BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
DebateIsland.com New Tournaments VS Debate.org

I am not here to argue about which website is better. I am here to tell you that posting a debate on a website about debating, then making that debate about another website that opened up about debating is unreasonable. That's why I am voting for 'Con'. If you like the website so much, then move to that website. It's unreasonable to convince others to join another debate website, when they're already settled in on a debating website. It's like if you were trying to convince there was a chocolate that tastes good, when the chocolate you're eating right now tastes good, too. If you want to have more people on that website, then share the website link on social media. They're not in a tournament, and never will be. They're both debating websites, and aren't going to fight about it. They can both have a community that debates without a freaking "tournament".
DebateIsland.com New Tournaments VS Debate.org

There is no point in making this argument. Let the community choose, and don't force them to decide. If you really felt the need to come on here and make this post about how a new website that has ALL the same features just opened up, then you have issues. If you feel the need to try to convince this community to move to another website that has the same features and does all the same stuff, then what the frick, man?
DebateIsland.com New Tournaments VS Debate.org

DebateIsland.com just released tournaments. Their tournaments have different Debating formats such as Formal Traditional, Formal Lincoln-Douglas, etc., have prizes such as points, badges, etc, range from Blitz (15 minutes per round) to 48 hours per round, are 8 people, etc. DebateIsland.com released "Formal" Debating. That includes Lincoln-Douglas Debating and Traditional Debating. They also have a Blitz mode which is 15 minutes per round. Their is a 9 point voting system. DebateIsland.com has Debra AI which is DebateIsland"s artificially intelligence. Debra AI has analytics for all arguments, User Analytics, and predicts the winner of Casual, Persaude Me, Formalish, and Formal Debates. DebateIsland is troll free and you can block trolls. DebateIsland is actively developed and has other updates coming out soon with amazing functionality! After all, it is actively developed unlike DDO. That's why I switched there. The DebateIsland community is very civil and the founder is extremely active, so is the customer service. A lot of other users from competitor websites and forums have switched to DebateIsland. I was an Ex-Debate.org user, but have switched to DebateIsland.com. Debateisland.com is a modern casual debate website with great functionality and design. The website is making a formal format of Debating in addition to their current casual format. The page speeds are great... it's built for the modern web. The community is civil. Finally, the founder is extremely friendly and cares about the users. He also personally reached out to all users, that's not happened before on other sites like DDO. The casual Debating is great and users can get input from the whole whole community with a great design and amazing functionality there as well. It is extremely civil, with amazing moderation and computerized spam filter.
It is more economically rational to deny same-sex couples marriage status than not.

Same-sex couples do not have the same legal standing as truly married couples. When judges attempt to issue marriage licenses and statuses to same-sex couples, it creates a social fissure (crack) and disrupts businesses whose owners cannot, in good faith, celebrate same-sex "weddings." Actually, these business owners know that the celebrations or public ceremonies are not real marriages, to begin with. Thus, they would be calling or endorsing something as "marriage" which is not a real marriage. They know this is true yet they do not want to offend others in their religious views. Generally, they recommend other businesses which might not have qualms about catering to such ceremonies. But disrupting (and possibly bankrupting) a business based on the religious beliefs of its owners is not more rational than allowing any two parties who come before a justice of the peace claiming "love is love." 1 The second reason that it is more economically rational to not recognize same-sex unions on equal terms with married couples is that it violates the principle of Political Liberalism. The political liberalism argument against SSM is that an effective society with multiple ethnicities and religious viewpoints cannot silence those who have a long-standing faith tradition in its toleration of "free speech." Obviously, free speech allows a business to not serve a customer with whom it disagrees in important, faith-based respects. So, if we are to allow "free speech" and concomitantly "free conscience" (a necessary corollary of free speech), then we will not recognize "same-sex couples" except in a separate category besides marriage. The recent episode of the "Good Wife" (CBS network) tries to belie these principles as inaccurate and pretends that if a business advertises that it provides a service, that it must provide that service to all parties. While the writers of the "Good Wife" TV program are, no doubt, well-intentioned, it does not follow that if a business advertises that it provides a service, that it will provide a slightly different service (same-sex wedding ceremony) in violation of its conscience. That's really the issue, not whether all parties who watch an advertisement must be served to their contentment by a particular business. Therefore, to not undo the business fabric of society and to not violate the consciences of critical members of the business community, it is more economically rationally to deny same-sex couples the status of married members of society. [1] Of course, if "love is love" then monogamy itself could validly be questioned. Why is not polygamy a valid way to express romantic or loving attachment? It becomes very disconcerting and confusing.
People have no right to judge someone based on their religious beliefs.

My opponent has not yet presented an argument. However, I will still rebut stuff, since that's what I do here. Now. Yes. Let's get to it, then. ➤ Pro: "I correct my previous argument because it seems like my message was slightly unclear." ➤ Well, there were obviously no defining parameters in the resolution. I wouldn't have accepted the debate had I known my opponent would have conceded that infanticidal pagans (or paganic infanticides) ought to be judged. ➤ Pro: "People have no right to judge someone based upon their religeon as long as the practices are not heavily wrong morally or legally." ➤ But there's no such thing as objective morality. For instance, if you were an Aztec priest, then your day generally consisted of shoving other Aztecs from the top of a pyramid. [1] Clearly, this Mesoamerican sacrificial anecdote proves that morality is a byproduct of socio-religio-biologico-cultural factors. Consider the following fancy logic. 1. If Aztecs shoved Aztecs off pyramids, then there's no such thing as objective morality 2. Aztecs shoved Aztecs off pyramids [1] 3. Hence, there's no such thing as objective morality Try deconstructing that. I think it's pretty obvious there's no such thing as "objective" morality. Since the new argument explicitly concerns morality, there's no reason to accept my opponent's altered case. ➤ Pro: I was mostly referring to getting jobs, making friends and other such activities. ➤ Case defeated. Glory be to Quetzaltechnocitlialn. Conclusion A simple survey of pre-Columbian ethical theory obliterates my opponent's argument. Sources 1. City of Sacrifice: The Aztec Empire and the Role of Violence in Civilization by David Carrasco
It should be illegal to leave your "waste" in the toilet without flushing it in public.

Ok. What we would have to do is install something to regulate the water in a toilet. The camera's wouldn't be in the stalls. The camera would be right outside the bathroom door seeing who walks out and in. The camera would have a timer on it. The toilet seats would also have a timer, and a computer does all the math. :D The hard evidence I need is, for people to vote PRO. Everybody show your support for the outlawing of sneaky presents!
It should be illegal to leave your "waste" in the toilet without flushing it in public.

"I am sure that every citizen would be extremely proud to take time out of their day to upgrade every toilet in the world and I am sure many rich people are very willing to put money into this to make it work. " I don't know about anyone else but I am not wasting any of my time and money in order to install new toilets in every bathroom of the world. This system would be very inefficient and costly to install and operate. The big flaw in the system is that the water level in a toilet sometimes shifts, then making the system malfunction and print a ticket to an empty stall. I also think that having a camera mounted over every stall is an invasion of everyone privacy, I think I speak for everyone when I say that our bathroom business should stay our business. I also would like to point out the fact that most bathrooms have automatic sensors that sense when the user of the toilet gets up. This causes the toilet to automatic flush the contents of the toilet, solving the problem of waste not being flushed after someone leaves. "I don't have any hard evidence from the people's opinions. .. "You stated it yourself you have no hardcore evidence at all. . http://www.autoflushers.com...http://www.autoflushers.com...;
It should be illegal to leave your "waste" in the toilet without flushing it in public.

I am sure that every citizen would be extremely proud to take time out of their day to upgrade every toilet in the world and I am sure many rich people are very willing to put money into this to make it work. What we need to do is take a poll on the street to determine if everybody is serious about this! Ask any citizen in the world if they like seeing a poo present in the toilet waiting for them and most of them will say no! I don't have any hard evidence from the people's opinions. ..
It should be illegal to leave your "waste" in the toilet without flushing it in public.

Toilets should be equipped with the latest in "log-detecting" technology. " The labor and cost of putting these toilets and cameras in every establishment would be costly to stores and businesses. They would have to take time out of their day in order to check the logs and cameras to see who the offenders were. Furthermore what if there is a malfunction in he system and the system prints out a ticket when there was never a violation? ? A person is not going to pay for something they didn't do in the first place. You would also have a problem with enforcing this fine as well. What police officer is going to go into a bathroom and argue with someone on weather or not they flushed their waste down the toilet? ? Police are there to protect us, not argue with someone about waste flushing. My third point is this the 20 dollar ticket violation shouldn't be a "disturbing the peace" ticket, this is not disturbing the peace. The ticket should be public deification because the individual neglected to flush their own waste in a public establishment.
It should be illegal to leave your "waste" in the toilet without flushing it in public.

Hello future opponent of the future. I am all for making sure innocent victims walk into a public bathroom with a secret brown surprise waiting for them in the toilet. Toilets should be equipped with the latest in "log-detecting" technology. You know the seats in cars where if it detects someone sitting in it, it makes the seatbelt alarm go off if the seatbelt is not fastened? Well, this is how the toilet would detect someone sitting on it. And the toilet would detect the log by having a set water level. When the water level rises just a little tiny bit it sets off a sensor. This sensor would be timestamped. Also the seat would be timestamped. If the person does not flush in 30 minutes, the toilet asks you if you are still alive. If the person is actually there still hanging in there staying strong they would press a red button. If the person is not there, it would set off an alarm. Now there is also a security camera at the doorway seeing who walks out. Along with the timestamps the toilet will figure out who the suspect is and charge them a fine of up to 20 dollars (disturbing the peace).
Evolution Is Falsified

Thanks for accepting. On to my arguments. Nested Hierarchy Violation According to Berkeley's website, “Evolution predicts that living things will be related to one another in what scientists refer to as nested hierarchies—rather like nested boxes. Groups of related organisms share suites of similar characteristics and the number of shared traits increases with relatedness.”(1) Berkeley provides this simplified, graphical example: According to Winsconsin-Madison, “( … ) we don’t see overlap across groups ( … ) there are no fungi with vascular tissue, insects with four limbs or amphibians with vascular tissue…etc.”(2) My argument is that the method of germ-cell formation violates the Nested Hierarchy. There are 2 basic types of germ-cell formation: epigenesis & preformation. For the Nested Hierarchy to be consistent (unviolated), it must show that creatures grouped closer together (based on other characteristics) share the same type of germ-cell formation. But this is not the case. The types are distributed pretty randomly among animal clusters. This violates the Nested Hierarchy as illustrated in the following image: Fossil Record Violation Archaeopteryx was the first bird,(3) dated at 150 million years old in the fossil record. However, Protarchaeopteryx, whose name means “before Archaeopteryx”, appears afterArchaeopteryx in the fossil record. The finding of this creature means that Archaeopteryx is no longer the first bird.(4) The first bird is no longer the first bird, leading to a paradox. Perhaps the invention of time-travel will help us resolve this, but at the moment, it is a fossil record violation. Irreducible Complexity The eye could not have evolved in incremental, evolutionary steps, for half an eye does not convey sufficient benefit to warrant selection by Natural Selection. This is obvious to anyone with eyes. Over to Con. (1) http://evolution.berkeley.edu... (2) http://www.botany.wisc.edu... (3) http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu... (4) http://www.nature.com...
Evolution Is Falsified

Recently, Sswdwm made a post in the Science Forum with a challenge to anyone who wanted to falsify Evolution. He presented a list of examples of things that would falsify Evolution, and I've handpicked 3 of these to debate on.My burden, in this debate, is to do at least one of the following: 1. Demonstrate a violation of the nested hierarchy.2. Demonstrate a chronological violation using fossil evidence. For example, you cannot be born before your grandfather was born; similarly, no species can arise before their common ancestors first arise.3. Demonstrate a genuine example of irreducible complexity, such that a structure of a feature could not have developed by the incremental process depicted by Evolution.
Mechanical Pencils are overall better than regular pencils.

Round 1- acceptance/definitions/changesRound 2- each side presents their argumentRound 3- each side rebuts the other sides argument and summarizes their own and conclusionMy opponent named the various types of regular pencils that are around, a regular pencil can be used for all the things these pencils are used for (1,2,5,7,8,9) the only difference is the size of these pencils and their type of graphite in which the mechanical pencil has. There are also mechanical erasable colored pencils. The mechanical pencil has just as many festive designs as the regular pencils do. My opponent also states that the mechanical pencils cost more, the higher the cost means better quality. Also be re using a mechanical pencil you are reducing the number of wooden pencils discarded because they are too short, cracked lead or casing, or because the eraser is no longer usable. Most of the parts of the mechanical pencils are able to be recycled. When you get your first mechanical pencil as I stated before it comes with three long pieces of lead, and some also come with big erasers that take a long time to wear down. When you buy lead there is a lot of it and erasers are usually 2 big replacements. Then we have the writing issue of running out of lead or jamming, during an essay a student can simply bring two mechanical pencils in case the other one runs out. Depending on what breaks on the pencil one could simply use the broken one as spear parts such as the tube, casing, tip and mechanism that propels the lead. Reduce, Reuse, Recycle that's what I say. In conclusion I have proved that the mechanical pencil is an overall better fit because it is more customizable with its different lead sizes, in which the regular pencil doesn't have. This can appeal to different types of jobs and writing styles. They can save the user money even before anything needs re-filled. Saving the user time when the lead breaks by simply pressing for more lead, while the chamber also has the capacity to hold multiple sticks of lead. I also proved that being re-usable mechanical pencils can reduce the amount of waste in land fills. I also proved that during a test one could simply take multiple mechanical pencils in with then, even my opponent admitted to that. I have references that are in order that I have presented them in my argument. . http://www.nextag.com...http://www.gpencil.com...http://www.quill.com...
Mechanical Pencils are overall better than regular pencils.

I would also like to remind the readers that I stand in affirmation of this resolution, meaning I believe and argue that mechanical pencils are overall better than regular pencils, the burden of proof is also my responsibility. My argument consists of three main contentions that I will present in order and each will be explained to the best of my ability. Contention 1 : Mechanical pencils are more customizable to the user - There are many types of mechanical pencils that offer a variety of options to suite the user. Different sizes of lead or graphite offer the user what type of strength and thickness of the writing that they desire. These sizes range from 0.2mm to 5.6mm and the three most common for students are 0.5mm, 0.7mm and 0.9mm. The other sizes are generally used in drafting work or are rare and are used in older pencils. There are also different types of grips and eraser types that are re-fill able once they are used up, not to mention the variety of colors and designs that make them prime examples for company advertisement because most are re-usable and will last for a long time. Contention 2 : Over time the mechanical pencil is more economically sound - Considering the fact that the mechanical pencil comes with three decent sized sticks of lead at purchase. Then when the pencil you are using runs out you simply put more led into the chamber. A mechanical pencil can last for years and save the user money by simply buying lead re-fills that contain multiple sticks of lead. You also save money in some types by replacing the eraser, thus having one pencil that can last for years. Saving the user time and money with one re-usable pencil. Contention 3 : The mechanical pencil writes consistently and needs no sharpening - The mechanical pencil writes a consistent line of lead that is dark and easy for people to read. The user simply has to advance more lead out of the tip of the pencil, that prevents them from needing to take time from their work to go sharpen their pencil that has become dull due to their continuous writing. This gives the writer a consistent legible form of writing, while also saving time and energy when they don't have to sharpen their pencil. . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://www.bing.com... I look forward to reading my opponents argument and how he chooses to argue his side.
Dogs are better than cats

I disagree with my opponents statement that ,"if you need a dog to protect you then you are doing something really dumb or simply do not know how to protect yourself." I think that self defense is a great thing to have, but if a dog is willing to protect you then that shows a sign that they are very loyal and that you are their top priority. Science has proven that a dog actually loves their owner and not just because they feed them and take them on walks. Also my opponent said that " cats are cuter and make funny memes, so they can be great distractions from biotic things that are dangerous they can distract people through various methods." I thought that my opponent said that if you need a dog to protect you that it is dumb and you don't have self defense, so why would a cat protect you by being a distraction if you knew how to protect yourself. You can have fun with cats maybe, but not in the way that my opponent thinks so. Don't we all know that cats can't get on computers or play on an X-box, or play poker. I think about the realistic reasons why dogs are more fun and cute, I would like to know which source is more reliable: fiction or facts?
Dogs are better than cats

I accept. By putting categorizing this as "funny," my opponent has made it clear to me that they do not mind me turning this into a troll debate. "...a dog will never leave your side and protect you with everything they have."If you need a dog to protect you then you are doing something really dumb or simply do not know how to protect yourself. Besides, cats are cuter and make funny memes, so they can be great distractions from biotic things that are dangerous. They can distract people through various methods. Method #1: Need for hugs Method #2: cuddling with other cats Method #3: Just being cute and hilarious "Dogs love to play but cats stay inside and sleep all day. Cats are always climbing on everything and rubbing their smelly hair on your stuff. Some people say that cats make a good companion but you can't ever take them on a walk, have a rough game of tug-a-war, or throw a ball to them every now and then."Like I've established already, cats are cuter. You can also have good fun with cats for these reasons:1. Cats are good at Halo 2. Cats are better at poker. Your turn.
Dogs are better than cats

I think dogs are better because dogs are very intelligent and loyal to their owners. Yes, of course puppies may be naughtier than kittens but a dog will never leave your side and protect you with everything they have. If somebody tries to harm you what's a cat going to do, cough out a nasty hair ball in their face! That's what I thought. Dogs love to play but cats stay inside and sleep all day. Cats are always climbing on everything and rubbing their smelly hair on your stuff. Some people say that cats make a good companion but you can't ever take them on a walk, have a rough game of tug-a-war, or throw a ball to them every now and then. I think that dogs are much better companions that cats and are for sure better than them!