovirusRetrovirus' are virus' whom enters into a host cell and then uses reverse transcribtase enzymes to get itself implemented into the host cell's DNA, where it can then get copied by using the host cells resources and mechanisms. Sometimes though, these can enter germ cells in which they get implimented into the very foundation of the DNA, which could potentially become offspring. Another thing that can happen to vira, which also happens to all life, is mutations. If both of these things happens, and succesful offspring comes out of it, then we can track all the subsequent descendants of that parent, because every offspring in that line will most likely contain this particular retrovirus in that exact position. An Endogenous retrovirus are what these fixed ancient virus are called. There is no reason, why two different lineages, like chimps and humans, should share the same ERV in the exact same position in their genome, besides common ancestry or extreme chance. The reason why it has to be extreme chance is because of following:Your genome contains around 3,2 billion nucleotides. That is 3200000000 letters which codes for you. A retrovirus insertion can enter in between all these nucleotides, so the chance of it ending where ever it ends, it had a 1 in 3,2b chance for that. For it to land in the exact same position for both you and chimps, by chance, meaning, without common descent and biological relatedness, the chance would be 1/3,2b^2 which gives=9.765625 × 10^-20 or to put it another way, around 1 in 980000000000000000000 (rounded)However, the fact is that we share more than 1 ERV with chimps. In a paper[1] they mention 16 ERV sites that both chimps and humans have in common, the chance of this would be something along the lines of this: (1 / 3 200 000 000)^16 = 8.27180613 × 10^-153In fact, we share far more ERV's than that, but I might get into that later. RandomnessI've heard claims that ERV's aren't so random, and tends to select its insertion site in a higher rate in active coding sites, rather than in non-coding areas. However even if we redo the calculations and narrow ourselves to 0,1% of the genome, which is far less than the active part of the genome, but just to help the critics, we go with this number. This would leave only 3,2 million insertion sites, and with 16 ERV's in the exact same place, that would be left to chance, the chance would be (1 / 3 200 000)^16 = 8.27180613 × 10^-105. So that woulds till render it so immensely unlikely, that common descent is the only rational explanation. [1]C. M. Romano, R. F. Ramalho, and P. M. de A. Zanotto; Tempo and mode of ERV-K evolution in human and chimpanzee genomes. Arch Virol (2006) 151: 22152228
Evolutionary biology

Many thanks to my opponent for initiating this debate.The living world is full of immense diversity. From giant blue whale to bacteria. From ferocious lion to humble grass. It would indeed be rare to find a person who is not amazed by the inhabitants of our beloved planet earth!Theory of Evolution seeks to offer a simple solution to the puzzle of biodiversity. It claims that all life forms have a common origin. Modern evolutionary theory explains the diversity of life as caused by gradual changes in genetic code of living beings, primarily through genetic mutation and natural selection.Pro will affirm that the modern evolutionary theory is sufficient to explain diversity of life.Con will argue that any evidence presented by Pro is wrong, misleading or otherwise insufficient to explain origin of biodiversity. It is not compulsory for Con to present an alternative theory.It is important to note that I am not arguing in favor of Intelligent design. My solution to puzzle of life is, "I don't know". This is a perfectly acceptable scientific answer.I accept all terms and conditions as outlined by Pro. The only addition I would like to insist upon is that no new arguments are permitted in fifth round. The final round is only for rebuttals and conclusions. This is a standard rule which will benefit him rather than me, as otherwise he will not get a chance to answer any new argument I might introduce in last round.Looking forward to arguments from Relax ...
Resolved: That "b*tches ain't sh*t but hoes and tricks" (2)

Since DDO is not kind to profanities, I have simplified the corresponding terms in the proposition to their first letters. So clearly B would be b****, T is trick, and H is ho (can I say that one?) I have been wrestling with this resolution for a few days now. I can immediately conclude that Dre’s proposition reflects a subjective judgment that has essentially formed into a component of Dre’s worldwide. Arguably, B containing properties T and H could be said to be part of Dre’s objective reality. Sociologically, this idea has credit. In their 1966 book The Social Construction of Reality authors Berger and Luckmann describe how for socialized individuals objective reality is molded by social facts and institutions: “By ‘successful socialization’ we mean the establishment of a high degree of symmetry between objective and subjective reality” [1]. Additionally, Dre’s conception of B is certainly a social fact given his roots from the poorer, inner cities of Los Angeles and Compton. Philosophical mumbo-jumbo aside, Dre operates directly under this premise in his environment and this subjective judgment has been effectually molded into his worldview. Any attempt to frame this debate in traditional universal terms will certainly fall flat. Language is a tool we use to convey our sense of reality. Dre has his conception of B, and Con has his. So, are we at a deadlock? Perhaps, but regardless of one’s views on this subject it is true that Dre stated a factually correct claim that objectively purveys his notion of reality. It is useless for Con to attempt to debunk Dre’s proposition given that his own interpretation is simply his own attempt at defining reality – namely through his own “lense” (genes, upbringing, luck, etc.) [1] The Social Construction of Reality, p. 129.
Resolved: That "b*tches ain't sh*t but hoes and tricks" (2)

Salubrious salutations to my identity-crisis ridden opponent. This man/girl, this self-confessed 14 year-old bartender and existentially minded Bieber fan, has had the foresight, nay, the integrity to open up for debate this famous assertion by left coast lady-killer Mr. Dre (I don't believe he's a real doctor for one second.) For the purposes of debate, I am perfectly willing to accept my opponent's translation of Dre's law as "A malicious, unpleasant woman is nothing but a promiscuous individual and/or "teases.". However, since procrastination through pedantry is a speciality of mine, I would like to make a few notes on some of these definitions. My opponent chooses to spell "hoe" as a homonym of the handy yet potentially deadly garden tool that we all know and love. Although this spelling looks right to anyone with a good grasp of English and despite the fact that slang is bound to vary in spelling, I would like to annoyingly and nit-pickingly assert that "ho" is a more appropriate choice of alphabetical representation for this term. It is after all generally recognised to be a contraction of "whore" http://www.thefreedictionary.com... and in its most literal sense to refer to an actual prostitute. However, Pro is completely correct to assert that it is often used in reference to any promiscuous woman. Regarding "trick", I'm happy with the definition for this debate, but would like to go on a brief tangent to explore another possible interpretation of Mr Dre's claim. Although "trick" is often used in the way my opponent describes, it is even more often used to describe a prostitute's customers (as in "turning tricks".) This is acknowledged in Pro's own source. So what I'm suggesting as a possible alternative interpretation, (purely as an unnecessary side note) is that Dre could actually be saying that "bitches" are entirely sexual and monetary objects; onecan either spend money on them, or earn money from them. This fits in with the classic pimp ideology, as espoused by such ghetto legends as Iceberg Slim. http://en.wikipedia.org... Anyway, as I said I'm totally down with my opponent's definitions for this debate, so with such irrelevant hypothesising out of the way, I look forward to a rigorous and stimulating debate on the matter at hand.
Resolved: That "b*tches ain't sh*t but hoes and tricks" (2)

I will be arguing the affirmative on Dr. Dre's famous proposition "b*tches ain't sh*t but hoes and tricks" as heard in his 1992 album "The Chronic" [1]. The proposition will henceforth be referred to as "Dre's Law." First round is only for acceptance and/or definitional issues, and I accept the burden of proof on this contentious matter.-Definitions-B1tch: b1tch   [bich] Show IPA–noun1.a female dog.2.a female of canines generally.3.Slang .a malicious, unpleasant, selfish person, especially a woman.b lewd woman. [2]For the rest of the definitions I had to consult an alternative source (Urbandictionary.com) to account for the unorthodox phrasing present in Dre's Law.Hoe: 1. A skank 2. A woman that is too loose in the booty. 3. Woman or man that f*** anything with two legs. 4. A promiscuous person. [3]The fourth definition most likely encapsulates the concept the best.Trick: Term directed more toward females most commonly used for women who play with your head in the sense of acting like they want you one day and hardly noticing you the next [4]In plain English the proposition loosely states "A malicious, unpleasant woman is nothing but a promiscuous individual and/or "teases." [1]http://www.cduniverse.com......[2]http://dictionary.reference.com......;[3]http://www.urbandictionary.com......;[4]http://www.urbandictionary.com......
THE EXSISTENCE OF GOD VS. ATHEISM

You say that there is no God well if there is no God then who determines what it is write and wrong who says murdering is WRONG. I mean if you atheists dont think murdering 6000000 people just because he had a bad past as a child gives him a free pass to doing that isnt wrong then i dont know what is wrong with you. DO YOU UNDRESTAND that there has to be a rite and a wrong or the world would be crazy. Because you no what I here atheists say all the time, or anybody that dosent belive in God they say "that guy needs to go to jail." Well, do you think we should get rid of all jails because if there is no rite and wrong then how can anyone go to jai maby we should just get rid of the JUDICERARY branch all together. It does mean you have no morals because obviously you think that murdering is ok you think that stealing is ok and you think all these things are ok because you belive that there is no God. You belive that there is no rite and wrong so according to you what are morals because thats what morals are based off of rite and wrong I hope you are following me so far and UNDERSTANDING this. And please after reading this do not go off and say another one of your pointless debates stating that we have self justification... and blablabla. Please because it dosent make any sence at ALL!!!! "Do you think that just because Hitler grew up in a bad inviroment that he is alowd to do what he did KILLING 6 MILLION JEWS he killed them and that was wrong that is something you have learned sence you were a kid and not just because it is wrong, but because every human being has a rite to live. But of course sence there is no rite or wrong answer to any given problem how do we even have the RITE to live. Couldnt every man just kill women children. And i do hope you see how this is connected to morals because if there is no God to set morals then where do we get morals. Well we cant get them from our selves because our morals change every day one day we could be a kid helping our mom in the kitchen then we could be in jail. I hope you see how unreliable humans would be in a world without God are morals would change all the time. Thats why there MUST be one rite and one wrong we cant say oh there isnt a God well lets just give everyone a free pass. If human morals change everyday which they do kids join gangs gentlemen become wife beaters, and good people become drug attics. That happens everyday thats why there must be a God to tell us what is wrong and what is rite. Because it cant be us because are morals change everyday we need to just have 1 thing to base everything off of and you no what that is its God the maker of heaven and earth. PLEASE ANSWERE THE FALLOWING QUESTION UNLIKE LAST TIME: wasit rite for hitler to kill 6000000 jews if there is no rite and no wrong and does everyone have a write to live? Please tell us what judges us do we just get judged by society well socity judged black people and had them as slaves?
THE EXSISTENCE OF GOD VS. ATHEISM

IF I might add... as i stated in my previous debate, Atheism is the simple belief that there is no God or supreme being. This does not have anything to do with havin no morals or having a sense of right & wrong. A person, from when they are very young, knowledge of God or none, start learning a sense of right and wrong and start creating their own personal morals. God is not needed to simply exisit as a being and make your own decisions. Hitler made very poor greedy decisions during his lifetime, which ended up in killing an excessive amount of people. God or no God, Hitler would have doe the same thing. It's only a part of history. I'm still trying to figure out what you mean when you try to relate not having morals to atheism. Just because I choose not to believe in God or a supreme being does not mean I ahve no morals or a sense of what is right or wrong. Just because I have no supreme being to guide my life, doesn't mean I can't guide ot for myself. Personally, I don't need to have faith in something superior to help me get through things, because I believe in myself, my friends, and my family. They are no superior to me as I am to myself. Hilter may have grown up in a poor environment or have had bad expiriences in his lifetime that triggered his massacre of the jews. This simply proves that just because you do not believe in God, does not mean you do not have morals or a sense of judgment for the right & the wrong. I'm sorry, but you seem to be going on a few tangents. Maybe try being a little more clear with your arguments next time. =)
THE EXSISTENCE OF GOD VS. ATHEISM

You say that you dont belive that there is a God well actually there is and i will tell you why because it dosent make sence to have a world without a supreme being and this is why. How can we say what Hitler did was wrong if we dont have a supreme being i meane who do we obey the man who is in power at that time well the man who was in power at that time was Hitler and according to athiests there is no uther supreme being there is no Basis for anything. The reason why we have to have a basis is because what Hitler did he thought it was rite. Thats why there has to be a God To tell us what to base what is right and what is wrong. Thats why the world would be so chaotic thats why we need God and Thats why there is a God. So please cailinalainn answere the folowing QUESTIONS in you response. If there is no God to give us a basis on what is rite and wrong according to Atheism then is hitler rite for killing 6,000,000 jews or sence there is no supreme being according to atheism could he not be wrong.
THE EXSISTENCE OF GOD VS. ATHEISM

aï¿½theï¿½ism –noun 1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God. 2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings. This is an excerpt from the dictionary itself, explaining that atheism is only contained to being the non-belief in God or a supreme being. Just because you don't believe in god doesn not mean you don't believe in love. I, Myself, is a prime example. I do not believe there is a god, but overall, more than anything, I believe in love. Just beause one does not believe that there is a supreme being guiding them through their lives does not mean that they don't believe that 1+1=2, or in love itself. Atheism is just the simple non-believing in God or in theism. People choose to have their own beliefs off of what they have learned and expirienced. Some just choose not to believe in God.
THE EXSISTENCE OF GOD VS. ATHEISM

To start off my debate i will say something an athiest will never probably ever agree to and that is if you are an atheist or a scientologist or whatever you are always admitting theres a God by excisting. PART 1 Let me ask you these questions can you see love? no. Can you see the IDEA of 2+2? no. Can you see the end of the universe? no. But you still BELIEVE all these things or at least you should. You see if your an athiest none of these things exsist because if you cant see it, it dosent exsist. You know what atheism does the very idea of it crawls on Gods lap and then slaps him in the face. Well just because i told you this dosent mean you are going to stop beliving in love. Well now you know why I belive in God, the same reason an atheist belives in the universe is infanent. Part2 If atheism were all true then the world would be at toatal chaos i mean who would tell us who is rite or wrong or the base for anything or even what is love. If the athiests were right about everything then Hitler would not be wrong about killing 6 million jews We would just obey the man who had control over the world at that time. That is a huge problem with athiest belif and thats why it cant and must not be true.
Homosexuality is wrong and disgusting!

PedophilesMy opponent the slippery slope fallacy in saying that if homosexuality is seen as moral then eventually pedophilia will be seen as moral and that is wrong. He writes: "So when to we draw the line between what is moral, and what is immoral? ". First, my opponent did not show any reason why pedophilia was wrong. He simply made the argument from popularity in writing: "Certainly we agree that pedophiles are a bunch of immoral scum in this world". My opponent has not shown why pedophilia is wrong or why people seeing homosexuality as moral will lead to seeing pedophilia as moral. I will give my opponent the next round to prove his theory. AIDS "My point is the spread and popularity of unhygienic gay anal sex promoted the spread of HIV AIDS. " This is a summary of my opponents 'Argument from AIDS'. I will agree that the AIDS epidemic could be partly attributed to men having unprotected anal sex with each other. However this is really an argument against unprotected sex. Heterosexuals can still get AIDS from unprotected sex just like homosexuals. Also, my opponent only claims that the HIV epidemic was attributed to unprotected anal sex with men. He says nothing about lesbians who are also gay. Anal Sex with men, not natural:My opponent claims that because a small percentage of people who receive anal sex feel pain, homosexuality cannot be natural and thus is wrong. My point still stands though that regardless of whether it is natural nothing is moral or immoral as morality is not objective. Also, my opponent has already admitted that homosexuality is natural. "I fully understand that due to overwhelming scientific evidence. .. against my original disposition against homosexuals, it will be a challenge to sway the tides of general established opinion" My opponent has not shown why something being painful makes it unnatural or why something being unnatural makes something immoral.
Homosexuality is wrong and disgusting!

Allow me to first define the terms of the resolution. Homosexuality: Homosexuality is romantic and/or sexual attraction or behavior between members of the same sex or gender.[1] wrong: not in accordance with what is morally right or good.[2] disgusting: to cause loathing or nausea.[3] I can tell that this is my opponent's first debate as he just goes from saying that gay people should be able to fvck, but it's gross and wrong to saying that homosexuality is comparable to prostitution. This second point is actually confusing and I do not see what it has to do with the resolution and I will ask my opponent to clarify in the next round. Now on to my opponent's contentions. "Homosexuality is wrong and disgusting, but homosexuals should not be discriminated against on a public basis." I do agree with my opponent that gays should not be discrimiated on a public basis so we may drop this point. I will however disagree with my opponent that homosexualty is disgusting or wrong. Contention 1 Homosexuality is disgusting Now as there is no objective way to define something as disgusting this point is moot as the property is completely subjective. For example, I m a homosexual and consequently find the idea of heterosexual sex to be kind of gross. Now even though heterosexual sex might fit my own person definition of the word 'disgusting' that does not mean that objectively heterosexual sex is disgusting. I will first ask my opponent to expand on what specifically about homosexuality he find so 'disgusting'. I will then ask my opponent why his personal opinion is more reliable than perhaps my own. If my opponent says homosexuality is disgusting and I say it is not then why should one listen to my opponent? Contention 2 Homosexuality is wrong Before I refeute this argument I will ask my opponent what moral code he is referring to. If it is moral relativism or his own personal opinion then I refer him to my last point. If it is from some form ofdivine law like Christianity or Islam my opponent will, as a pre-requesite for anyone taking it seriously, need to prove that said god exists. I argue that there is no such thing as objective morality and thus no action, lifestyle, or color is inherently moral or immmoral. It will be my opponent's job as Pro and instigator to prove otherwise, or that morality does exist independently of the human mind. I await my opponent's response. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org... [2]http://dictionary.reference.com... [3]http://dictionary.reference.com... gusting
Homosexuality is wrong and disgusting!

Although I am an overall liberal, let me get this straight, I don't believe that homosexuals should be discriminated against, and I don't believe gays should be prohibited to practice their sexuality if it is consensual. But straight up, anal sex with another male is wrong, disgusting, and shameful. So they should be free to practice what they do, but they should not enforce their sexuality and code of conduct on the majority of the heterosexual population. It seems today that homosexuals are glorifying homosexuality, which leads people who are not naturally homosexual to become homosexual, just so they can feel special. Prostitution is de-facto legal in the US, but it is not something to be ashamed of. Being gay and being a prostitute fall along the lines of sexual deviation. In the workplace, and public places, being a homosexual in any way alter a person's on-the-job performance, simply out of professionalism. But people should be allowed to discriminate against homosexuals on a personal basis, just as males can discriminate against less attractive females on a personal basis. I will probably lose this debate due to overwhelming general pre-conceived disagreement, but my position is clear: Homosexuality is wrong and disgusting, but homosexuals should not be discriminated against on a public basis.