BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
RE:RE Agriculture was mankind's biggest mistake

My opponet claims that not all hunter gatherers was nomatic, but the fact still remains, the vast majority was nomatic, and we are talking about humanity, not a select population. The reason for humanity spreading across the globe was because of the vast majority of humanity consisted of nomatic tribes. Diseases are not Directly related to Agriculture, they are directly related to previous diseases which has mutated in order to survive, such as the h1n1 virus. Humanity did not overpopulate due to agriculture, humanity overpopulated due to lust. The Bushmen of Africa is a great example. According to Chamleon Safaris 1,300 Bushmen children are treated at their life line clinics each year; 75% of the Bushmen children they treat are malnourished. Obiouslly the Bushmen children's parents didn't care if there was enough food, before they decided to add to the population.My opponent said, "When there is not enough food to go around, people die of hunger.", but it does not reach that point untill food is already scarce, and the entire population is malnourished. As my opponent said, "Agriculture was first developed in places where there was enough game to support a larger population", hence they was forced into it, rather than starve. My opponent claims that pointing out Anthropologists found traces of cannibalism, which antropoligits believe is due to food shortages prior to ariculture, is somehow bias, and irrelivant. I disagree, there is no bias, in pointing out that paleolithic humans had to resort to eating each other due to lack of food.Also I noticed pro failed to recognise that the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, and the American Academy of Family Physicians, both agree that high protein diets, such as in the paleolithic era, are bad for your health, and that too much Meat especially is bad for your health. This would mean Physicians are against the Hunter Gatherer lifestyle, because it poses health risks. Conclusion;Physicians agree that the Hunter Gatherer lifestyle is bad for one's health, and poses the risk of food shortages, according to Anthropologists . Both me and my opponent agree that the reason for the agricultural revolution was because of the lack of food. The vast majority of hunter gatherers was nomatic, which limits the progress of society; for example the stone age didn't end untill after the neolithic revolution. Hunter gatherers often went to war over food, and this lead to the extinction of many other homo species, such as homo neanderthalensis. Homo Sapiens are the only species of homo to survive past the paleolithic era, and into the neolithic era.
RE:RE Agriculture was mankind's biggest mistake

Prior to the Neolithic Revolution, mankind was Hunter Gatherers, and without Agriculture man would have not been able to settle in a single location, the Crow Indians is a perfect example how how hunter gatherers must remain nomadic to survive. Over the course of this debate I will discuss how Nomadic Hunter Gatherers could never have achieved the same quality of life we have today, and how the competition for food would have been disastrous for a growing population.
RE:RE Agriculture was mankind's biggest mistake

Pro will have to prove that the invention and use of agriculture was dis-beneficial and made life worse than before the agricultural revolution (before 10,000 BCE). Pro will also have to show how humanity would still be-able to survive without the invention and use of agriculture. Con will have to prove that the invention and use of agriculture was beneficial and made life (the quality of life) better after the agricultural revolution (10,000 BCE to today) and acceptance and use of agriculture either as whole regions or individual areas. Con will also have to prove that humanity would not have been able to survive entirely or as the dominate species without the invention and use of agriculture. Terms: Agriculture: The domestication of plant or species for use and convenes of humans (farming, herding, genetic altering, etc.) Humanity: all human beings collectively; the human race; humankind. Not a religious debate in anyway I have already debated this twice and it is a extremely varied subject and for the last two debates I have been mainly addressing three major points, so for this debate I will let Con make the choice of either continuing the broad subject or focusing on one pacific aspect. First round is for acceptance and to tell what choice only; argument and rebuttals on following rounds Previous Debates: http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org...
Rap Battle!

I'm sorry, but I can't do this debate. My opponent has clearly broken three different rules. I clearly said in rule one that it has to be a cover, and my opponent says they will do an original. In the same rule I said we have to see your face, and my opponent said no. I also said in rule four that I don't want people to be unknown to this site, but my opponent has been a part of this website for two days. As he has clearly broken three rules that were clearly stated in the acceptance round, my opponent should be disqualified. thank you.
Rap Battle!

Hello! My name is cheesedingo1, and I am ready to rap. So anyone who would like to throw down and rap. Here are some rules to clarify: 1. You will have to video record yourself doing a rap cover of a song. It can be any song, but it has to be a cover, and we have to see yo face and such. 2. You have to pick a different artist each time. Don't act like "I'm gonna pick Lil' Wayne all three times cause he's the best rapper ever!!!!!!111!!!! OMGMOMGOMGOMG". Yeah. Don't do that. None of that. 3. You don't have to have good recording equipment or anything. This battle isn't about the quality of the sound equipment, it's about the quality of the rapping. 4. Please don't be a noob to this site. You can be a noob rapper, I know I am. In fact, it's better if you are a noob rapper so there is some actual competition. Just don't be an unknown to the site that will quit before the rappin' even starts. To whoever accepts this, I want to say thank you, and good luck.
Why Black people should be enslaved

Black people should not be enslaved, because we have unenslaved them, and they do not deserve to be reenslaved. They are great people with a great culture and we no longer need them to our work, because we have more sufficient machinery and they have good jobs and they're having fun with their families and slavery was a massive violation of civil rights. We no longer have it because there is a thing called progress. Slavery was a disgusting practice, we no longer have it, and we are the better for that.
Gallbatorix vs Naruto

In the Eragon series it eventually is found ut that one who is skilled enough does not need to use words to perform magic. Having said this, Gallbatorix is easily skilled enough to use magic at this level, and as soon as the thinks it it would be done. My opponent has already admitted it would take Naruto afew seconds to turn loose the demon fox. While Naruto is doing this, as soon as Gallbatorix were to think it. Naruto would be dead. Thus giving Gallbatorix the victory.
Gallbatorix vs Naruto

Gallbatorix would be able to behead Naruto before the Nin tailed fox could come out. As soon as the battle starts he does this to naruto which also kills the demon. It would take several seconds for Naruto to release the demon. Also realistically Naruto might hesitate to release the demon. He has always fought the demon for control over his body even though it has helped him in the past. On the opposite side, Gallbatorix is cold blooded. He would not hesitate to kill anyone in his way.
Gallbatorix vs Naruto

2 situtations on how the fight would go down between Naruto and Gallbatorix. Moment the fight starts-Gallbatorix uses magic similar to that of shadow possession jutsu except that he can move freely and Naruto can't move at all. He then walks up and snaps Narutos neck. Second way-Moment the fight starts-Gallbatorix uses magic to seperate Narutos head from his body as though he himself had done it. These are both possible since Naruto does not have any magical wards that would be required to protect him from Gallbatorixs Also, all the afformentioned magics are easily within Gallbatorixs power.
The United States was founded as a Christian Nation

You said the America is the first country not to be founded on a religion witch is true unlike England the church did not run the country but the founders wanted the country to be founded on Christian beliefs. As Patrick Henry a sighner said and I quote " It can not be emphsized to strongly or to offten that this great nation was founded not by religionist but by Christians not on religion but the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum prosperity and freedom of worship here. " in Patrick Henrys will and testament to his children he says " The religion of Christ witch will make them rich indeed. " The Paris Peace Treaty of 1783 the document that ended the American Revalutuonary War when the US sighed and became a nation they sighed "in the name of the holy and undivided Trinity. The Treaty ends with "The Year of our Lord" .
The United States was founded as a Christian Nation

My opponent gives quotes from two Founding Fathers, again without citing. I have cited my source for why Benjamin Franklin was a Deist. I have also pointed out that the Founding Fathers used Christian dialogue as a political method, which my opponent drops. Let me elaborate. It was considered improper at the time to not be Christianity, as it still is today. For example, President Obama was almost not elected based on the mere rumor that he was Muslim, despite his professing to be a Christian on numerous occasions [1, 2, 3]. My opponent did not cite her/his arguments, but we can certainly assume that there was good reason for Benjamin Franklin to have spoken as if he were a Christian. The quote from George Washington only states that relgious ought to use the Bible as a moral text, much like an ethical textbook. This does not mean that Washington supported a Theocracy, or even an official religion. Even if Washington and Franklin were Christian (no sources remember), that still doesn't matter. My opponent dropped the important arguments, like: 1. The United States isn't a Theocracy 2. The United States claim to be the first nation without an official religion. 3. The Constitution does not allow people to take a religion test to be elected (meaning that non-Christians were officially as welcome a Christians). My opponent dropped all of those arguments. Let me also add that neither the Constitution of the United States nor the Constitutions of any states nor the Declaration of Independence nor other official United States documents claimed to support Jesus Christ specifically. James Madison also supported the United States not being religous, no matter what religious majority was in power [4] [1] http://mediamatters.org... [2] http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com... [3] http://urbanlegends.about.com... [4] http://atheism.about.com...
The United States was founded as a Christian Nation

One of the letters frome Ben Frankland sent to Ezra Stiles says and I quote "Here is my creed : I Believe in one God Creator of the universe. That he governs it by his providence. That He ought to be Worship" and that came from one of the least religions founding fathers. Even though he says later that he starts to doubt Jesus Christ divinity he also says that he completely agrees that the morals of Christ are the best and he also only said that he had SOME doubts not that he wasn't a Christian or he completely doubted. Pluses George Washington said " It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the bible
The United States was founded as a Christian Nation

This is a speed debate. We each have only one hour, so forfeits are understandable and not resignations (though they are very disadvantageous). My opponent says that the United States is a Christian nation. Nations that subscribe to a particular religious system are called "Theocracies." The United States is certainly not a theocracy. 1. The United States, according to one article, claims to be the first nation without an official religion. 2. The Constitution prohibited any religious testing to gain office. 3. Diverse religious freedoms, not specifically Christianity, is protected by the Constitution in the First Amendment. Founding Fathers 4. Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson were deists [2] 5. John Adams became a Unitarian [2] Rebutals: My opponent gave no source for her/his statistics. However, even if they were true, this would only reflect the fact that the majority of the Founding Fathers happened to be Christian, not that the United States was "Founded as a Christian Nation." In fact, as I pointed out the Constitution explicitly forbade the United States to be founded on any one religion, which was a radical decision at the time. While certainly some Christian values were considered in founding the nation, these were seen as private and personal, rather than public and official policies. Additionally, while Christian verses were used in public, this was simply the way politics works at the time: the Bible was an easy literary reference. Thanks to my opponent! [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.britannica.com...
Emphasis In The Word "Bagel" Should Be Placed On The "A"

Okay, you've just given me so many things to argue at once I don't even know where to start... 1. I didn't call Americans lazy. I have no idea where you got that. 2. What do my personal beliefs have to do with bagels? It was a cheap shot and you know it. 3. You say my argument doesn't bring up bagels? Look at yours! Your round four argument has nothing to do with the topic anymore you just went on a rant about some crazy senator from the fifties. 4. Socialist, Communist, potato, patato. And no, potato, potato will not be then next thing we're arguing about. 5. "socialists need not be fears" Bro, get your grammar right! 6. Bravery and strong will huh? How bout their skill at thievery? I mean, nobody else has figured out how to legally still millions from people. 7. Me unsophisticated? You were the one who brought up McCarthy in a discussion about bagels. 8. Again, how dare you say bless America, You Commie! 9. You want everyone to talk the same? What's next? should we all look the same too? Oh yeah, I forgot, we're all supposed to have the same amount of money: $0. 10. Fallacies? Me! Have you seen your arguments? 11. Everyone, please vote no if only for the fact that nor has clearly gone off his rocker in this last round and that the most sane debater deserves to win. Remember to vote no :) Thanks- SirPrinceAndrewIII
Emphasis In The Word "Bagel" Should Be Placed On The "A"

First and foremost, you aren't making America look very good. At the beginning you say you're lazy- isn't that just confirming a stereotype many people think about Americans? Second, if you didn't want you personal beliefs attacked, you shouldn't have made an account on this website, where people argue over who's right and wrong. Suck it up. I hate to play the fallacy card, but I find it irresistible. You committed the ad hominem fallacy. You are attacking me as a person and avoiding the actual topic. In your entire Round 3 Argument, you bring up bagels only once. Your blatant emulation of Senator McCarthy from the 1950s is unbelievable. To those of you who do not know about this part of American history, Sen. Joseph McCarthy was a staunch anti-communist in the '50s who accused thousands of being communists. This ruined the careers and lives of the accused. Furthermore, I am not a communist. Socialism isn't nearly as radical and there are many countries today that prosper under socialist rule. This "SirPrinceAndrewIII" character is a dangerous man who, like McCarthy, claims socialists and other radicals cannot be true Americans. The United States of America were created for those who were persecuted and it doesn't make any sense to accuse those of having different ideas of being un-American. Socialists need not be fears, rather embraced and noted for their bravery and strong will. To the bagel issue I say this: You have seen the arguments put forth by myself and my opponent. I believe that by following a universal English language dialect, we can overcome the problem, and people will eventually call bagels baygels instead of the baggels they aren't. I urge you, I beseech you, and beg of you: don't let the unsophisticated pronunciation of baggels uproot society like it has. If we work together as one nation, along with the help of the Anglophonic peoples the world over, we can stop the madness. Vote for the "baygels," to prove you are a true English speaker. Bless America and the English language, protect it from the foul and corrupt mispronouncers and keep the reference books sacred. Thank you for your support and may the baygles prosper, nor87.
Emphasis In The Word "Bagel" Should Be Placed On The "A"

I didn't cite it because I'm lazy like that. And no, you can't make fun of my source and say that it's not valid, the authors of dictionary.com themselves said it. http://blog.dictionary.com... And stop giving me all this garbage about logical fallacies. Geeze. You sound like a 10th grader in an Advanced English class. Furthermore, the attack on my personal beliefs are an uncalled for cheap-shot, not to mention the disclaimer that I put in the about-me section. But... if we're going to play it that way... I would like to point out that nor is firmly a Socialist! It can be found in his Big Issues opinions. Nothing is more unamerican than Socialism, at least anarchism is consistent with America's long standing, "screw the man!!!" attitude. Socialism practically hops into bed with him! So how dare you say BLESS AMERICA you uncultured swine! Now my fellow Americans, if you fear Socialism and its, "lets all be poor together" attitude, if you fear The Man and his control over your everyday life, VOTE bag-el, the true American way! Thanks again, SirPrinceAndrewIII - a real American
Emphasis In The Word "Bagel" Should Be Placed On The "A"

Another fallacy in his last argument. The noticeable error is his last sentence: "The larger a language and the larger the vocabularies of the people who speak it, the smarter the people are as a whole." First, I must ask Sir P. Andrew where this information came from. If this is truly a piece of linguistic neuroscience, then why is there no source? I believe this is a personal opinion and, therefore, logically unsound. Aside from attacking my opponent's argumentative construction, I would also like to point out that the un-unified dialects are only hindering human progress and society. The soul of this argument isn't just about "baggel" and "baygel," rather the underlying existential philosophy of accents. Some are correct and some are incorrect. Just as books don't have spelling or syntactical errors, thanks to reference guilds like MLA, CMS, and APA, our speech must also have a correct and incorrect styles. Lastly, I'd like to point out SirPrinceAndrewIII's political ideology. According to his profile page (as of 4:02 PM EST), he is an anarchist. This can also be seen in his opinion on bagels. In his last round he pointed out, "it's good to go against the grain and against those sacred [documents that keep humanity from collapsing into chaos]." Anarchists can be dangerous and harmful to society. As Thomas Paine once wrote, "society in every state is a blessing [and] government... is... necessary." Thank you and remember: think of bagels not as "baggels," but rather "liberty baygels." BLESS AMERICA AND ITS SWEET MORNING BAKED GOODS!!! -nor87
Emphasis In The Word "Bagel" Should Be Placed On The "A"

You talk about going against a dictionary like it's taboo or something. Do you know that over the past 30 years the variety of sentence structures and vocabularies of people speaking English has actually shrunk? In fact, the English language is shrinking faster today than it has at any other point in history. The reason for this: dictionaries and things like spell check. It's good to go against the grain and against those sacred dictionaries nor because it could help to bring more diversity to our language (The larger a language and the larger the vocabularies of the people who speak it, the smarter the people are as a whole). Remember to vote with me, for the little guy! Again, Thanks in advance, SirPrinceAndrewIII
Emphasis In The Word "Bagel" Should Be Placed On The "A"

Other than my opponent's blatant use of an anecdotal fallacy, using his personal dialect as his argument instead of addressing the actual problem with logic, he claims that dictionaries are inaccurate sources for English pronunciation. Without dictionaries to guide us, however, how are we supposed to effectively communicate? How can we all speak to each other and understand? Take the German language for example: There are many dialects of German, but speakers of the most prevalent accents, High and Low German, cannot understand what the other is saying. We experience this even in English (this is why the History Channel uses closed-captioning on Swamp Monsters), but not to the same degree as the Germans, probably because we have American dictionaries that provide pronunciations. This is why, if you look at any American dictionary, Merriam-Webster, Oxford, Cambridge, Macmillan, Collins- they all have the same pronunciations. Among these same pronunciations is the word "bagel."
Emphasis In The Word "Bagel" Should Be Placed On The "A"

In my regional dialect we pronounce it bag-el. Yes, like a paper bag with -el added on to the end. Now you may say this is technically incorrect because a dictionary will tell you that it's pronounced, "bay-gel." I beg to differ. What is the point of language other than to convey a message from one person to another? The pronunciation doesn't matter so long as the who I'm talking to understands what I'm talking about. So please, my fellow debaters, vote no and stand up to dictionaries and their "right ways and wrong ways" of pronouncing words. Please, respect the ways of my people and help us overcome this idea that the way we speak is incorrect just because it's different from that of common society. It doesn't matter how you personally pronounce it, stand up for the little guy, vote no. Thanks in advance, SirPrinceAndrewIII :)