BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Bullying is Worse Among Teens

Also, I am 16, I cannot really prove it. .. I guess from my photo you can tell that I'm roughly that old, but you'll just have to take my word. :-) I don't mean to give the impression that I think adults are bigger bullies than teens, I just believe that teens are not worse than adults. Here is the problems that I have with most studies on bullying: It is essentially impossible for an adult to be a bully because, for some reason, people always classify what should be classified as bullying by an adult, as something else. For example, if a 40 -year-old man beats his wife we call it "domestic abuse", yet if a twelve-year-old beats up a classmate we call it "bullying". They are the same thing, yet if you try to survey people they will show very different results. I have not seen a study that has empirically proven teens are more likely to be bullies yet. I really have no clue how to start this debate because I cannot find any evidence of anything, so there is nothing to say. It seems like you should start because the burden of proof would naturally fall on you right? It's not that I have evidence to back me up, its that I believe you do not have evidence to back your point up, and if neither of us can prove anything by the end of the debate, then we would have to assume teenagers are innocent, since we wouldn't have an data to suggest we are guilty of anything. Like in the court system, you are always innocent until proven guilty. Thanks :)
Bullying is Worse Among Teens

I will be glad to accept this challenge that you presented to the community. This topic is of particular interest as it would connect to the development of an adolescent and as an education major, I would like to get a different perspective of someone whose 16 years of age (if that is your real age). With that, I would like for you to start with whatever arguments you may have rather than going off with the impression that the severity of bullying with adults is more than an adolescent due to the lack of studies there are. With that, I anxiously await the key points in which my opponent will bring in Round II.
is the belief in a God/Creator more logical than the belief of scientific theory

I will be CON I claim that: It's possible that not all things necessarily require a beginning. Even if this were the case, the Big Bang didn't necessarily have to be the ultimate beginning of the universe. And even if THIS were the case, supporting evidence aligns with the Big Bang Theory far more than the suggestion of a divine, intelligent creator. If I can convince dear reader of any of these three points, it should more than suffice. Back to PRO!
is the belief in a God/Creator more logical than the belief of scientific theory

Can you clarify the other possibilities where something exists/ has existed without having a beginning of some sorts. Also although I am a believer in God my argument is not to prove Gods existence as this is impossible to "prove" its rather to prove that the God theory is the more logical theory of the two and that scientific theory is in turn more irrational, to believe something began is logical, its common sense, a theory that space, matter, atoms or anything else created themselves from nothing is surely more unrealistic than the belief that something created them, atheists tend to base there arguments againsts Gods existence on religious scripture rather than the actual fundamental belief in a creator of the universe.
Evolution is a lie.

My opponent forfeited the previous round, so I extend all my arguments. In addition, I will introduce one new one here. Contention 3: Microevolution has been demonstrated to exist. My opponent's resolution (and arguments) does not specify between micro and macroevolution. As both are forms of evolution, and the resolution calls evolution a lie, if I prove the existence of microevolution, I disprove the resolution. Microevolution refers to variations within a given type/species. John Morris lists natural selection as one example of microevolution, whereby undesired traits in a given species are weeded out [1]. Dog breeding is another example of microevolution. I also wish to refine my refutation to my opponent's first argument. People have taken issue with my examples because Harry Potter is still a fictional character. I was arguing against the reasoning behind my opponent's argument - that things that were not known at the beginning (where this is, I do not know) are lies. I do not believe this is a straw man fallacy, but in the event it is, I shall provide another example. We did not know about gravity (we knew we stuck to the ground but not why or the principles behind it) until it was studied, but that does not make gravity a lie. I hope my opponent returns for the third round! [1] http://www.icr.org...
Evolution is a lie.

I would like to welcome my opponent and extend my hopes for a great debate! My opponent's entire argument consists of two points, which I will now refute. 1. My opponent claims that evolution is a lie because it was never heard of until Darwin. There are significant problems with this argument. People had never heard of Harry Potter until J.K Rowling wrote the books. Does that make the books a lie? People had never heard of President Obama until he was born. Does that make him a lie? One of the primary purposes of science is to examine the unknown. To claim that anything resulting from that process is a lie undermines the entire purpose of making the unknown known. 2. My opponent claims that evolution is a lie because Darwin was at one point a creationist. Now, there is evidence that Darwin was a creationist and even used God as the explanation for evolution in his Origin of Species [1]. I will return to this point later in my argument. The main refutation needed here is that nobody is perfect. My opponent's argument that attacking creationists is the same as attacking Darwin is equivalent to attacking vegetarians because Hitler was a vegetarian [2]. This is not an invocation of Godwin's law - it is an accurate comparison because I am not comparing Hitler/Nazis so much as their criticisms. Just because people believe or believed one thing does not mean all their beliefs are negated, especially when they naturally change through research and education. Additionally, Darwin went out and studied. His own experiments changed his beliefs. Now I will begin with my own arguments. Contention 1: Evolutionism and the idea of God are compatible. Evolution does not inherently disprove the concept of God. God is an abstract concept; evolution is a well-supported theory. There are many theists (such as myself) who still believe in evolution [3]. But this is not a debate about the existence of God. Contention 2: Evolution is a well-supported scientific theory. Science has produced a staggering amount of evidence in support of evolution. A: Radiocarbon dating allows archaeologists to chronologically categorise fossils and the like based on isotopes [4]. B: Fossils serve as concrete evidence of our ancestors, as well as other organisms in the past, and we can see how we've changed since then [5]. Consider the linked example completing a Neanderthal genome or Lucy [6], the iconic example of an early hominid. C: Genetics allows scientists to study the uniqueness of each individual through DNA. DNA is essential to the study of evolution, as it demonstrates the differences and similarities between species. Consider the close relations between humans and chimpanzees, bonobos, and other primates [7]. I will save my other arguments for round 2. In the meantime, I look forward to my opponent's responses! [1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com... [3] http://nrcse.creighton.edu... [4] http://archserve.id.ucsb.edu... [5] http://www.nytimes.com... [6] http://www.amnh.org... [7] http://humanorigins.si.edu...
Evolution is a lie.

Evolution is a lie. Consider the fact that evolution was never heard of till darwin was born and before that and for years and years till the Enlgihtment when darwin was born creationism was consider a fact. Since the evolutionary agruement was that evolution is a fact that the idea of a creator is fairy tale is offen used. I will start round one in backlashing that evolutionary arguement. Since darwin created evolution ( evolution was never heard of before darwin arived. Hmm. Darwin was a man. At one point he belived in crationism. Saying creatiomism believers are stupid would be the same as saying Charles Darwin is stupid cause Charles Darwin was at one point a Creationist. So saying creatiomism is a lie and creationists are crazy, thats yourselves saying Darwin was crazy. So go ahead . Call your therorys founder crazy.
My Hypothetical Group of Dead Musicians is Better Than Yours.

The following shall be my line-up: Vocals -- Jim Morrison : . http://en.wikipedia.org... Guitar -- Frank Zappa : . http://en.wikipedia.org... Bass -- John Entwhistle : . http://en.wikipedia.org... Drums -- Keith Moon : . http://en.wikipedia.org... My opponent must now affirm, as PRO, his line up is better than mine.
My Hypothetical Group of Dead Musicians is Better Than Yours.

<"FORMAT/RULES: 1. In round 1 both debaters shall present their hypothetical band line-up. 2. All band members must be referenced by at least a Wikipedia source. 3. All band members will be generally recognised as dead. Conspiracy speculation will not be given credit, Tupac and Elvis are dead, Paul McCartney is not. 4. Bands must contain exactly four members and no more. 5. The band must include a drummer, a bass player, a vocalist and one other instrument. Musicians can also be singers and multi instrumentalists are allowed as long as these roles are permanently filled. 6. We will debate drummer vs. drummer, singer vs. singer etc. as well as discussing the group as a whole. 7. Con may choose to start debating in round 1 or wait for me to begin in round 2. 8. We will be considering the general talents, technical abilities, creativity, charisma, popularity, body of work, attractiveness and just about any other factor my opponent wishes (rights reserved) in discussing the merits of our bands and the individuals that comprise them. 9. Obviously in a debate like this, a lot of our points will be based on opinion but we should attempt to back up our opinions with reliable sources that reaffirm them."> Copy and pasted from: http://www.debate.org... -- it was obviously the idea of feverish, so yeah.. Mine: Drums: Keith Moon -- http://en.wikipedia.org... Bass: John Entwistle -- http://en.wikipedia.org... Guitar: Frank Zappa -- http://en.wikipedia.org... Vocals: Jim Morrison -- http://en.wikipedia.org... So, uh, yeah....
That our elders had it better than we do

to sum up, pro told us that this generation had it better, and brought valid things that happen in society today.However, at no point did pro prove to us that those things were important , necessary or better than what used to be in the past.I didn't disagree with what pro introduced us, I did however show that with every new thing that was introduced into our life, we actually created a more miserable society suffering from depression more often.I showed that we aren't really free to choose today either, and also that supposing we were, we would have so many options to choose from, we couldn't make the decision.
That our elders had it better than we do

Let's make it clear that I did define the topic, that "had it better" means having better lives and greater opportunities. First of all, I'd like to say that just because a job is listed on that website, doesn't necessarily mean it makes everyone miserable. Every person enjoys something different. One person might hate being a child care worker, whilst another might absolutely love going to work there everyday. And as to your question, why not be a milkman or a postman, haven't you seen all the postmen around, I don't know what country you live in, but there are a lot of postmen around, who do you think delivers the mail? And milkmen, that isn't really as much of a profession where I live, we don't have milkmen any more. But the other thing is, when our elders were around, they didn't have a choice what they studied, I have said this before and it is true. There may be studies today about what job is meant to make people the most depressed, but how do you know that when our elders were around, they weren't depressed as well. Survey's are an unreliable source, because the people who are likely to be happy with their professions, will not bother to participate. Also, as to current generations having better lives, there is a much better healthcare system in place now than there ever used to be. The mortality rate is lowering, meaning that people have a greater life expectancy. Mortality rates have declined because of new infrastructure, improved understanding of medical conditions and because of research and scientific advances. More information here... http://www.aihw.gov.au... Having a greater life expectancy improves ones life because they have the opportunity to achieve more during their lifetime. Instead of dying at 35, people are able to work longer, and then enjoy a retirement in their later years, if that is what they wish. You can better fulfil your dreams and desires when you have more time to achieve this.
That our elders had it better than we do

I want to make a distinction clear first. The motion is kind of vague and I will take it how I see it. "had it better" - in my opinion the criteria for better is based on how happy they were statistically speaking, and not necessarily if they had a job considered better than another job, or the like. the world in the past didn't have so many time consuming soul inhibiting jobs. Today, most people will work as waiters to get through college. A lot of people become accountants, and being able to do any job you want is not necessarily what makes you happy. http://www.health.com... here are jobs that make you the most miserable, notice that postman and milkman aren't in there. So why not be one? We do all have easier access to technology, and that's exactly the problem. Excessive technology causes depression, maybe you learn things faster, but is that really even close to the goal of you feeling self satisfaction and happiness? http://www.huffingtonpost.com... Furthermore, technology doesn't allow us to feel satisfaction as we used to. If in the past I was a writer in my area, I competed against people around me. I could be the best in my city and feel great about myself, feel I have found my meaning and my place in life. However, in today's world, you compete against the entire world, which is allowed by technology. Today it's much harder to feel your worth than it used to be, because you go online and you will surely find someone who is doing just what you are doing, but better. That makes people more depressed and makes modern society a lot harder to live in than past, technology free society. "Research repeatedly has demonstrated that suspension, expulsion, and other punitive consequences are not the solution to dangerous and disruptive student behaviors. In fact evidence, indicates that dangerous students do not become less dangerous to others when they are excluded from appropriate school settings; quite often they become more so." http://www.naspcenter.org... maybe schools will get it right one day, as of today, punishments are still not working and making things worse. I don't come to suggest that beating children is better, however today's solution is not much better than hitting the kids, it does not solve and worsens problems in problematic children. School has never and still isn't able to deal with misbehaved students, and so this change is very minor.
That our elders had it better than we do

Great, thanks for accepting. For round 2, I will be concentrating on education. First of all, today we have a much greater choice to do what we want with our lives than past generations did. If we want to be doctors, we can, if we want to be postman, we can, if we want to be secretaries, we can. What we do is no longer dictated by the restrictions placed upon us by our parents, we have greater freedom of choice. Women no longer have to stay at home, and just clean, cook, do the washing and act as their husbands slave or servant. Women can go to university and study courses such as engineering that, many years ago, have been considered "men's work". There is greater educational equality than there ever was for past generations. Secondly, we also have greater technology available to us for learning. Most everyone has a laptop or some form of technology to assist with researching assignments and homework. Instead of taking a trip to the library every time they needed to use the internet, as my parents had to, we turn on our laptop and the world, or at least Google, is at our fingertips. With the click of a few buttons, we can research whatever we want, can keep in touch with friends and family also. Lastly, we suffer less harsh punishments than our elders did. There's no threat of lashes from the cane if you incorrectly spell a spelling word, or if a maths problem is wrong. No teacher can bring the ruler down on our hands for making a mistake in our "copy book". Whilst punishments such as suspension, detention, rubbish duty and even expulsion are common in schools, these punishments don't negatively impact the physical health of the student that is being punished.
That our elders had it better than we do

I have tried this debate before, and my opponent accepted and never actually debated, so hopefully it will work better this time. Definition of the topic (just to make it clear): that past generations (ie. our parents, grandparents) had better lives and greater opportunities than current generations. I will be arguing that today we are better off than our parents, grandparents etc. and Con will be arguing that past generations had life better. Rules: 1. No swearing or anything like that. 2. This will be my first debate, so if I'm not the best opponent, sorry, I have debated in competitions in person before though. Round 1 will be acceptance of the debate and challenge. Round 2: initial arguments. Round 3: rebuttal and more arguments Round 4: rebuttal and summing up of arguments etc.
Flirting is unbiblical

"Yeah i know... I said there didn't need to be because she was created for him. You have dropped my arguments and failed." Myths are to establish behavior (1). Therefore the story of Adam and Eve is still relevant to us as believers (Romans 5, 1 Cor. . On top of that, you ignore the fact that when they were created, no flirting was involved and you failed to address these points: 1. Prov. 18:22 says "he who finds a wife.." Proverbs 19:14 "House and wealth are inherited from fathers, but a prudent wife is from the Lord." Throughout the Bible, it always speaks of people finding their wives or other half. No where is flirting mentioned. 2. "Flirting using "Christian " pick up lines and stuff like "if God wills it " can be deceiving if you're not serious and are only using that to show interest or avoid it. There's alot of faith, power, and godliness in those kinds of words and to use them in such a way on other believers just to spark superficial interest or let them down gently says alot about your spiritual maturity. Christians should never play around with the will of God and with the Bible." You failed to biblically refute these points and establish flirting as biblical. Sources: 1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Flirting is unbiblical

Let me point out that no where in the Bible does it mention flirting. The act of flirting is something that we see in our modern world, but not in Scripture. In ancient days, arranged marriages were practiced. Courtship was more of the norm than dating. The couple could not see each other until they were at the wedding. Family honor was also a vital factor. With that in mind, the culture of the Bible is far different from our own, thus we should take caution and draw influences from it. I now point out the verses in the Bible to demonstrate why flirting isn't biblical. I begin with Genesis 2:18 "18 The Lord God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him." God made a helper comparable to Adam's self, not focused on attraction, but on compatibility. Verse 23 expresses the closeness of both the man and the woman. Flirting does not build that closeness, it simply suggests it. Gen. 4:1 " Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, and said, "I have acquired a man from the Lord." In Hebrew thought, the act of knowing a person goes far beyond having sex, but giving yourself wholeheartedly to that person. Flirting doesn't build that level of personal relationship. Throughout the Bible, we find that it's based on marriage and teaches us what to look for in a wife. It teaches us the essence of personal relationships. We as believers should not mindlessly and immaturely copy the world's standards. We shouldn't use the Bible or church, etc. In flirting. It's not about whether or not they are good and attractive Christian guy or girl, it's about the power of Jesus Christ working in their life to make them more like him. It's about finding compatibility in them. Flirting using "Christian " pick up lines and stuff like "if God wills it " can be deceiving if you're not serious and are only using that to show interest or avoid it. There's alot of faith, power, and godliness in those kinds of words and to use them in such a way on other believers just to spark superficial interest or let them down gently says alot about your spiritual maturity. Christians should never play around with the will of God and with the Bible. That being said, Christians should focus on mature relationships built on the Word of God.
The Argument from Religious Experience

Thanks to Envisage for agreeing to debate this important - and relatively under discussed - subject with me. (In all likelihood some form of religious experience probably is what most theists take to justify their religious beliefs.) I will be arguing that the argument from religious experience can give significant epistemic justification for believing in the existence of God. Envisage will be attempting to undermine my argument and show that the argument form religious experience does not give significant epistemic justification for believing in the the existence of God.DefinitionsReligious experience - Religious experiences can be characterized generally as experiences that seem to the person having them to be of some objective reality and to have some religious import. That reality can be an individual, a state of affairs, a fact, or even an absence, depending on the religious tradition the experience is a part of. [1] A religious experience is veridical if what the subject took to be the object of their experience actually existed, was present, and caused them to have their experience in the appropriate way. [2] Obviously, in this debate, will be considering if the religious experience the subjects have are veridical. God - the supremely powerful, all-loving, personal ground of being. [3] Epistemic justification - S is justified in believing that p if and only if S believes that p on a basis that properly probabilifies S's belief that p. [4]RulesRound 1 - For setting down ground rules and getting clear on definitions or concepts.Rounds 2 - 4 - For points and counterpoints; the nitty gritty. I have no reason to think my esteemed opponent will resort to this tactic but for posterities' sake I will ask that semantics in this debate not be use.Sources[1] http://plato.stanford.edu...[2] https://appearedtoblogly.files.wordpress.com...[3] ibid[4] http://plato.stanford.edu...