BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Evolution should not be taught as a fact in American public schools.

Heredity is also theory, not fact. However 7 months ago I took a test on heredity. Nobody plans on removing THAT from schools anytime soon. ID is completely illogical: a.) Because there is no actual proof of ID or any of your claims you use to 'support' it. and b.) because "the giant man in the sky told me so." is NOT proof. "The Age of Dinosaurs supposedly spanned the length and breadth of the Mesozoic Era. That era is divided by evolution scientists into three major periods.... Where did those periods and dates originate? In the 1700's, James Hutton and Charles Lyell proposed a system of life development that 'predated' known history. The Geologic Column or Geologic Time Scale was produced by Lyell, who also wrote the 'Antiquity of Man', a book in which he conjectured that man as a species was much older than believed at the time. Lyell's system of geological dating was based on what he observed in a nearby formation that showed layers of rocks in stratas. The DATES (such as 225 million years ago) were placed on the column by Lyell as a guess! He did not have evidence to back up his dating on the column," There is a such thing as an educated guess. Look it up, please. "Napoleon is not always right. Well, nor is Mark Twain" Nor is the Bible. This qoute comes to mind "To proove an extraordinary claim, one must need extraordinary evidence." Where is YOUR evidence. All you have done is try to proove me wrong, but not once have you said " ID could be true because we have this... and this..." "It doesn't prove ID, but proves that it is possible." Actually, it tries to proove evolution wrong, which does not mean ID is prooved possible. And boom goes the dynamite. "Anything that is not fact should not be taught in schools." Lalalala! Guess what? ID has no proof! Yet you feel you should teach it in schools. "In conclusion, Darwin's Theory of Evolution only has circumstantial proof, and has been conceded to be unable to be called a fact, and thus has been conceded to be unfit to be taught in schools, which affirms the resolution" A theory cannot be just 1 fact, but must, in fact, consist of many. Evolution holds these facts and more. From fossils to bones, to rocks to islands evolution stands tall above ID in any argument, for the big man in the sky made it so. Thank you for your time. "And boom goes the dynamite."
Evolution should not be taught as a fact in American public schools.

"Intelligent design has just as many explanations as evolution. The only reason intelligent design is discarded by so many people is because it has religious connections." Not quite. The reason it is discarded by many is because it ignores all other scientific proofs and completely disregaurds the imposibility of a creator beyond our solar system. --Creationists say that the earth is 6000 years old, yet many rock formations are found to be millions of years old.-- Why teach something we know is not true? I quote from someone's profile "Faith is something you believe when you know it is not so." - Mark Twain. ID is completely illogical and truely has no proof, whatsoever. In any sense. Unless you count the bible, in which case evolution has thousands of 'proof'
Evolution should not be taught as a fact in American public schools.

Alas, you found my favorite creationist tool. I call it "theory, not fact." But here it states a thoery is made of facts. The ONLY reason it is still a thoery and not a law is because a law must NEVER be challenged by another idea. We have physical evidence you can hold in the palm of your hand. What do you have?" Alas, you have a flaw in your argument. Evolution only has circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence - evidence that tends to prove a fact by proving other events or circumstances which afford a basis for a reasonable inference of the occurrence of the fact at issue Circumstantial evidence only gives situations that could be explained by the theory, which, in this case, is evolution. Because Evolution cannot explain how life appeared in the first place, it opens up the possibility of Intelligent Design, which in turn opens up the possibility of life being created exactly how it is now, with all modifications done at the beginning, at the hands of the Intelligent Designer. Fact - something that has actual existence http://www.merriam-webster.com... Because it is not set in stone to have actual existence, it is not fact. More explanation on circumstantial evidence: http://www.debate.org... In this debate, it seemed as if it was inevitable that shadeofgrey used crack, due to the substantial circumstantial evidence placed before her, but it appears that she might instead have an anxiety disorder. Intelligent design has just as many explanations as evolution. The only reason intelligent design is discarded by so many people is because it has religious connections. In conclusion, evolution is not set in stone, and only has circumstantial evidence, and thus is not fact, and should not be taught as such.
Evolution should not be taught as a fact in American public schools.

"Additionally, the Theory of Evolution is not fact. It is theory. It might be true. It might NOT be true." Alas, you found my favorite creationist tool. I call it "theory, not fact." But here[http://dictionary.reference.com...] it states a thoery is made of facts. The ONLY reason it is still a thoery and not a law is because a law must NEVER be challenged by another idea. We have physical evidence you can hold in the palm of your hand. What do you have?
Evolution should not be taught as a fact in American public schools.

"Darwinists have more then enough reason to teach it in schools. How else would you explain humans rationally without resorting to religious ideas? Or what happened before all of thier other history? Where there are questions, there are awnsers." And why can't one resort to religious ideas? Just because schools apparently aren't allowed to teach religion to be true, doesn't mean that they shouldn't be allowed to present the possibility of intelligent design. Where there are questions, there are many possible answers. You can't just pick the answer you like the best and call it fact without proving it. Additionally, the Theory of Evolution is not fact. It is theory. It might be true. It might NOT be true. There is no proof. There is only evidence of possibility. The possibility of other explanations means that evolution is not a set-in-stone-fact as of now, and thus should not be taught as such. They have perfect reason to teach it as theory. They have no reason to teach it as fact. Thank you.
Evolution should not be taught as a fact in American public schools.

"To start with, because no reason has been given as to why it should be taught, I will say that when you have no reason to teach something in a public school, it should not be taught. " Darwinists have more then enough reason to teach it in schools. How else would you explain humans rationally without resorting to religious ideas? Or what happened before all of thier other history? Where there are questions, there are awnsers.
Green laterns are bad guys

First of all, they don't really enforce "their" law. They just make sure that innocents are not hurt and justice is carried. I think all planets would agree with that law. "I also disagree with their ways of getting new members, they just send the ring to go find willful people and then pick them up and fly them to Oa" You contradict yourself, the ring find WILFUL people for their law enforcement. Furthermore it is a choice whether to join the Green Lantern Corps or not. The ring will keep on giving you powers regardless of whether you are an official member or not. Hal Jordan had come back to Earth after he did badly at the initiation. He still got to keep his powers despite not officially being part of the corps. The Green Lanterns carry out justice throughout galaxies wherever its needed. If Parallax had destroyed everything, then would you still call the Green Lanterns as bad guys? They are but ordinary citizens with extraordinary super powers.
Gay marriage

My opponent spent the majority of her last round attacking equal rights in Civil Unions. Yet she fails to realize that she only viewed the Merrian-Webster source. If she'd view my Lambda legal source and read that argument she'd see that they are getting closer and closer to equal rights. Illinois, Vermont and NJ have all come extremely close to making them completely equal to marriages (http://www.lambdalegal.org...) I would also like to remind my opponent that our lushous President Barrack H. Obama Jr. has pledged in his first term to make these Civil Unions equal to that of a Marriage. (http://www.cnn.com...)
Gay marriage

You say that Civil Unions is a better alternative, but I disagree. Merriam-Webster Dictionary states that a Civil Union is a legal relationship between two people of the same sex that gives them SOME of the same rights and responsibilities that married people have. First off, Civil Unions is limiting the rights and responsibilities of same- sex couples. This isn't an alternative, it's just another way to discriminate against the LGBT community. All Civil Unions is, is these ecclesiastical vestments all dressed up in a way that will make people believe that this is right, but people are smart enough to decode things like this. Second, Merriam-Webster Dictionary says the rights and responsibilities that married people have. Well, some same-sex couples are married and they have the same rights as an opposite-sex married couple has. Well shouldn't the same-sex couples in states that have the Civil Unions have the same rights as married homosexual couples, because they ARE a married couple. Third, you stated that Civil Unions is giving you the same rights as a married couple, but according to Merriam-Webster Dictionary, you're wrong. Merriam- Webster dictionary says some of the same rights and responsibilities that married people have, but you said that they have the same rights. Not ALL the same rights. Civil Unions is just another way to limit the rights and freedom of the LGBT community.
Gay marriage

Though not everyone is religious, marriage is a religious institution, which has been defined by the church as between 1 man and women. I do believe that people should be treated equally that's why I believe that we should recognize that the LGBT community should be able to use Civil Unions as I've shown and my opponent has dropped that are a better alternate than recognizing Gay Marriage outright. Also, you're still able to love whoever you wish with a Civil Union. I extend all other arguments.
Gay marriage

Although the bible states those things, it doesn't matter to homosexuals. Not everyone is religious. You may state that I'm not religious, but I am. Shouldn't these people still have the right to get married? God created all people equally, so everyone should be treated equally. Thou shall love thy neighbor. Love is love no matter what kind. I'm just saying, these people deserve to love because they are people. I am a person. I have a right to love who i want to love. Shouldn't everyone else have that right? You have that right. Everyone should have that right.
Gay marriage

I believe that gay marriage should be legal in all states. You may not realize it, but the reason your against it is because it's not normal to you. Most people dream of getting married to the opposite sex of themselves, but some people don't. Others dream of marrying the same sex. There's nothing wrong with that! People go around and say that gays are sinners and that they shouldn't have the right to get married. Gays are still humans beings. People. People with rights and freedom. gays just want to be happy. Let them enjoy their lives. Heterosexuals are able to reproduce. Heterosexuals are supposed to remain abstinent until marriage, but with most, that's not the case. their reward is to be allowed the right to get married. Homosexuals aren't able to reproduce and their reward is to be denied the right to get married. It doesn't make sense.
That throwing inanimate objects at other inanimate objects is the best way to relieve anger/stress.

Basically, I'm going to say to everybody who reads this that my opponent said it doesn't make sense. I never said you would hit your wife, I said you'd throw something at her. That point stands still strong. As for his example about the clown, throwing that big of a tantrum over a cupcake-shaped balloon? That's worse than hitting somebody for saying hi to you. Also, throwing a unicycle at somebody's car will get the cops called on you, that will cause you more stress, because it's vandalism. My points stand, my opponent's points drop. VOTE NEG!
That throwing inanimate objects at other inanimate objects is the best way to relieve anger/stress.

My opponent said that throwing objects will cause you to start beating or hurting other human beings but really, when you throw stuff at other stuff it has nothing to do with throwing stuff at people. So, that doesn't make sense. I would like to use another example that everyone can relate to. While at the circus you find yourself easily amused at the clowns, of course they are funny (and eerily creepy). One of the clowns gives you a balloon that is in the shape of a fruit cup, when you were expecting a dog. Now you are majorly pissed. What do you do? A) Go to yoga class B) Scream C) Grab the clowns unicycle and throw it at a car (of course, not your car) As you can see the answer will always be C. The other ones aren't the best and don't even work. The reason that throwing inanimate objects at other inanimate objects is the best way to relieve anger/stress, is that it is a way to get rid of all cares in the world for a brief moment while breaking something. Vote for PRO!!
That throwing inanimate objects at other inanimate objects is the best way to relieve anger/stress.

A horrible thing about violence is it can become very habitual. If you get used to throwing objects, what is going to happen? One day, you might be fighting with your wife, and then out of habit you pick up a vase and throw it, but this time at your wife. This action just easily put you in jail, just by trying to use violence to calm your anger. another thing, is that when you throw something, it might just as easily bounce off of what you threw it at, hurting somebody, or something else in the process. There are always more effective methods to relieve stress. One of the easiest methods is to do yoga. Yoga soothes, and relaxes your body, and your mind. The most effective method that I've found, though, is to just scream. Rather than throwing that wrench he mentioned at something, just scream at the top of your lungs. The stress leaves you instantly. I hope everybody takes to heart what I've said. Please vote in negation with me Thank you
That throwing inanimate objects at other inanimate objects is the best way to relieve anger/stress.

As we all know there are different ways to solve angerful moments like: 1) solve the issue peacefully with a candle light dinner and chocolates 2) Go to a shrink and give them lots of money or 3) throwing inanimate objects at other inanimate objects I have found that the 3rd option ALWAYS relives anger/stress. Imagine this. While driving down the interstate you get a flat tire and have to pull over. you jack up the vehicle and start removing the screws that hold the hubcap on. while using the wrench it slips out of your hand and falls on your toe and hurts it really bad. Now your first instinct is to throw the wrench at the ground or at a tree, and that is exactly what you should do. Do you just take the pain? No you need to release the anger immediately so it doesn't get bottled up and eventually one day you will go ballistic and start killing people. THAT IS NOT A GOOD WAY TO RELIEVE STRESS. There are other ways to relive stress but this way is the best. Good luck.
Cell phones do more harm than good in society and schools today

Yes I completely agree, It is VERY rude to be on the phone when talking to somebody in front of you. I do believe that phones make lives easier, Such as communicating with family and in dangerous situations. Without phones, Many many people would be dead due to the amount of calls to 999 /911 /ect. It would also be quite problematic if you couldn't get a ride or where not with someone
Cell phones do more harm than good in society and schools today

Well, You don't NEED to look at a phone while you are waiting especially if you are waiting with someone else. I've hung out with people who were waiting for something and I was sitting there and she just stared at her phone the whole time. With everyone having phones in school it makes people without phones feel more outcasted. Yes, It can help if you are in an uncomfortable moment but just walking away and asking a friend for a ride could work too. There are constantly moments when I am talking to someone and they feel their phone buzz and they just pull it out and reply while I'm talking to them and I think that is super disrespectful.
Cell phones do more harm than good in society and schools today

Cell phones are actually very useful in society and thought there are cons I think the pros outnumber them. Many people like to meet their friends and bar/restaurants/ect. But meeting there both on the dot is very difficult. Waiting in our modern world can cause worry of being alone with nobody else their and having a phone can provide a sense that you are not alone. Also, Many teens will be hanging around and trying new things, If they need to get out of a situation they can call or text someone to collect them, Instead of being uncomfortable or in danger
Music Monday: Party Time!

Righty Oh, here comes some Thursday Tracks, I'm sorry but I'm gonna have to get technical, are you sure "time of dying" is a different genre then anything you've listed ?(voters uh humm). Great lyrics nonetheless. For nothing more, I don't think it should be a rock based song, lyrics don't flow with it. That was a nice lil story from ed ////////////////////////////////////////////////////// 7: Tappe (Vocals)- L.Wadali *Number two was a different genre of Punjabi music, this one is more folk based, you can tell the differences. I'm not sure bout this video, he looks like a muppet, but this has become my favourite song ever, So listen n enjoy. 8: The Rembrandts- I'll be there for you 9: Living Colour - Cult Of Personality obviously
Music Monday: Party Time!

I liked the sound n video of walking lions, but I don't think they guys voice matches it tho. uncertain about walking in my shoes, decent but not great. For some reason I have never heard corbins' theme, I will be adding it to my playlist, sweet lyrics, 4: Don't Wanna F*ck With Us - John Cena & Marc Predka, (Rap) keeping in theme with wrestling in it bro. 5: A Thousand Miles- Vanessa Carlton timeless classic, revolutionised the radio music industry 6:Enemy - Fozzy (Rock) great thought provoking video, and these lyrics shouldn't never be taken underestimated.
Music Monday: Party Time!

I must say that I really agree with the wwe/f genre of musicGenre 1: Waking Lions, Pop Evil (Classic Rock)https://www.bing.com...Speaks for itself. Just listenGenre 2: Walking In MY Shoes, Fever 333 (Screamer Metal)https://www.bing.com...Goes loud to soft, impressibly varied for screamer metalGenre 3: Baron Corbin's theme song (Wwe/f)https://www.bing.com...Evil but awesome. Back to you, pro
Music Monday: Party Time!

Right lets get the Tuesday Tunes underway! I'll start of with my 3 favourite genres, (hip/hop, Punjabi music, and wwe/f music) - all 3 genres were my childhood. 1: N2Deep- Back To The Hotel Amazing beat, you're hooked from the beginning. The video is chillout. The next song I have chosen ties in to my current debate with Nartnod7875, there I talk about generational differences, and how baby boomers (people in their 60s) are now egotistical punks and think they are better than everyone. Now watch the next video n you will see what I mean. The video itself is hilarious, but the message is a serious one... 2:Babe Bhangra Pounde Ne (Old Men Are Dancing) - Gurdas Maan You might have heard of him, he tours globally quite a lot. 3: Broken Dreams - Shamans Harvest Beautiful start, mad beat, and great lyrics, it teaches you to put yourself first, backstab any motherfcvker if need be, but always be on the front foot. Although the song was for Drew McIntyre, he flopped so this song really didn't suit him. Perhaps my favourite English song ever.
Gun control will do nothing to stop mass shootings.

I accept. As a conservative, I have recently been frustrated so many other conservatives are so vehemently against gun control -- people are dying far too often, and they far too often are people like me -- students, teens, etc. who would never be carrying a gun. So that's where I'm coming from, to make myself clear. I am going to argue that gun control, while it goes against the strictest interpretation of the constitution, does not go against what the Founders intended or would say in these times. I will also argue that increased gun control would decrease mass shootings. I would like to note that the amount of gun control is not specified by Pro, and that the debate is not about whether it would change our government system, but whether it would decrease the amount of mass shootings. I hope to learn a lot in this debate. Good luck!
Public High Schools are legally not allowed to teach Creationism

Under the first amendment lies the establishment clause which states that the government shall not make any law respecting the establishment of any religion. If a public school were to begin teaching creationism without the respect to other religions this would thereby be going against this clause of the first amendment. A court case that has declared on this topic is the case: Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District In this case, the Supreme Court claimed that intelligent design (ID) being taught was an unconstitutional establishment of religion. Another court case, Epperson v. Arkansas, brought the Supreme Court to the conclusion that Arkansas's law prohibiting the teaching of evolution was in violation of the First Amendment. The Supreme Court held that the Establishment Clause prohibits the state from advancing any religion, and determined that the Arkansas law which allowed the teaching of creation while disallowing the teaching of evolution advanced a religion, and was therefore in violation of the Establishment Clause. Therefore, since the Supreme Court has declared that teaching creationism in the science class is illegal, public high schools are not legally allowed to teach creationism.
Public HighSchool Students of the U.S. ought not be required to take a standardized exit exam to g

I remember what it was like, diving into debate, and sink or swim is never a fun time. :) I hope that the case and rebuttals I have provided are helpful to his future endeavors. My voting issues: OV: I'll just go ahead and put this on case, since comments aren't working so hot. I'm a girl. :) 1. The negative never actually refuted any of the argumentation that I placed on his case, which is a lot of conceded arguments. Basically, at the point where he agrees with all of these arguments, the negative has no offense available from the NC. If he has no case left, he has nothing to uphold his standards (which started out as flawed in the first place), my opponent's advocacy is taken out of the voting equation. 2. Standards debate: I'm clearly winning this debate at the end of RD 5. My opponent's standards are not only ethically questionable (as utilitarianism actively seeks to rob minority populations of their rights and his criterion is abusive) but have little to no link. I, on the other hand, provide a value and criterion that serve as a clear standard in the round, and am able to access more good than my opponent. Thanks for reading!