BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Sex Could Not Possibly Have "Evolved:"

Preamble: People ask: "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?" Neither could possibly have come first, because chickens always come from chicken eggs, and chicken eggs always come from chickens. This is an insurmountable conundrum for the believer in atheist Dogma, but not for us Theological Realists: The conclusive answer is that the complete system of chickens laying eggs and chickens hatching from chicken eggs must have manifested together, simultaneously. There is no other rational option. This also means that the complete system had to have been designed and initiated by a conscious, intelligent person or persons. Same goes for gender differentiation. One of the many problems with the so-called "common ancestor" fantasy is that gender-differentiation could not possibly have evolved or developed gradually, from a creature that was not gender-differentiated, as the darwinist claims. This is because reproduction of gender-differentiated offspring is an "all-or-none" scenario. Gender differentiation must necessarily have manifested 100% complete, with both genders and all of their respective organs and behaviors fully represented, or it could have never manifested at all. Such simultaneous and complete manifestation of two different genders -- along with their matching yet differentiated sexual organs as well as their matching yet differentiated sexual behaviors -- would necessarily require an immense amount of planning and organization, from an extremely powerful and extremely intelligent conscious designer. Formal Argument: Gender differentiation could not possibly have "evolved." P1: Without a concrete evolutionary mechanism to bring about the "descent" of any gender-differentiated species from any non-gender-differentiated species, gender differentiation could not possibly have "evolved." P2: There is no concrete evolutionary mechanism that has ever been observed to bring about the descent of any gender-differentiated species from any non-gender-differentiated species. Conclusion: Therefore gender differentiation could not possibly have "evolved." QED Bonus video included for clarification:
Open and Concealed Carry should be allowed in every state permit free.

1. Not sure where mental health comes into the picture of obtaining a permit. If the system was flawed enough that a mentally ill person could pass an NICS check, then another check on a permit is going to be just as useless. I firmly believe that anyone who wants to carry a gun, open or concealed should be required to take a basic course which shows that you know how to manipulate the gun and put the rounds where they need to go, instead of not knowing what buttons and levers do what, and not being able to hit the broadside of a barn from the inside. No one should be able to just go buy a gun and then immediately start carrying it. That's reckless and dangerous. Taking a permit course helps new owners avoid novice mistakes and how to go about carrying a gun properly. 2. Lack of permits does in fact make it more time consuming. 5 seconds with a permit and that's all the officer needs to let him know that the group of people carrying guns down the street aren't felons. Just set them up so they can be scanned like a drivers license 3. Correlation does not equal causation. Given California's multi-ethnic background it has an extremely high gang population ( http://oag.ca.gov... ) compared to Kentucky https://www.fbi.gov... page 13 ) Kentucky has 0-2 gang members per 1000 and California has 6+. Not exactly a fair comparison, and your "findings" can easily be pinned on gang activity. And then you say guns are the only thing that can stop guns, and then give an example of how 3 unarmed men stopped a guy with a gun. And let's just not look at these shall we. http://www.washingtontimes.com... http://vineyardgazette.com... http://www.freep.com... I also distinctly remember the gunman at the Tuscon shooting being stopped by a man without a gun.
Open and Concealed Carry should be allowed in every state permit free.

1. Carriers that are required to obtain a permit only have to show BASIC levels of competence. Just because you know how to use and maintain your firearm properly doesn't mean that you are mentally stable. The most psychotic individuals seem sane until the light is upon them. 2. Lack of permits do not make it more time-consuming. Even with permits people still shoot people unlawfully and most LEO's still have to define a motive that the individual has for carrying a gun. Without a permit it would actually reduce time because they are cutting out the checking of the permit for authenticity and validation. It might take seconds to show a permit, but all LEO's ask why the suspect is carrying the gun, usually where they are going, and if they can examine the firearm. *In states like Kentucky, which doesn't require a permit to open carry, there was 47% ownership of fire arms in 2010. In that year they only had 116 gun murders. In California, a state that prohibits open carrying of a loaded firearm, they had 21% gun ownership with 1,257 gun murders. Regardless of population that is still a large number in and of itself. This statistic shows a basic correlation to: more guns=less gun murders. Also lets use scenarios that carrying firearms could have prevented tragedies. 1. Columbine- One student on campus carrying a firearm, concealed or not, could have stopped the perpetrators. 2. Sandy Hook- One armed teacher or security guard could have stopped him. 3. Aurora theater- one armed movie go-er could have hit him with at least one of his 10-16 rounds. These are three instances that people's lives could have been saved by just ONE person carrying a firearm. If five people had a firearm, they individually would have only gotten of a few rounds. Not the massive amounts they did. Also people forget that guns are the only thing that can stop a gun. There was an incident on a train a few days ago where three men subdued a man wielding an AK-47. The only way the subdued him was because his gun jammed. If it hadn't, they, along with the many others on the train wouldn't have survived. You cannot stop a gun with a knife, frisby, brass knuckles, ink pen, or even martial arts. If someone is firing a weapon, you are at the discretion of their aim. If more people carried guns, people would be less likely to try and commit these acts of violence.
Open and Concealed Carry should be allowed in every state permit free.

In this debate we will begin by talking about open carry. Open carry is the practice of carrying a weapon in plain view, not concealed, for personal safety. I am for this. I feel that if you can pass the background check to buy a firearm legally, you should be able to carry a weapon as the Second Amendment gives us the rights to bear arms to protect ourselves from an oppressive government and those who seek to do us harm. Here is Ky policy on open carry. This statement statement is about what is justified to use deadly force by the Louisville Metro Police. This is basically outlining when someone would need to use their weapon. Also we will talk about what carrying guns in places could have prevented in our nation. 9.1.2 DEFINITIONS (CONTINUED) Deadly force: Force, which the officer knows to create a substantial risk of causing death or serious physical injury. Head, neck, throat or clavicle injuries caused by an impact weapon of any sort can lead to death or serious physical injury. Reasonable belief: When facts or circumstances the officer knows, or should know, are such to cause an ordinary and prudent officer to act or think in a similar way under similar circumstances. Active aggression: A threat or overt act of an assault (through physical or verbal means), coupled with the present ability to carry out the threat or assault, which reasonably indicates that an assault or injury to any person is imminent. Serious physical injury: A bodily injury that: =623; Creates a substantial risk of death to the victim. =623; Creates a prolonged impairment of health or prolonged disfigurement. =623; Creates a prolonged loss or impairment of a bodily organ.
Open and Concealed Carry should be allowed in every state permit free.

I'm going to expound on my first argument a bit. All sources here : http://nation.time.com... Failing to require a permit to showing competence and ability with a firearm(s) is grossly irresponsible because the lack of said carrier's abilities can be an enormous public health concern. "According to a 2008 RAND Corporation study evaluating the New York Police Department"s firearm training, between 1998 and 2006, the average hit rate during gunfights was just 18 percent. When suspects did not return fire, police officers hit their targets 30 percent of the time." This is coming from a demographic that is REQUIRED to show ability with a gun on a regular basis in order to carry it. Allowing citizens to carry with no training is undoubtedly going to cause a higher rate of civilian casualties. These reasons alone should be enough to require a permit that shows competence of the carrier.
Who would win: Orca vs Hippo

Not only would most of your arguments, such as pointing out how I mentioned different gendered hippos, be greatly biased, but giving an advantage for one animal over the other is just wrong. Maybe it would be impossible to find a feasible fair playing field, but my point is that if the hippo had reasonable terrain features in its favor it would win. You say that, "What's the point of having bigger teeth?" What's the difference between a maximum of 4 inches of teeth in you over 1.6 feet of teeth in you? Second, you say that "If [o]rcas weigh more, they have more muscles than [h]ippos and are more durable." This make absolutely no sense, and you are assuming that more muscles mean more durability. Muscles need to be flexed to be the maximum "more durable" and muscles doesn't necessarily mean strength. If a lean, muscular football player and a heavy, fat football player ran into each other, what would be the end result? Why should I assume that "The [o]rca (I still don't know why you're capitalizing orca and hippo...) can swim better than a [h]ippo,"? And how would I know if all orcas are intelligent, and are capable of thinking up glorious battle strategies? Many of your statements are based off of assumptions; your situations are also based off of an unfair playing field. The facts presented here all tell that a hippo would win in a battle.
Who would win: Orca vs Hippo

"An orca's is 30 mph about, hippos can also have bursts of speed where they swim up to 30 mph." How is that an advantage for the Hippo. If they have the same speed, nobody has an advantage. "The bite force of an orca is approximately 1900 lbs psi (per square inch), and a hippo's is 1821 psi. However, we must realize that this psi was only measured from female hippos, as the male hippos were too aggressive to approach." I never said it had to be a male hippo. A female hippo is sufficient to qualify as a hippo. So far, they have the same speed and the Orca has better biting force. " An orca's longest set of teeth tend to be a mere four inches in comparison to the 1.6 FOOT canines that hippos have. One bite could win the fight for the hippo." What's the point of having bigger teeth? I see two problems with this argument. a) If the Orca has higher biting psi, it's more likely to kill the Hippo than vice verse since pounds are supporting the teeth to crush the Hippo. b) If Orcas weigh more, they have more muscles than Hippos and are more durable. I introduce a new argument. Maneuverability: The Orca can swim better than a Hippo. Since Orcas are intelligent, it could think of a battle strategy by moving into deeper waters where the Hippo can't run and would fail to swim properly. The Orca will then be faster and could swim over to the Hippo, bite it, and with its sheer weight, attempt to drown it. Lacking proper movement would result in an automatic liss.
Who would win: Orca vs Hippo

Just because an animal is heavier than another animal does not mean it would win in a battle. In water where hippos could gain footing, the battle would go in the hippo's favor. An orca's is 30 mph about, hippos can also have bursts of speed where they swim up to 30 mph. The bite force of an orca is approximately 1900 lbs psi (per square inch), and a hippo's is 1821 psi. However, we must realize that this psi was only measured from female hippos, as the male hippos were too aggressive to approach. An orca's longest set of teeth tend to be a mere four inches in comparison to the 1.6 FOOT canines that hippos have. One bite could win the fight for the hippo.
Luck Does Not Exist

Greetings, Con! Happy Debating!Definitions- Luck- fortune (whether bad or good) which occurs beyond one's control, without regard to one's will, intention, or desired result.Contention 1- Luck as a Fallacy- Luck is probability taken personally. The rules of probability and an avoidance of unscientific beliefs. The belief in luck is a result of poor reasoning or wishful thinking. A believer in luck who asserts that something has influenced his or her luck commits the "post hoc ergo propter hoc" logical fallacy: that because two events are connected sequentially, they are connected causally as well. In general: A happens (luck-attracting event or action) and then B happens;Therefore, A influenced B. More contemporary authors writing on the subject believe that definition of good destiny is: one who enjoys good health, has the physical and mental capabilities of achieving his goals in life, has good appearance, has happiness in mind and is not prone to accidents. Probability is only affected by confirmed causal connections. The gambler's fallacy and inverse gambler's fallacy both explain some reasoning problems in common beliefs in luck. They involve denying the unpredictability of random events: "I haven't rolled a seven all week, so I'll definitely roll one tonight". Luck is consistent with random walk probability theory.Contention 2- Where Luck is Irrelevant- Situation 1: Roulette- When you spin the wheel and toss the ball into it, there is no room for luck. All the variables exist, you just don’t know them. Look at it this way: The wheel starts in position X. The dealer then spins the wheel putting Y amount of energy into it. Take into account friction of all kinds and you will get Z result. It would be difficult to measure all these variables, but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist. Not knowing the variables exactly creates the illusion of chance. You could say with absolute certainty how a coin or die would land if you knew every variable there was to know. It would be simple math. Again, because it’s so difficult to discover these variables as precisely as needed, the illusion of luck is created.Situation 2: Motorcycle Stunt Driver-Now this whole jump is subject to the laws of physics. He needs at least X velocity to clear the jump and land on the adjacent ramp. He either has it or he doesn’t. It is cut and dry. There is no invisible “luck” factor that will magically show up and push his bike just a little bit farther to land safely on the ramp. He might come very close to not meeting that threshold of X, which would give the illusion of luck, but as long as he is over the required energy threshold he will make it. It doesn’t mater if he makes it by .00001, or 5+, all that maters is that he has >XIn conclusion we may now be able to visualize how luck is a fallacy when demonstrted in certain situations it becomes commonly used in.Luck is A Fallacy becausea) Probability is only affected by confirmed causal connections.b) The Laws of Physics and Luck are not quantitive. http://godlesspaladin.com... http://en.wikipedia.org...
Luck Does Not Exist

Today's debate is about whether or not luck exists. 1. Acceptance2. Main Definitions/Presentation of Main Argument3 & 4. Rebuttals5. Resolution/Closing ArgumentHint: Definitions can be used in other rounds besides R1Rules-No semanticsNo trollingNo profanityNo vulgarityViolating any of the rules results in immediate termination of the debate.The offending party will be the loser.
Resolved: Hurricane Katrina was likely a Conspiracy.

This debate is impossible to accept, if you wish to accept then please apply in the comments. If you accept without my approval, then you will automatically forfeit the entire debate.This debate shall be about whether or not Hurricane Katrina was a conspiracy. I would like to note that I do not actually believe this and this is just a debate I'm doing for fun.RulesNo TrollingFirst round is acceptance and definitionsRound 2 is Contentions. There are no rebuttles in this round.Round 3 is ReubuttlesRound 4 is Rebuttles and Conclusions.Burden of Proof Is Shared.A violation of any of these points will result in an automatic Forfeiture.likely-having a high probability of occurring or being true: very probable<rain islikelytoday> (http://www.merriam-webster.com...)Conspriacy-a secret plan made by two or more people to do something that is harmful or illegal (http://www.learnersdictionary.com...)
Violent video games desensitize individuals to real violence

Humans are fantastic at contextualizing things. We can experience roughly the same thing and treat the experiences completely differently based on a great understanding of the bigger picture. This holds true for violence in video games being different from violence in real life. To desensitize is a permanent effect to make them less able to react to a given situation. It actually occurs in real life. When people are the victims of real violence on a regular basis they actually do become desensitized from it. They employ an array of coping mechanisms as well as departmentalizing the violence. None of this occurs for video games because they are video games. They are placed in their proper context and do not illicit the same responses. >>Now, alluding to my first arguments, after playing the violent video games, the subjects had less of a response to the violent episodes. Therefore, they were desensitized. They were desensitized to violent videos and violent video games, not to "real violence". The same way we contextual video game violence we contextualize video violence. Your cited paper in round one established exactly this. >>It has been proven that people adapt after increased exposure to stimuli and become desensitized to it, so no matter what you can't argue that violent video games do no desensitize individuals to violence at all. Violent video games aren't violence. People understand this. It isn't real. Real violence desensitizes people to real violence as there are actual correlations between those who were victims and those who victimize others. Video games desensitize people to video games. However there's no good evidence that the latter has an effect on the former as well. Pixels aren't people and people understand this. >>The evidence supporting both your and my side is lacking, so there is no ways to say with a high degree of certitude that they do or do not have long term desensitization effects, however that is not what the proposition states. You are attempting to shift the burden of proof. I am not necessarily required to prove that violent video games don't desensitize people. However, I have repeatedly offered examples of cultures with significantly more violent video games and significantly less violent crime (Japan) to establish that the correlation fails at the most basic level and thus the topic is not only unproved but wrong. If you suggest that playing violent video games caused cancer it would suffice to show that there's no evidence for that to oppose your suggestion that it does. Voters should be swayed via arguments and to suggest that neither side proved it and therefore they should pick a winner at random is amusingly amusing. ----- >>I hope I didn't waste your time. I'm probably going to lose, but we'll see what the voters decide. X) You certainly didn't waste my time. I'm more than happy to debate you. You're probably going to win. In fact, voters would be crazy to vote for me. I've just finished playing a few hours of Counter Strike: Source so now I'm going to go murdering some people... starting with anybody who votes for me! Pwnd teh nub ftw!
Violent video games desensitize individuals to real violence

I concur with you argument that humans can contextualize violence am not suggesting that there is a direct correlation between violence and video games. This debate is based solely on the proposition that violent video games desensitize individuals to real violence. First, for my counterargument, I would like to define what it means to desensitize. dictionary.com 1.to lessen the sensitiveness of, or to reduce responses to external conditions or stimulation. Now, alluding to my first arguments, after playing the violent video games, the subjects had less of a response to the violent episodes. Therefore, they were desensitized. It has been proven that people adapt after increased exposure to stimuli and become desensitized to it, so no matter what you can't argue that violent video games do no desensitize individuals to violence at all. The evidence supporting both your and my side is lacking, so there is no ways to say with a high degree of certitude that they do or do not have long term desensitization effects, however that is not what the proposition states. One reason I go on debate.org is to see the opposite sides of issues. Thank you for providing such great information! Now I have a different perspective. I hope I didn't waste your time. I'm probably going to lose, but we'll see what the voters decide. X) -Paramountdesktop
Violent video games desensitize individuals to real violence

Long-term media violence effects on aggression result from the development, overlearning, and reinforcement of aggression related knowledge structures. Each time people are exposed to violent video games, they rehearse aggressive scripts that teach and reinforce vigilance for enemies (i.e., hostile perception bias), aggressive action against others, expectations that others will behave aggressively, positive attitudes toward use of violence, and beliefs that violent solutions are effective and appropriate. Therefore, repeated exposure to graphic scenes of violence is apt to be desensitizing. http://www.apa.org...