BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Macroevolution is a theory, not a scientific fact.

I guess you will use the word hypothesis then? Agreed, the other word then is "scientifi fact" ok?Well, you say that microevolution (evolution on a much smaller scale) can be observed, well that _is_ macroevolution (belief that animals from different vertebrate groups had a common ancestor) which is a subset of evolution (belief that all life had a common ancestor) on a much smaller scale.So if we can observe smaller scale macroevolution, and expand it to a bigger scale, we get macroevolution.
Macroevolution is a theory, not a scientific fact.

hypothesis: "a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts." We use macroevolution as an explanation for the diversity of life. We cannot observe macroevolution in action, but we can observe microevolution, evolution on a much smaller scale. Therefore, while macroevolution is a hypothesis, it is far from confirmed.
The British Government should provide all adult males with free beer vouchers

Heart disease is by far the biggest killer of men in the UK (1) yet the latest research proves that "drinking alcohol every day cuts the risk of heart disease in men by more than a third." (2) Since heart disease in men costs the National Health Service (NHS) ï¿½15.5 billion a year (3) and there are approximately 24 million men in the UK (4) that means the Government spends ï¿½625 per year per man on treating heart disease. Now, if heart disease were reduced by a third a year that would mean the NHS would save ï¿½188 per year per man which they could then pass on. I suggest this payment should be in the form of beer vouchers rather than cash to prevent any effeminate types wasting the money on clothes or toiletries. This way, men would be happier and healthier and would live and work longer which means they would pay more tax. Furthermore, the NHS would save a fortune and would be able to free up extra beds in the process. Finally, new jobs would be created in breweries and pubs thus providing yet more income tax receipts to further swell the Government's coffers. In short, under my scheme, everyone's a winner and I therefore urge you to vote Pro in favour of free beer vouchers for all British men. Thank you. (1) http://news.bbc.co.uk... (2) http://news.bbc.co.uk... (3) http://news.bbc.co.uk... (4) http://www.direct.gov.uk...
Resolved: Burritos Taste Better than Tacos; (2 rounds, .5k Characters)

But, Burritos have only been on this planet since the twentieth century. And Tacos are never overrated knowing they are an "ethnic snack" and the burrito is merely a twentieth century "innovation". To eat a burrito you have to be very hungry whereas when you are eating Tacos, 1 can be a snack and 3 can be a meal. And I found a song! :D http://www.youtube.com...And another pretty picture! Doesn't that look nice? Sources Cited~http://www.diffen.com...~
Resolved: Burritos Taste Better than Tacos; (2 rounds, .5k Characters)

But when I talk about burritos, I'm not talking about your average burrito: I'm talking about those awesome burritos you'd find at Chipotle. Now, my friends! THAT is a burrito.And to prove how tasty burritos are compared to those overrated tacos, have a look at the legacy of the Burrito! No other food would have tales and songs written about it, as I have shown here!http://www.youtube.com...Burritos have more quality. Rook to F8.Burritos taste better than tacos. Checkmate.Kiitos.
Resolved: Burritos Taste Better than Tacos; (2 rounds, .5k Characters)

I accept this challenge!Burritos, may be yummy, I will give you this. But, TACOS are delicious! I'm not talking those wimpy tacos from Taco Bell, no I'm talking classic, handmade, juicy, spicy pork tacos. I have this place I go to every other day or so for such tacos and usually devour my meal with in 1-5 minutes of the plate hitting the table. Ladies and gentlemen THOSE are some Tacos. Makes me hungry just thinking about how juicy and tender those are. Burritos are good, Tacos are Fantastic!
Resolved: Burritos Taste Better than Tacos; (2 rounds, .5k Characters)

Burritos are tastier than tacos. Checkmate.But really, friends. Look at my buddy, Bubba, how much he likes burritos. Can you argue with this? http://www.youtube.com...Yes, look here. If Bubba likes burritos so much compared to tacos, then we must all agree that burritos are tastier than tacos, regardless of personal preference, correct?Need more evidence? Everyone agrees with me!(poll:http://www.ign.com...)
The Kalam Cosmological Argument Is Sound

Okay. So what if the Universe is finite than that means the initial state was also finite. The very nature of a universe that has a beginning means that in the materialistic context there at one point was nothing as Dr. Craig defines it. Therefore both of your scenarios support P1 and an individual is not rational in the rejection of P1. If something has come into existence it must have been caused by another "something" as defined in P1 0f the KCA. Yes, Your principles can be treated like axioms or postulates and thus can be treated like a syllogism. Here's the thing God could fit that "something" because God is "something". Some of your principles may contradict theism but of course, The context would have to fall within the view of materialist while God would fall into the view of an Idealist. God (At least the Christian one) would be disembodied in regards to the matter of this universe. When Dr. Craig says that science and experience confirm P1 his is saying that nothing pops into existence from nothing and that confirms P1. P1 is confirmed. My opponent agrees with P2 and thus P3 follows logically and thus the argument is sound.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument Is Sound

Hello and thank you for a response. Some of what you write here seems to address P2. But because the ontology of this debate is on P1 I will continue my defence. Point (b) doesn't get rid of P1. In his deeper defence of the KCA, Dr. Craig points the evidence from cosmology that makes it more likely than not that the Universe is not past eternal therefore pointing to an initial state that would mark either the "coming into existence phase or the first phase following the coming into existence. (I think this debate would be better if we discussed P2 instead of P1. ) Your syllogism may contradict some forms of theism just not Christian Theism and if you would like I can explain why. What Dr. Craig argues is that P1 one is confirmed by common experience and scientific evidence not that in of itself it justifies belief in Theism. Therefore your conclusion is unjustified. P1 one is still sound and the argument adoptable
The Kalam Cosmological Argument Is Sound

I am glad for the posting of this debate the KCA was one of the first arguments I seriously examined when going through my period of doubt (I'm a Christian). Some time ago I made a similar argument but it was never accepted and thus no debate occurred. From reading your argument I postulate that your main problem with the KCA is the first premise and thus I will focus my defence of P1 of the KCA. Dr. William Lane Craig (the main popularizer 0f the argument) among others such as Dr. Frank Turek offers a great serious on this argument I invite you to look into it (you can find it on youtube). I have three reasons why P1 is more probably correct than false. 1. Something cannot come from nothing 2. If something can come into being from nothing, Then it becomes inexplicable why anything and everything doesn't come into being from nothing. 3. Common experience and scientific evidence confirm the truth of Premise 1. Hope you respond and thanks for the topic.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument Is Sound

The KCA is: P1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause P2: The universe began to exist C: Therefore, The universe has a cause The argument is clearly invalid, Because even if whatever begins to exist has a cause that would not mean that whatever began to exist had a cause. P1 only speaks about the present, So the conclusion does not follow from the premises. However I will not attack the argument in this way, We will assume that P1 means "whatever began to exist, Begins to exist, Or will begin to exist had, Has, Or will have a cause". My opponent will make his/ her argument right away in the next round. Because I am not making any arguments this round, My opponent will simply put ". . . " in his last round so we have the same amount of rounds to argue. Failure to do so will result in forfeit!
Social networking sites are harmful.

Hello and welcome back to the debate; Social Networking Sites are Harmful. EleaDEVILnor has tried but unsuccessfully to convince you other wise. Thank you. I will start with some facts I found whilst strolling the library. 200 University of Maryland students gave up online media as part of a new study in 2011. When asked how they felt during the brief disconnection, students' descriptions of frantic cravings for the technology, anxiety and jitters mirrored those typical of people going through withdrawal from drugs or alcohol. If people have become so addicted to social media, as the Maryland study suggests, it makes you wonder: Is social networking good or bad for us? Bad I say! We have always known that computer networks would destroy the world. We just thought they'd get super-intelligent first. Instead, we got social networks, which act as a stupidity X-ray. You suddenly see through the intelligent people your friends pretend to be to the LOL-ing Farmville players underneath. Some smart people decided to study these networks, and found that they're a big threat to society. At least the rise of those machines forced us to band together and do things. Debate closed. Thank you. EllieBub :) I enjoyed this debate EleaDEVILnor, you are a good component! EllieBub
Social networking sites are harmful.

I would like to say as much as children should be kept away from the computer it can be used for learning! Meaning that it is not all bad and that quote of what she said isn't right it is just a opinion no supporting evidence in that statement. As sad as it may be you say that some scientist thinks that it may be bad for your brain I want proof of this and if your going to say that. You have no evidence of this and I want proof if your going to say this. Many people may log on at home after they get home what if they forgot what their homework was you can't exactly go ring up your teacher and ask what the homework was you could just ask someone in your class online, so much easier than getting in trouble the next day. Many people believe that t.v's and to much computer can rot your mind and I fully back them up on that statement because it does but do people say the same thing with cell phones no they think it is good that you can text people without the worry of having to call them or walk down to them. Cell phones do most of the same things that social networking sites do like you can communicate with others, play games, make calls and listen to music, so why do people believe that cell phones are good but social networking sites aren't one of the only differences between the two is that cell phones are portable and you can get facebook on their for free. Surely if you think cell phones are good for you then social networking is to. I now rest my case.
Social networking sites are harmful.

As The 'Con' has said, I didn't say they 'allowed' people 10+, but 13, honestly, I know that people go on when they are 9- / +! It is disgraceful! Social networking websites are causing alarming changes in the brains of young users, an eminent scientist has warned. Sites such as Facebook, Twitter and Bebo are said to shorten attention spans, encourage instant gratification and make young people more self-centred. The claims from neuroscientist Susan Greenfield will make disturbing reading for the millions whose social lives depend on logging on to their favourite websites each day. But while the sites are popular - and extremely profitable - a growing number of psychologists and neuroscientists believe they may be doing more harm than good. Educational psychologist Jane Healy believes children should be kept away from computer games until they are seven. Most games only trigger the 'flight or fight' region of the brain, rather than the vital areas responsible for reasoning. Sue Palmer, author of Toxic Childhood, said: 'We are seeing children's brain development damaged because they don't engage in the activity they have engaged in for millennia. 'I'm not against technology and computers. But before they start social networking, they need to learn to make real relationships with people.'
Social networking sites are harmful.

I would like to point out that my opponent has said that social networking sites allow people at 10+, that is a lie sites have restricted people to be at least 13 to be allowed onto these sites and that is because 10 year olds wouldn't know what to do if strangers tried to be friends with them or if they became cyber-stalked and that is because they wouldn't be responsible or mature enough to know what to do in that situation. You also said that people do get harmed form cyber bullying so your saying that everyone that gets bullied on the Internet goes how do I put it crazy? you are just putting it out there that you wouldn't be ashamed to say that someone has gone crazy to many people. harmful shouldn't really be the word used to define social networking sites but then again no word would really suit. When you are on social networking sites you can do many things that are good like talk to friends and family without a problem, or share photos from another country. facebook or titer can be used to say in touch with people all around the world for free or you could just call them for say $1 per minute if they're on the other side of the world, then again it would be nice hearing their voice but they'll hear yours when you get the phone bill, but meh that doesn't matter you could just go on facebook and talk to them. That would be so much easier, guess what else it is.... easy to use for all those technology challenged people simple like a wave of a wand or a swish of the wrist.
Social networking sites are harmful.

こんにちは、 と議論へようこそ。 Hello, and welcome to the debate, Social Networking sites are harmful. Yes they are harmful. I think Social Networking sites are very harmful from cyber bullying. It is absolutely atrocious the amount of people who get cyber bullied. We now live in a digital age, when being wired in seems as normal as breathing. Social networking Websites like Facebook and MySpace cashed in on the computer-toting generation by creating online 'social graphs' that allow younger (10+) to socialize in cyberspace. Now, with thousands of professionals flocking to these sites as well as to business applications like LinkedIn, some feel it's becoming necessary to use social networking sites to stay fresh in a new age of business interaction. The evidence to substantiate this notion, however, is small. Though the number of professionals connecting online surged recently, social-networking sites remain inadequate for successfully making new business contacts.. Unless you've already made previous contact, it's difficult to discern with who you are really dealing with. The computer screen, after all, offers little more than a rï¿½sumï¿½ with a head shot. Social-networking sites prove more of a distraction than a useful tool. The inundation of friend requests and insignificant news feeds on sites like Facebook eat up valuable time that could be spent solidifying contacts in person. "The most effective networking is face to face," says Stanford business professor Jeffrey Pfeffer. "There's no substitute for real human contact. It's less personal online." Plus, sometimes a level of cyber-anonymity is more convenient than total Web exposure. While sites like LinkedIn and others allow old colleagues, acquaintances, and business clients instant access to your contact info, it might be more hassle than help to sift through uncensored blasts from the past. A good old-fashioned handshake or happy-hour cocktail will do more to seal the deal than any MySpace profile or open e-vite. This may be the digital era, but successful business networking online remains a thing of the future.
Social networking sites are harmful.

Social networking sites are claimed as harmful to people but then why do they still use them. My reasons are as follows: 1. One of the most effective ways to promote your work, organization, or even themselves through social networking sites. There are enough places, such as Linked in and MySpace, where you can promote your business, organization, society and individual talents. The first advantage is that social networking sites will assist in the launch of a comprehensive strategy to promote the brand. 2.Social networking websites to promote friendship, take a break, travel partners, and even a spouse. The main idea is to create a platform where people from counties and cultures can meet and share a part of their lives with other people. "Social networking sites like Orkut, Hi5, Facebook, and has a lot of popularity because people preferred to forget their man-made boundaries and reach approximately a person in a particular community or site. Meanings of words used to describe this topic: Social networking: 'the development of social and professional contacts; the sharing of information and services among people with a common interest.' Good:'excellence or merit' Harm:'physical injury or mental damage' Going off those meanings I would say when people say that 'social networking sites do more harm than good' that if their children or brothers, sisters even go on social networking sites that they are saying that either they have been physically harmed by social networking or they have been mentally harmed which would cause them to go slightly loopy and they wouldn't be able go on the site. So how do you define 'harm'.
Let it be resolved that the state is evil

Con can claim that the state is not evil but there is nothing to substantiate this claim. I have outlined exactly why the state is evil; con has simply asserted this is not so. This is because the state uses aggression. As I mentioned previously the state threatens us with coercion in order to obtain revenue. You cannot assert this is good without also asserting that it is more broadly right in general to use violence to obtain revenue - something which only a criminally insane person might do. Your argument is frankly contradictory and lazy. You claim that government is good because it wages war. This is an absurdity. Who can claim that war is good? At most you can claim it is a necessary evil. But to claim it is good? But of course this is what happens when instead of trying to formulate an argument you simply try to change a few words and subvert another's argument. The notion that without a state child pornographers, rapists et. all would run rampant is ridiculous. At least though you have now taken the trouble of formulating an argument, so you deserve some very partial credit. In fact a stateless society, one which fundamentally outlaws aggression, one which completely criminalizes the initiation of violence, would be far better off when it comes to moral crimes like this. A stateless society would have ways to deal with these people, far more effective means than the present government monopoly on justice. And how exactly are the insane going to repress anyone? They're insane. You have to have significant power to repress someone; such as the power of the state. You cannot cure an economic crises by altering taxes - although lowering them would help, not that any government is ever going to start stealing LESS of our money. Instead you must allow the market to recover - something which governments seem incapable of doing. Instead of curing economic crises they worsen them. The state is evil. It is evil because it uses violence and the threat of violence (coercion) to bend others to it's will. These are the evil actions of an evil organization.
Let it be resolved that the state is evil

Pro has undoubtedly twisted the logical fallacy of assumption to benefit their own needs and falsely assert their apparent views.This incredulous vessel shall now do the exact same via using the framework of logic set out in the round two of pro's debate but replacing specific word within the frame of logic to display that using pro's logic one could equally refute their claim."Morality exists objectively. It does not matter how many people think it is moral to claim the state to be evil; claiming the state to be evil is wrong. Even if everyone in a society thought it was okay to claim the state to be evil that would not mean that it is okay to affirm in a formal debate resolution. The government uses aggression against all of us. It is quite simply the largest and most successful anti-criminal organization in any given society. The government makes laws for others to obey, but they do not follow the laws that they make. Governments use violence. Not being violent is evil. Look at war! Waging a war of aggression is quite simply the least evil, the most moral thing that anyone can ever do (aside, perhaps, from genocide). Every single war has been waged by a government. This institution is good, beautiful to the core.Without governments, we would never be free to produce what we wanted including child pornography, genuine rape videos for entertainment and killing sports arenas or to spend our money as we pleased. There would be no one spying on us apart from those who fancied to do it and now had no state/government to stop them, no one preventing the insane from repressing us. No one to convince us to go to war to kill each other apart from anyone who happens to be persuasive at any given time. As the not so great philosophers 'The Offspring' once said 'In a world without leaders, who'd start all the wars?'. The answer being anyone who wanted to fight for bringing leadership of states back.Governments actively prevent and seek to cure any and all economic crises by altering taxes, forcing the poor to not have too low income to starve and helping people help each other sufficiently in order to finance all of our preposterous and criminal activities. They impose practical conditions on all of us, regulate every aspect of our economy, makes laws which make criminal virtually all actions an individual can take and profit off the misery of others... Even though profiting from the misery of others is actually what criminals do.The state is not evil."Herein lies pro's flaw:If pro chooses to complain that con has supplied no evidence for my claims, they accept that their claim is equally deserving of this complaint since they supplied no evidence.If pro chooses to attack con's line of logic, they inherently attack their own as all con has done is use the exactly identical framework that pro used in round two but merely changed the specifics to fit their case.If pro chooses to take back all they said and rephrase this will be adding new points in the last round of a debate which is very bad conduct.There is, unfortunately, no way for pro to win.