BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
There is abundant proof the biblical "flood" was an actual event

I don't believe "the flood" as described in the christian bible occurred because: a) we see no single great sedimentary layer consistent with a world-wide flood event b) it relies on magic: - animals, apart from humans and dinosaurs, magically manage to travel many thousands of miles and join Noah, and behave themselves while somehow sustained for over many months in an enormous wooden boat - an immense amount of water rains down from an unknown source, cover the entire planet, and then somehow drains away again - the boat (the Arc) is left stranded on top of Mt Ararat (>16,800ft thin air, icy cold) - the animals, (including insects and worms?) then make their way back down off the volcano and around the planet and are somehow sustained until they've bred their numbers in the right proportions to form a sustainable ecosystem. c) no trace of the immense Arc has ever been found despite it being a very small and clearly defined area. Actually, I believe the story of "the flood" is considerably older than the bible. There are similar fables from the Sumerians, Akkadians, and Babylonians. The most famous of which is the "Epic of Gilgamesh" http://en.wikipedia.org... from perhaps 29,000 years ago. What probably happened was that the big hero/king Gilgamesh wanting timber, rode up-river, felled a lot of cedar trees, bound them together and after the waters had built up enough to shift them [the flood] rode the logs back down the Euphrates with horses/donkeys and some helpers on board. Lots of wood moved really easily! Animals came with him! Most exciting thing to happen in ages. The sensational story spreads to Egypt (where they relate to big rivers very well) and goes on with some of them to be incorporated into the bible in an even more exciting dramatic form but without a heroic king [Pharaoh] (stories nearly always develop this way.)
This house would ban boxing

Let"s imagine that boxing is band. Do not you think that it will lead to a big trouble? I strongly believe that A ban would not remove boxing from society; it would only drive it underground, creating a much more dangerous culture around the sport. Throughout history we have seen that placing blanket bans on things (alcohol, cigarettes, illicit drugs, cockfighting, etc) do not work. People will still find a way to do what they want and when you remove the ability to regulate something by ignoring its existence, you have the potential to create more problems. There is certainly the potential that such is the popularity of and desire to see boxing that a ban would just drive it underground, where fights would be unregulated and unsupervised by qualified medics. Crowd trouble can also be a problem at boxing venues, and unless the proper security arrangements are made, many people could be hurt. The safety of boxers and fans should be paramount and therefore to minimize the risk of injuries to all it should remain legal but regulated. One of the reasons for such popularity of the sport in recent years is the increasing use of boxing training as a fitness approach in gyms and other training venues. There is such an acknowledgement of the effectiveness of boxing training as a training approach that banning boxing clubs will make it difficult for people who are doing legitimate training to do so."
This house would ban boxing

The last my argument in favor of the banning of boxing is about its exploitation, which is widely-spread in this sphere. Due to the fact that the majority of the boxers, since they begin their careers, leave the education and devote full themselves into the trainings, they employ special managers to deal with all their finances. This eventually often leads to their being exploited with the aim of more income by encouragement and disregard of their possibilities and probable risk for their health. The sportsmen since the very youth are used by their sponsors and promoters just as the tools, bringing money. At the same time, no one does really care about them. Moreover, managers even actively use their clients in rather dangerous ways, exploiting them for criminal purposes. In the investigation of the statistics and causes of boxing deaths throughout the history, Joseph Svinth, an editor of the Electronic Journals of Martial Arts and Science, finds that beside health reasons, many deaths were criminal, with the promoter playing the dual role of "gangster" (Svinth, 2007). So now we have to put an end to this system for no more young sportsmen to be used and treated this absolutely inappropriate way.
This house would ban boxing

Well, I agree that Boxing is a rather harmful. But it should not be banned; some changes in rules can be done. The World Health Organization has called for tighter regulation, including Simple rules, such as requiring medical clearance, national passports to prevent boxers from fighting under more than one name, restricting fights for fixed periods after knockouts, requiring that ringside physicians be paid by the state and not the promoter, and making sure that the boxers are aware of the potential long-term consequence of boxing may help protect boxers to some degree.(Friedman, n.d.) "The Australian Medical Association additionally recommends that media coverage of boxing should be subject to control codes similar to those which apply to television screening of violence. Finally, the World Medical Association suggests that all matches should have a ring physician authorized to stop the fight at any time. About 80% of deaths are caused by head, brain, and neck injuries, so the removal of the head as a scoring region may make a huge difference to the injury outcomes for this sport. That is why, of course, some reforms will prevent sad consequences.
This house would ban boxing

Yes, boxing contributes to the entertainment, teenagers' participation in the activity, but let's now look at its another consequence, which is worth much more attention. Since the goal of this kind of sport is to achieve the opponent's knockout, the boxers' main target is the head of the contestant. Hence, constant blows, directed in this part of our body, cause the brain damage, including in some cases concussion, or to the development of frequently happening Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy (CTE), a neurodegenerative disease that can lead to depression, memory loss, and aggression, as well as blood clots and internal bleeding (Rokins, 2013). For example, the best known victims of the negative changes in their brain work are heavyweight world champions Frank Bruno, Bradley Stone, Mike Tyson and Muhammad Ali, whereas the last one even suffered from the neurodegenerative disorder Parkinson's syndrome. According to the American Association of Neurological Surgeons, 15-40 percent of ex-boxers have some form of chronic brain injury and most professional fighters - some degree of brain damage (Mehaffey, 2005 ). Furthermore, there have been 200 occasions of death among the boxers since 1980 due to ring or training injuries (Svinth, 2007 ). That is why, a ban on boxing should be established, as it will prevent a huge amount of the examples of brain disorders and will save lives.
This house would ban boxing

Well, thank you, Zhanna. I"m really glad that I have an opportunity to speak about this motion. Boxing is a very ancient type of sport. It was appeared in the "3rd millennium BC. And now it is a beloved culture and one of the inspires youth and work around the world. Boxing brings joy and entertainment to so many people. The government has no right to stop this practice from continuing. French sociologist Lo"c Wacquant argues that the boxers themselves are the best evidence in support of the sport. When people talk about banning boxing, he writes that one voice is invariably drowned out and lost: that of the fighters themselves. (Wacquant, n.d.) "So many children dedicate themselves so that one day they might become successful boxers. We cannot take away this dream.
This house would ban boxing

Boxing is a type of sport, which main and basic aim is to bring physical injury to the opponent and to lead him to knockout. The sportsmen are taught from the very childhood to think and follow this way. Boxing is not just about keeping sport lifestyle, getting adrenalin, but about referring to the most violent human essence. Boxers participate in hundreds fights during their career, initially pursuing the target to hurt another person in order to get reward, that is exactly what differs it from other dangerous and severe sports. It is absolutely controversial to the principals of the modern society, which we live in. Moreover, it is barbarism and, no doubt, offense to the human dignity. The Australian Medical Association, which together with the British, American and Canadian colleagues since the 80-s of the previous century, actively conducts the campaign against boxing, identifying it, as "a public demonstration of interpersonal violence which is unique among sporting activities." Boxing teaches children and teenagers to harm the peers. It has no right to occur in the modern society.
The State Gov'ts should be focusing on Re-Interesting the Students

You cannot focus on the impossible and it is impossible to know what would interest teenagers. What interests 100 teens here might not interest another 400 teens elsewhere. The very teen sitting next to another might become interested in a topic for totally different purposes do you really want to 'advertise' education ITSELF to a state-wide audience with each individual either being disgusted by, attracted to or indifferent towards education afterwards since everyone is entitled to draw different opinions from the very same publicity about education? You are too unrealistic and foolish. Government spending must be to assist best those who realise what is good for them in life and those who really want to go far in the world. After all we do actually need uneducated people to do working-class jobs, I mean if we got all students highly interested EVERYONE would get A*'s and then we'd have no one left to sweep the roads! This isn't at all what should be encouraged. Individuals will be individuals and to deny this is severe communism.You can't alter, and shouldn't alter, every students' opinion to become interested in education if you plan on using the same method for each. It's like saying if I slap one person and slap another they will react the same... No they won't and very likely they will have totally different ways of doing the 'same' thing. I look forward to an intense, heated debate on the matter.Thanks for reading and over to pro.
The State Gov'ts should be focusing on Re-Interesting the Students

Forgive me if this argument seems premature or low-rate. This is my first debate on this website, and I am 18, so my skills in argument may be of a lower quality than another's. This debate is also to introduce a factor in US education that I feel is often ignored. The matter I wished to discuss or to bring attention to is the student opinion of school and its effects on the United States education specifically. Being as I am still in high school, I have the benefit of observing my fellow students and the impacts various education plans (particularly State plans) have had on them. You see, lately, the education of the United States has been "dumbed-down" as of late, and the State has attempted to undergo many programs to decrease the drop-out rate. However, the reason the drop out rate is still astonishingly high, and the scores of students ridiculously low, is due to student dis-interest in school. Teenagers have, through societal and domestic conditioning, psychologically learned to believe that school is useless, and the "not-cool" thing to do. Thus, they actively choose to not study, do their work, or pay attention in class. Instead they go to parties to get wasted or become overly-involved in their high school social lives. Often I have observed fellow students texting ANYONE they can because to them academics are useless. This is a major issue. Without intelligent, non-ignorant Americans in our society, then prejudice, racism, anti-semitism and all other forms of discrimination could worsen in our Country. We will also be able to not compete as effectively with other nations such as the UK or Germany. The State must find an effective way to re-interest students in academics. Perhaps tell students at early ages the truth: that school is the most effecitve way to proceed through life. Do not misinterpret that solution, however. In no way should students not pursue their dreams (i.e. fitness trainer, football player, doctor, lawyer...). However, the complete and negligent disregard of school by the students is still unacceptable and is the biggest factor and should be the biggest focus by the State to improve education. Again, I apologize if this argument seems lesser, for it is still my first debate, and my education is not as advanced as many of your's may be. Any advice for later discussions would be greatly appreciated.
Last Universal Ancestor/Common Descent of ALL species.

This is meant to be a casual debate over the course of several days. The idea is to have time to research your arguments and find supporting evidence (not to mention, having a life). You can use as much of the 3 days as you want-- I work and go to school, so my schedule requires this flexibility. What we have here are five rounds: The first round is for introductions and presenting main points, the second and third rounds are for counter-arguments and substantiation or refutation of main points. The fourth round will be final counter arguments and any additional supporting evidence you wish to share. The fifth round is for summarizing your argument and counterargument (if you so desire), and any closing remarks. I do not disagree that species evolve, or that certain species likely share common ancestry. I am challenging the notion that all species evolved from one common ancestor, commonly called the "Last Universal Ancestor". This is not a debate on origins or creationism; it is a debate specifically about the idea that all life on Earth descended from one life form. The points I will be arguing are as follow: Literally billions of years are required for this type of evolutionary branching to reach such diversity. I will be challenging the notion that the earth has existed for billions of years, as well as the dating methods and genetic "discoveries" which are often cited as evidence of common descent and old-earth theory. Species evolve through adaptation, but they don't evolve into entirely separate species. I will be supporting this argument using research from biology and also using inductive reasoning. Many species are comprised of irreducible complexities. We can debate this I am sure, because it poses a serious problem for evolutionary theory that often provokes dismissiveness and some rather absurd hypothesizing as far as counter-arguments go. If species have been evolving for billions of years from a common ancestor, why are we the only one amongst MILLIONS of species to develop advanced civilization, communication, and engineering. If our species evolved from a primitive monkey/man hybrid (which in turn descended from the LCA), why are there still monkeys, and why is humanity pretty much the most self-destructive species on this planet? Why are we the only species that has both instinct and the free will to choose against our own best interests? If all species shared one ancestor, there would be many different chains and stages of evolution, and the fossil record would reflect this. The truth it, it does not. Furthermore, between our last ice age, the global flood, and whatever cataclysms caused the gulf of Mexico and the breaking up of the continents, our entire geological record is skewed by variables which scientists willfully ignore.
Rap Battle RMTheSupreme vs Cakerman

Note: Read this in a typical Northern American accent or Canadian. Also note that Juggle has made many forms of punctuation force a space and capital letter to follow including a comma. I can't post links or it won't post the Round it seems. ^ It's easiest if you just copy the ending and put if after the '-' in a ormal Youtube video link replacing the ending code. Otherwise delete spaced and lowercase appropriate letters. Nibble on the cake like "this sh** sweet", Dribble on a tape like "this track weak", Hidden in the cave like "big bad beast", Whippin' on a slave like "skin been creased", Illest in the game I'm severely diseased, Whisper in the ear of cakerman; heart ceases, He's deceased. . . Look at his profile photo, No surprise it's just a Meme, This Muslim-disisn' Hobo's meets RMuslimTheSupreme, Just confusin' you I gamble; don't think Islam is my scene, But I'll be Hamas to your Israel: outfight, Out-charm, Out-scheme, Yeah, Who you kiddin' with that joke of profile pic? Big Issues barely copin' a pe-do-phile's kid, My whole profile complete like its a wholesome d**k, B**ches willingly open their tight kittens 'cause I own my sh**, You're a hopeless waste of space of mem'ry, DDO's mild spit, I'm a madman, Worse than spam a new, Unknown virus. (pronounced 'veye-riss')
Rap Battle RMTheSupreme vs Cakerman

This is with select winner system. This means that the winner gets all 7 points and is better than a 7-point system for rap battle votes. The user http://www. Debate. Org/dsjpk5/ is banned from voting. If he votes I will get airmax1227 and whiteflame involved. He always votes Pro and says 'Pro had better wordplay and flow' and this is utter BS because he does this every single rap battle. Good luck to my opponent, Round 1 is acceptance only, No rapping. Maximum chars is 3k as I feel this is more reasonable for a rap battle than the 10k. This limit is non-negotiable.
Rap Battle RMTheSupreme vs Cakerman

you're like a bed bug hiding in mattress seams but as it seems there's nothing you can do or say or scream to stop yourself from getting creamed you think you gleam in comparison you've only been dreamin' I've been schemin while you make useless comparisons you never know what will come through that door I'm rick harrison your raps are embarassin' but you're an american keep on disparagin' so destroying you is a weight on my shoulders im carryin' like talk about the electricity missing from your verse like your ethnicity, No versatility no real ability or capability lacking agility and the humility to admit that I beat you but still no hostility the venom I spit will turn me into a felon life gave me lemons so I used it as a weapon you take 'inspiration' like lenin (you seize the lyrics of others and redistribute them to the battles you DON'T forfeit) you aren't on my level don't feel special just wait till next round when I get settled I wrote this verse in like a split second so round 4 is the telling round that I do reckon you spent too much time wondering whether or not you offended me If you weren't so defensive it wouldn't be you're so sensitive but you've just been ended so let it be
Rap Battle RMTheSupreme vs Cakerman

LOOK AT COMMENTS FOR THE THEME TUNE TO THIS RAPWhat should I expect from a guy who says he'll visit me? As if he'll kick me 'til I'm toothless. . . My spit's ruthless on a killin' spree, His spit's soothing, Useless; untouched fuses, Truly lacking electricity, Truth is his flow it overly protected; content's pure simplicity, What exactly is this cake-adorin'-fake-slut-whore-man reading in my history? He's acting like I forfeit rap battles like he's uncovered a mystery, The troll I banned voting Pro has voted Pro when I am Con and still I win; can't limit me, So show me a rap battle where your camel back gets whipped in shape abysmally. Your flow so weak I feel as if I read it like it were a granny nappin', Intensity so low every punchline's vanilla fanny slappin' (vanilla=soft-core sex | Fanny is the a**/buttocks in American slang)RMThePretentious, Pretending you stand a chance at rappin', Understand this battle's nothing more than just another win you're handin', You spit hard, Fast like a rocket but don't plan ahead for that smooth landin', That's too bad, You cock-pit-ridden Bukkake slut I guess that I should name you Jasmine, Now come here you Arab-hating pest and do your best to suck Aladdin. (Jasmine is the secret girlfriend of Aladdin for most of the story)
Resolved: Current U.S. Foregin Policy in the Midddle East Undermines our National Security

Our foreign policy does not undermine our national security but makes us stronger as a nation. I am going to start by attacking my opponents contentions. 1. we are not at war with any middle eastern nations, and are in fact helping their governments build their army and fight terrorism themselves. we are creating bonds with countries like Iraq and Afghanistan by making them stronger and helping defend them. The policy in the middle east will not affect our trade because we are fighting terrorist organizations, not nations. Also I do not believe his first contention to be topical due to the fact this has nothing to do with our nation security but more trade and economic STABILITY not SECURITY. 2. Yes the United States is threatened by terrorists groups, and that is why we have the policy we have today. to defend ourselves against terrorist organizations like Al-Quad. We have prevented many terrorist attacks on American soil and have made a strong organization weaker and weaker. they used to control entire governments but now they are being pushed back into their caves by American forces. We can not stop now. We are making the world a better place, and trying to rid it of terror. 3. We need to support our allies in the middle east because they fight a much harder battle than we do as Americans. They have to deal with terrorists attacks on their nation, I am not stating that we haven't but they have had to more often, they help fight terrorism and are a great ally. We need to support Israel We are safe right now because of our foreign policies. We fight the problem and don't just let it do whatever it wants. This is common sense, and cast a neg ballot thank you
women rights should be banned

Women rights are one of the most important things, yet they are sometimes ignored. this is a really important topic because a lot of women all around the world are seeking to even get half these rights. women are no less than men they should have equal rights and they should be treated in the same way no matter what their age, race or anything else is. It depends on the rights. A women for example, should not be allowed to do something if it infringes on the rights of others. This includes: 1. Killing people 2. Beating them up 3. Stealing from them 4. Various other felonies 5. Minor crimes 6. Something if it unjustly infringes on the rights of other people or a single person. Do women get some rights, yes. However, they should not be allowed to do anything they want just because they are female.
All drugs should be decriminalized and/or made legal

I believe that all drugs (examples: Cannabis, MDMA, LSD, Psilocybin, Cocaine, Opiates, Crack, Ketamine, DMT, and much more) should be decriminalized and/or made legal. Many problems that come from the "drugs" come from the consequences if you get caught. It has been said that getting caught with the drug is more dangerous than the drug itself. It has also been shown that in the Netherlands drug ABUSE and harm has been reduced from the decriminalization of drugs (especially cannabis) and the fact that it is essentially legal. I would like to debate this issue, thanks.