BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
It is Probable that Europa Supports Life

Pro states that "It is Probable that Europa Supports Life." Pro gives the following definitions, one of which I would like to clarify. -Probable: likely to occur or proven true -Supports: to maintain by supplying with things necessary to existence -Living: to have life, as an organism; be capable of vital functions -Organism: a discrete and complete living thing, such as animal, plant, fungus, or microorganism - Probable - more than 50% probability is hard to measure as this is not a repeatable event. To make the debate more enjoyable I hope he allows me to phrase his statement as "We will find life on Europa." That way we can avoid questions of "it was probable but we didn"t find it" or "it was unlikely, even if it was found." As a side note; if we do find life on Europa it will be either native to Europa (giving evidence for spontaneous generation of life) or transplanted from somewhere else (Earth or extraterrestrial) giving rise to questions beyond our current imagining. I have a few thoughts pre debate that I want to throw out. 1. Most of our assumptions of life are so based on organic chemistry at standard temperature and pressure (STP) that we may miss a great deal because of these narrow assumptions. With that said, the claim of Europa possibly hosting "life as we know it" are based on this unproven assumption. If, however, we reject that assumption there is no reason to choose Europa over any other site so this debate needs to focus on organic chemistry at STP. 2. So far as we know, life is unique to Earth. Looking at probabilities around a unique event makes PROs position difficult. As far as we know life only exists on earth. Some interesting reading http://news.discovery.com... http://www.gogonews.com... http://en.wikipedia.org...(moon)#Potential_for_extraterrestrial_life http://www.dailymail.co.uk... http://www.universetoday.com... I will wait for PRO to post round 2 before beginning my arguments.
It is Probable that Europa Supports Life

Full Resolution: It is Probable that Europa Supports Living OrganismsDefinitions:-Europa: Sixth-closest moon of Jupiter, smallest of the Galilean satellites, discovered by Galileo Galilei in 1610 http://en.wikipedia.org...(moon)-Probable: likely to occur or proven true:http://dictionary.reference.com...-Supports: to maintain by supplying with things necesary to existence http://dictionary.reference.com...-Living: to have life, as an organism; be capable of vital functions http://dictionary.reference.com...-Organism: a discrete and complete living thing, such as animal, plant, fungus, or microorganism http://en.wiktionary.org...Rules, etc.:-4 Rounds-1 Month Voting Period-72 Hours to argue-8,000 characters max-4,000 characters min-Vote Comments enabled-No Semantics-No Incivility-No Trolling -1 skipped round is loss of conduct, 2 skipped rounds is loss of debate-Shared BOP; in other words, both sides have to prove their case, not just attack the other's-In line citations [1] would be appreciated.-First round is for acceptance and definition of terms onlyAnd so forth.I look forward to the start of the debate; I hope to be a worthy opponent. May the best debater win.[1] Like this
Should Elderly People have to pay for Public transport

Again the pro has not state which form of public transport we are specifically debating on. Secondly, every round counts and he uses it to state that he will post his argument in the next round leaving nothing to rebut, nothing to vote on Thirdly elderly people should not pay as they are only hoping on public transport to get around as they are weak and cannot drive anymore so why are we charging them for something we all know will happen to us at one point?
Should Elderly People have to pay for Public transport

Firstly, you did not define the meaning of Public Transport, therefore making this debate open and free for all types of transport to be rejected and accepted They should not 1) They have served longed enough and contributed a lot to the country's economy so giving them allowance is a sure way of giving back 2) They rarely travel, so the government can close an eye to the few dollars they will lose as it does not benefit much
taco bell is a better restaurant than burger king

Let's first examine the $1 Whopper, a burger that exemplifies and spearheads the Burger King restaurant philosophy. The $1 Whopper is available with a choice of nine different meats, three lip-smacking sauces, five fresh veggie toppings, four gourmet cheeses and/or three classic condiments. When one strays away from this staple to options such as vegetarian burgers, flame-broiled and chicken burgers, salads, fries, refreshments (a total of 23), breakfast, value and kids meals, Burger King's variety of classic American dishes is evident. It is this quality selection that leads anyone looking for American food to Burger King. However, Burger King is not just the dominant name in American cuisine fast-food, but the dominant name in all cuisines. Any conscience American cares about the ingredients they are pumping into their bodies, and Taco Bell is a clear second when seeking a modest, healthy diet. A staple Taco Bell item, the 5-layer burrito, contains 540 calories, and all that after a deep-cutting 25% fat reduction. The parallel BK staple, $1 Whoppers, total a lean 340. That's 200 more empty calories, 3 grams more fat and twice the sodium that an average consumer eats at a typical Taco Bell stop-in. A visit to Burger King never makes you feel guilty. It's clear Burger King wins in nutritional value and selection variety, however there is another category in which BK has an even more ridiculous lead. It is truly during beverage selection that BK's superiority emerges. Taco Bell brings a meager two drink categories to the playing field: Sparklers/Freezes and Fountain sodas. Almost comically, Taco Bell refuses to offer the most basic of soft drinks: Coca Cola. Sure you'll find Pepsi, normal and diet, enough Pepsi to make you suffocate on your own vomit, but no Coca-Cola. Not a drop. Burger King offers Coca-Cola, and 22 other drinks, more than twice what Taco Bell offers. One can understandably look at this written evidence and fail to see the importance of beverages at a fast food restaurant, yet the importance becomes quite clear after the first bite you've taken of that cheesy burrito or thick steak burger. Burger King and Taco Bell are equally filling, yet Taco Bell fails in the follow-up. After you've eaten a dense, fattening meal at Taco Bell, you are only offered sugary flavors like fruit punch and cherry crï¿½me, that induce as much thirst as the meal you've just consumed. After eating that volcano taco you sure could use a nice refreshing Coca-Cola, and what does Taco Bell have? Fruit Punch. Sources: Taco Bell website: http://www.tacobell.com... Burger King website: http://www.bk.com... Personal experience
taco bell is a better restaurant than burger king

To start my argument in the first i will give two reasons why taco bell is a better restaurant. 1.Price I go to taco bell alot so i know that the prices are very great at taco bell compared to burger kings high prices. It costs me $5.00 to eat at taco bell and get entirely fool but on the flip side if i go to burger king it takes $7.00 to fill me up and in this economy everyone could use that saved money. Plus more things come with that $5.00 dollars i spend at taco bell. A burrito,quesidilla,cinnamon twists,and a drink. at burger king if i walked in with the $7.00 i mentioned then i would get less. chicken fries,fries,and a drink. 2.variety next i say variety because when i walk into taco bell everytime i have trouble picking something because there are so many choices. there are tacos,burritos,fiesta potatoes,tostadas,supreme nachos,flat bread taco,quesidillas,chips,cinnamon twist,cheese rolls,etc. when i walk into burger king the choice of food is made simple because i decide between chicken fries , burgers,burgers, and more burgers!
taco bell is a better restaurant than burger king

The pro-side debater maintains, "No fast food restaurant is really healthy". The ignorance of such an assertion is clearly illustrated when one examines the nutritional facts of a Burger King meal. Burger King's main options are quite healthy, packed full of essential nutrients. For instance, Burger King's multifarious menu features fruit-topped oatmeal, a 270 calorie treat that won't bust your gut, while still providing the protein (5g) and carbohydrates (55g) consumers need to kickstart active lifestyles. Calories from this heart breakfast can be shed as quickly as they were put on with an hour of mild gardening or housework. Even cheeseburgers, once dismissed as a puerile splurge, are redefined by the BURGER KINGï¿½ Cheeseburger, a thick, 16-grams-of-protein ground round that somehow manages to total only a lean 300 calories. For that amount of satisfaction, consumers expect more than twice that many calories, what one will find in a Taco Bell Chalupa. Burger King's willingness to go above and beyond in terms of health and deliciousness would be appreciated in any decade. But in this one, it's a matter of life and death. As of 2010 2/3 of the American populace are obese or overweight. If you're lucky, excess weight will only cause complications like menstrual irregularites and sleep apnea. Most of the obese aren't lucky and suffer from conditions like osteoarthritis (a degeneration of cartilage and bone), cancers of the breast, colorectal, endometrial, and kidney, type 2 diabetes and (sometimes repeat) strokes. Conscious choices like the basic Burger King hamburger, totaling 260 calories, can fight the obesity epidemic. The obese are aware of the dangers of their condition and the assertion that "they dont want healthy they want good" belittles the efforts they have made to change. Sources: http://www.tacobell.com... (Taco Bell) http://caloriecount.about.com... (Calorie Info) http://www.burgerking.com... (Burger King) http://www.cdc.gov... (Obesity Statistics)
taco bell is a better restaurant than burger king

a simple observation for my opponent: you failed to debate the pro argument and all you did was start with yours. going on, argument 1: If you have noticed the world no longer cares about the healthy food. another quick observation is that they dont want healthy they want good. if people actually cared about eating healthy every fast food restaurant would be out of buisness because no fast food restaurant is really healthy. so right off the bat your first argument is weak. argument 2: now lets talk about the drinks. people do not go to a restaurant for the drinks they go for the food! the drink is there to make the food go down easierl. people do not say, "im going to taco bell so i can get a drink". so this argument is weak also.
Resolved: George Zimmerman should marry Casey Anthony

"If yo A$$ is from a lil cold-A$$ lil ghetto dat aint called "Dumbfvckistan" you would know dat tha Florida means a muthafvckin island next ta Gangsta Claus yo yo yo"I didnt know I was debating the ghost of Trayvon Martin o_O1) They have so much in common"Casey lives up in Mexico d!pshit. Right back up in yo muthafvckin A$$"Florida is part of Mexico idiot.... Hell Miami's unofficial name is actually 'West Mexico' or 'North Cuba' depending on neighborhood and country of origin "Thatz what tha fvck I thought son! Imabench n' his welfare whorin is outrageous. "Man I can see why Zimmerman decided to stalk and then shoot your black a**......2) The reality TV show they would get would be HILARIOUS"Who tha fvck tha heck marries fo' a sh!tty show, biatch?"Well Mexicans are pretty famous for doing the work that white people dont want to do....3) In the tv show, THEYRE BOTH LAWYERS!"Who tha fvck watches ta dat sh!t, "If people will watch Honey Boo Boo do ANYTHING then I think people will watch Zimmerman and Casey Anthony team up to defeat the forces of..... Well the forces of good in this case.... 4) The sex they would have would be legendary"What fo' realz. Is you sexually frustrated, biatch? Yo A$$ dumba$$."I gotta say, Im kinda glad Zimmerman shot you.....5) The kid they would have (assuming neither of them kill it) would grow up to be the Joker."Go back playin wit yo' dolls."Nigga please... Dolls are so 2012....
Resolved: George Zimmerman should marry Casey Anthony

If yo A$$ is from a lil cold-A$$ lil ghetto dat aint called "Dumbfvckistan" you would know dat tha Florida means a muthafvckin island next ta Gangsta Claus yo yo yo . Hitla also capped his wild lil' fvckin lil' thugs. When his schmoooove A$$ capped his wild lil' fvckin lil' dirty A$$, he also capped his jizz. No salami mah mass. Time ta git Imabenchz pvssy "'arguments'" 1) Casey lives up in Mexico d!pshit. Right back up in yo muthafvckin A$$. Biatch also appiled fo' a adoption. I aint talkin' bout chicken n' gravy biatch fo' realz fo' realz . Also, when was tha last time you last a Hispanic applyin fo' a thang, biatch? What?! Thatz what tha fvck I thought son! Imabench n' his welfare whorin is outrageous. Casey n' George have less up in common then a pair of Raccons bustin a nut up in space. 2) Dum diddy-dum, here I come biaaatch! Dum diddy-dum, here I come biaaatch! Who tha fvck tha heck marries fo' a sh!tty show, biatch? 3) Lawyers, biatch? Dum diddy-dum, here I come biaaatch! Dum diddy-dum, here I come biaaatch! Who tha fvck watches ta dat sh!t, biatch? On TLC, biatch? Imabench you gotz a sh!tty sense of taste. 4) What fo' realz. Is you sexually frustrated, biatch? Yo A$$ dumba$$. 5) Go back playin wit yo' dolls.
Resolved: George Zimmerman should marry Casey Anthony

Imabench be a cold-@ss lil coward. Y'all KNOW dat sh!t, muthafucka! Dude dropped mah arguments bout Hitla n' tha location of Florida. Imabench has his wild lil' freakadelic geography messed up. "Mexico" is REALLY called Downtown Uptown America, n' by Imafucktardz logic, dat makes Florida Eastside Downtown Uptown America. Imabench dropped tha fact dat tha welfare whorin would make Dear Leader Obizzay weep.Dum diddy-dum, here I come biaaatch! Who tha fvck gives a thugged-out damn bout TV, biatch? Take a peep Obizzay yo. Dude is bustin good. Y'all KNOW dat sh!t, muthafucka! I be fly as a gangbangin' falcon, soarin all up in tha sky dawwwwg! But he STILL lives up in posse housing. Connect tha dots?Take tha fvck into tha reason why Mexxis is fleein Mexico. Wack sticky-icky-icky wars, biatch? Wack thang market, biatch? No. It be ta rap r black arse dat Mexxis is no Hispanic. But wit yo' American ejaculation...Save tha children. I aint talkin' bout chicken n' gravy biatch. Vote fo' FrackJACK
Obama Has Not Fulfilled His Duties as President

We may be in debt, but just remember that that debt was not started by Obama. He has supported important social issues such as gay marriage and abortion, started the removal of troops from Afghanistan, implemented a flawed, but generally good bill ensuring that we, as a society, do not let someone die just 'cuz they don't have health insurance. I'm not too knowledgeable on this, but he has implemented/plans to implement several beneficial environmental bills as well, which is something that is a top priority nowadays lest the level of C02 release becomes so large that methane burps start coming from the ocean, the Earth starts heating up, etc. Feel free to correct me and refute my arguments.
Anti-racists are fueling racism today

First off, I did not state that con was a self-hating Caucasian, I explicitly stated he was not, but that racists would refer to him a such. It seems that con is the one implying that I am a self-hater. My profile name has nothing to do with me thinking I am better than dark-skinned people, it is just a simple description of myself based on how others have described me, without me even bringing it up. I never stated that con should be the "everything is fine ostrich", simply that there is no need to overreact to every single racist joke that is obviously not meant to be taken seriously. Honestly though, I no longer understand why I asked con to the debate in the first place.
Anti-racists are fueling racism today

My opponent wasted his round with speculative rhetoric. Please take note that my opponent did not offer a single source to refute my argument. I would also like to point out, that my opponent insinuates that I am a self-hating Caucasian. I would ask my opponent to explain his profile name. It seems he is self-saturated in the stigma of "light-skinned" is better that "dark-skinned". See sources (Included are statistical and cultural references): http://www.law.harvard.edu... http://www.africanamericannewsandcommentary.com... My opponent lacks an argument. He accuses me of being a zealot, yet his entire argument is based on emotional appeal. I admit to arguing with passion but that is not a measure of merit or demerit when debating. It has no bearing on the topic. I also don't hate my own race. I am proactive in the repair of the damage it's caused. I refuse to be the "everything is fine" ostrich. Head in the sand, rear-end sticking exposed. I challenge my opponent to bring some real competition next round. Where is your data?
Anti-racists are fueling racism today

Well now, that certainly is an impressive bit of information and very comforting. But, not really what I meant. I should have been more specific. You, see I believe Pro takes an over zealous approach to fighting racism that to some and mostly probably many would seem as anti-white. Now, I am sure pro is not anti-white or hates being white, but, from my searches on stormfront and youtube, these racial realist or white nationalist or whatever you want to call them only get spurred on by approaches like his. A common quote I see them spam is "Anti-racist is a code for anti-white." As I mentioned above I believe these people to be extremely paranoid in that they see anything that might possible help non-whites or potentially detract something from whites unintentionally, as a deliberate attack on them for being white. These kind of people are whom I was referring to. Calling out every little stupid racist joke (as in pros last debate) only spurs them on. As long as people take those things seriously and treat them like full on hate crimes the "racial realists" will just increase in number. In this way does anti-racism fuel the very racism it sets out to destroy. Thank you.
Anti-racists are fueling racism today

The debate topic limits the argument to contemporary racism. For this purpose, I have provided statistics indicating the growing success of the campaign to fight bigotry associated with racial heterogeneity. This evidence will prove conclusively that the only acceptable attitude toward racism is a declaration of all out war. Between 2006 and 2010, the GALLUP polls showed a significant increase of 5% in the societal acceptance of interracial marriage. The statistics indicate that 84% of white Americans approve of interracial relationships. It should be noted that an incredible 96% of black Americans approve of interracial relationships, which is an increase of over 11% in less than 4 years. In 2002, almost 33% of Americans opposed the union of mixed couples. Within five years, that percentage dropped down to 17%. The campaign against racism is pervasive and aggressive. The American justice system is proactively legislating to advance the cause for racial equality. The battle against racism has become so powerful, that white supremacy groups often encounter violent opposition during public rallies. This is a modern phenomenon and accurately reflects the mind-set of the modern American. Racism is being rooted out. While it may never be entirely successful, I believe it is incorrect to claim that "Anti-racists are fueling racism today". Please review the sources: http://filipspagnoli.wordpress.com... http://articles.latimes.com...
Anti-racists are fueling racism today

It is obvious you have a very firm anti-racist stance; I believe that is both good and bad. Good in that you only look at people's characters when judging them yet, bad in that you seem to feel the need to exterminate racism in its entirety. This will never happen and it is only self-defeating to try. The best we can hope for is a world in which people's racist ideals do not interfere with the lives of others yet these very same disgusting ideal will never go away as humans are individuals with their own thoughts an come to their own conclusions about things. By trying to force others not to be racists you are only spurring them on. From other websites I have browsed, such as stormfront. org, these people seem to have a paranoid mentality that everyone around them is trying to destroy their race. This is of course nonsense but, when legislation is passed such as preventing people from refusing service to people of different races, this behavior which was suppose to lessen racism, has actually increased it. They feel and rightfully so that no one should be able to tell them how to run their business. One can hope that the people around them would not want to go to a racist establishment, they loss business, and change on their own but, if they don't and people still see fit to go there no one should shut the business down. So long as no one is murdering anyone or assaulting them verbally or physically, I believe it is best to leave them with their racist ideals. Then hopefully, their children will see it for the garbage it is and not take up such beliefs.
Teemo is greater than or equal to Shrek

I will not begin with my opening statements on why Teemo is inferior to Shrek.CONTENTION 1: FANBASE Shrek obviously has a greater fanbase than Teemo. Shrek is a popular movie dating back to 2001, created by Disney. He has a huge fanbase. These fans are known as "brogres". [1] They are huge fans of shrek. Teemo on the other hand does not have a similar fanbase. In fact, the majority of summoners despise Teemo. Because of the endless poison darts, blinding in order to take no damage, crazy powerfull slowing shrooms and extreme speed for escapes, many of the LOL community considers Teemo a broken champion. [2] So as you can see, shrek has a huge fanbase, whereas Teemo is hated by most of the LOL community. Furthermore, Shrek is for all ages, and interest. It can attract many many viewers. Infact, the box office brought in 807,330,936 $! [3] Most people don't even know what league of legends is, let alone Teemo. There was even 1 guy who though I was refering to DOTA 2 in one of my polls. [4] CONTENTION 2: GOOD PERSON, OR OGRE Shrek is at first rude, and mean, but becomes a very good person. He befriend a donkey, and falls inlove. He also has babies. He is very nice, and protects his friends. Teemo on the other hand is a stone cold killer. When in combat, he become dead serious, and doesn't feel any emotion. This leads to killing without any fear. [5]In conclusion, Shrek is much nicer than Teemo. Furthermore, Shrek has a much bigger fanbase, and isn't hated as much as a broken champion, Teemo. Sources:1.http://shrekchan.shoutwiki.com...2.http://www.the-numbers.com...3.http://forums.na.leagueoflegends.com...4.