BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Should creationism be taught in schools? (Evolution vs Creation)

I have presented my points in round 2, I would now like to present my rebuttal behalf on Pro's statements. Opening Creationism is a story based off a folklore which people should not take seriously. Like I mentioned before, the bible should not be taken 100% literally especially if it encompasses with fact. The simple meaning of science is the study of behavior and structure of the physical world and beyond. All legit scientific studies are backed up by good evidence, creation is a folklore which some people believe in for some stupid reason. Religion is different from science because religion can refer to lifestyle, a higher power and faith. A religious person can believe that a higher power is controlling science while an atheist/agnostic may believe that science is natural, not controlled by a higher power. Religion can also mean lifestyle and spirituality since Buddhism is a religion with no belief of a god or higher power. Whatever you do, you can't deny science no matter your faith. Creationism is the REJECTION of science and reality. The problem with creationists is that they believe god just created everything in the snap of a finger like that. Denying a scientific theory proven many times is a denial of reality. I have used evidence of Evolution collected by scientists to disprove creationism in my previous argument. Science is a fact which can not be denied.
Should creationism be taught in schools? (Evolution vs Creation)

Thank you con for having this debate with me.This debate topic is "should creationism be taught in schools?(evolution vs. creationism)." Based on this topic, here is a direct quote from his speech.""In schools, creationism should only be mentioned as a false tale that people used to believe and some people still do today. Creationism should only be mentioned in two scenarios. A) Creationism has something to do with history in social studies classB) Students are learning about evolution. In this case, creation should be taught as a folklore which is disproven by the scientific theory of Evolution. It should be mentioned as a nonsensical belief, we should teach students who are religious to accept the model of theistic evolution. Even so, we shouldn't go too in depth about the Creation vs Evolution debate in school. ""I agree, creationism is not backed by science and evolution should be accepted in science classes. Con in this part of the speech has agreed with me that we should in fact teach our kids creationism. Teaching the young generation that creationism is wrong is still teaching about creationism because we are teaching the children why creationism is incorrect. Even so, to mention something in a social studies class is to partake and give knowledge, and to give knowledge is a form of teaching. Con agrees with pro. This debate comes down to one point, Should schools teach creationism? According to both pro and con, we should teach it whether in social studies or in science as an incompatible belief. case closedvote pro, because voting con is voting pro, both support teaching creationism one way or the other. Have a nice day :).
I would rather my kids use marijuana over alcohol because it isn't nearly as dangerous.

Con says I have accused him of ad homonym. Never said it. Con continues to ignore serious data and (the huge elephant in the room) and is not reasonable in mind. It is so sad that Con can't make an argument that could convince others, instead hides behind the rules of debate without getting to the issue at hand. Is alcohol nearly as dangerous as marijuana? Of course not. Con makes wild claims about "carcinogens" and "smoke" and "cancer", but provides no sources for them. If it is the study I'm thinking, it has already been debunked. Con tries introducing cancer as a cause of smoking pot, but provides no source for this information. If it is the study I'm thinking, it has already been debunked. Con denies his argument is a straw man, but provides no info. Con wildly throws around terms like "cancer", implying some deaths are from marijuana, but provides no data. Con creates imaginary rules for debate.org and reads them to me. Con again claims not to understand articles sited or specific figures. Go figure. In Conclusion, I have proven that marijuana is incredibly safe and alcohol is incredibly dangerous when human lives are considered. I have found what I thought would be a great debate turn into a debate with a someone always complaining about the violations of rules and could never really get into a worthwhile discussion about how ridiculous a notion is to argue such an impossible argument to begin with.
I would rather my kids use marijuana over alcohol because it isn't nearly as dangerous.

I commend Con for continuing participation in this debate, a debate that is largely based on some of the most widely recognized and recent health research studies which are currently greatly in favor of cannabis from a health standpoint. Con has introduced a tangent subject not directly related, and questions whether my actual debate topic contains an illogical fallacy in line with a simpleton's deductive reasoning: "If marijuana is safer (over 100 times safer according to a study published in Scientific Reports (2)) than alcohol, then kids should smoke marijuana because it is safer than alcohol". I hope that my kids would choose marijuana over alcohol if they were to choose one. This is different, and totally defunct of "I think my kids should smoke pot because it is safer than alcohol". That would be advocating they use cannabis. That's not my intent here. I would think the logical and perhaps the only way Con can debate this topic is to find health and crime statistical research that suggests drinking alcohol is a better choice for kids than marijuana. Just a suggestion. Many marijuana prohibitionists use the deductive reasoning fallacy strategy when it comes to the subject of marijuana and alcohol and staunchly defend the right to consume alcohol. Yet with stats like these, it's difficult to justify alcohol being a better choice for anyone over marijuana. And that goes for kids or adults. I would love to shift my focus on the direct health risks related to alcohol use and abuse. There's staggering data there. Whether kids should choose one substance over the other isn't an argument here, but would make a great debate topic for another debate. I'd be happy to take that one on if Con is interested. More specific to this forum here, a premise whether society consumes alcohol by choice because it's legal, overlooking other less-obvious legal and health issues that result from alcohol. Alcohol is extremely DANGEROUS. I've been personally effected by close friends and family killed by alcohol poisoning. Con is welcome to try to justify that alcohol is better, but that is really the only thing in question here. 1. http://www.washingtonpost.com... 2. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... The rules of this debate aren't as important as the content, all to be judged by our peers, not a judge. I want the victory that folks outside of debate college experience can plainly see. It's a much bigger audience.
I would rather my kids use marijuana over alcohol because it isn't nearly as dangerous.

There isn't a specific format for this debate. But, I will refrain from arguing in this round... I accept. Please begin with your opening arguments. Marijuana - The dried flower clusters and leaves of this plant, smoked or ingested as an illicit drug to induce euphoria. (1) Alcohol - drink (as whiskey or beer) containing ethanol (2) (1) http://www.thefreedictionary.com... (2) http://www.merriam-webster.com... This is just to stop unwanted semantics. Anyway, your turn.
Motorbikes are superior to horses.

Pro has made some good arguments towards motorbikes superiority. I will counter these by proving my horses superiority by ascertaining its usefulness, beneficence and overall qualities.Arguments: Multi-Purposed.A horse is a very useful creature. It can act as a: Lawnmower, compost producer, tractor, war-machine, and personal transport. It can carry lots of objects on its back.Kill/Death Ratio.According to a study done by the CDC, between 2001 and 2008 there were over 34000 motorcyclists killed and over 1 million people were treated for motorbike related injuries in the US alone. Now this means that if you are riding a motorcycle you have more chance of dying than killing someone. This is not beneficial to the rider. Now horses were used in war because they gave the rider greater killing ability. This means that if you own a horse you have a greater Kill/Death ratio. This is beneficial to the rider because you have the potential to come out better than your opponent in a fight. Even if you leave your horse at home the benefit comes with you. How many horse owners die annually compared to motorcycle owners. This all boils down to in a fight between a biker and a rider, the rider will win because of superior horse ownership.Green.Horses are greener for the environment. Low on fuel and lower than motorcycles on emissions. Go Green, Go Horse.Maneuverability.A horse can be parked anywhere. It can also swim, climb over rocks, jump over objects, and eat its way through dense vegetations. It is an all-terrain, amphibious vehicle.Status.Horses are associated with nobility, wealth and high standing. Making them superior in status.Features.Horses have built in earthquake sensors, voice command, object detection, collision avoidance and reproductive organs allowing it to produce another of its kind. Rebuttals:P1:A motorcycle requires greater responsibility than a horse. There is no age limit on a horse. You do not need a riders license to ride a horse. You can ride a horse drunk. With a horse you are responsible for the horses well-being. On a motorbike you have a responsibility to every other driver and yourself. Which means you have a responsibility to a few billion people. Also allowing a child to ride a motorcycle is irresponsible of the parent.P2:You are stating that the fact that your motorbike does not invoke emotions in the owner makes it superior. This is only the case if you say that not loving or feeling attached to your motorcycle is far better than feeling emotions such as joy, understanding, sympathy, love etc. towards your horse. This is like saying its better to feel nothing at all than to experience the grief of losing a loved one.P6:In this case can rust not be considered as a disease? It is harmful to the condition of the bike and spreads as each layer of metal becomes exposed to oxygen.P7:If I customize my bike by painting words that are offensive like "All Jews must die". Then I can guarantee that people will care. A horse is so superior that it does not require any additional modifications or accessories to increase its elite level. I look forward to pros reply.
Motorbikes are superior to horses.

ArgumentsP1: ResponsibilityOne of the commonest reasons a parent may not let their child have a horse is because it's a big responsibility. Comparably, there isn't nearly as much responsibility in owning a motorbike. You don't have to feed it, you don't have to clear up its mess, you don't need to buy a big stable for it to live in etc. This means a motorbike is more convenient, and convenience is what people tend to like.P2: EmotionIt is not very common to get emotionally attached to a motorbike, but it is very common to get emotionally attached to an animal or pet such as a horse. This means that when the horse dies/ the motorbike gets crushed by a bus, for example, the owner of the horse be affected emotionally whilst the motorbike owner will just buy another motorbike, whereas the owner of the horse probably won't want to get a replacement for the horse because they don't think that another horse will be able to replace their perfect pet. Most people don't like experienceing negative emotions, so motorbikes are therfore better in this aspect.P3: FaecesWhere there is a horse, there's regular production of faeces and the vast majority of people don't like getting near faeces. This causes hassle, whereas a motorbike does not reguarly produce faeces, so motorbikes are more convenient and therefore better in this aspect.P4: Flies Horses attract flies, whilst motorbikes do not. Horse owners probably want to see their horse and get close to their horse but this causes hassle, whilst motorbike owners have no problem here, so motorbikes are better than this aspect also.P5: Mix & MatchNo matter what part of a motorbike stops functioning, you can just buy another one, whilst with a horse this is not true. If it loses a vital organ, a limb, a heart or a brain etc, that's the end of that horse, and you have to buy a whole other horse, whereas motorbike owners will not have this problem, so motorbikes are better in this aspect also.P6: Disease Unlike horses, motorbikes don't catch diseases. Curing a disease is a lot of hassle so in this aspect, motorbikes are also better.P7: CustomizableMotorbikes are customizable, meaning that you can paint it and put accessories on it and nobody cares. If you try to do this to a horse, the horse will care, people will care and animal rights people will care. A lot of people like choice and like to customize something, so motorbikes win in this aspect also.P8: TimeTo create a good horse, it takes years and years of breeding to get it, and even then, it takes a really long time to make more good horses. Whereas with motorbikes, you just find out how to make a good one and then you can make lots very quickly. This is a very significant advantage that motorbikes have over horses.There, I have given eight whole scenarios in which motorbikes are superior to horses.I'm intrigued to hear Con's response.
Motorbikes are superior to horses.

Resolution: Motorbikes are superior to horses.I will be arguing that motorbikes are superior to horses. My opponent will argue that horses are superior to motorbikes. ClarificationsThe following qualities will be considered greater-making properties, properties that make one superior to another if one has more of x property than another:Causing less harm, pain or inconvenience.Being beneficial or convenient.IntroductionI've decided to debate this topic because I personally find it interesting. Me and my friend have this debate in real life, but we both are in favour of motorbikes so one of us has to play the devil's advocate. Playing against someone playing the devil's advocate would be okay, but I'd rather debate against someone who wasn't.StructureRound 1 - AcceptanceRound 2/3/4 - Arguments and RebuttalsRound 5 - RebuttalsRules1. No arguments are to be made in the first round.2. No new arguments are to be made in the fifth round, with the exception of them being logically necessary to refute previoudly made arguments.3. No insults.4. The burden of proof is shared.5. No semantics or trolling.6. Failure to obide by the rules shall result in an embarrassing 1-point loss.
prolife folks should agree that abortionist tiller should have been shot

then we really agree... it's not about law per se, it's about the moral thing to do. so why bring up the idea that im being hypocritical? and it's not cause we agreed it's more about morality, and at a certain point everyone would take law into their own hands, morality by necessity. you did mention at the end saving the mothers life. we could agree this is a moral thing to do. too many children? they can always adopt. even if they couldnt, they are responisble for having the child, particluarly not aborting earlier when itd be more morallly gray. also u didnt address the rock concert example etc.
prolife folks should agree that abortionist tiller should have been shot

My opponent's first argument is hypocritical. She attempts to invoke law as a reason to justify murder, forgetting however that murder is itself illegal. She cannot justify an unlawful act, by claiming someone else did an unlawful act.Beyond that however, law has nothing to do with this. It doesn't matter if something was legal or illegal. Only if whether or not it was moral. George Tiller may have done things illegally, but was it moral, and further more, was it moral to shoot him for it? I contest that the answer for the latter should be a vehement and resounding NO. Therefore, this argument is irrelevant.My opponent's second argument, that he performed late-term abortions for trivial reasons, is ridiculous. Having too many children is NOT a trivial reason. Bringing one more person into the home would cause extra financial strain, which would lower the quality of life for the entire family. That is a very serious reason.My opponent goes on to say, thirdly, that closing clinics saves lives. So what? This existence of abortion clinics has no bearing on the morality of shooting a man in the head and murdering him. Murder is murder, and is always wrong. Unless it is in self-defense. Therefore this argument too is irrelevant.Which brings me to her fourth argument...where she attempts to claim that his murder was justifiable in the defence of the unborn child. However, I can simply use the same argument for my side; the abortion of a fetus is justifiable in the defence of the mother, as it infringes upon her bodily sovereignty, and in some cases, endangers her very life. What makes the doctor's and the mother's lives less valuable than the fetus, to the point where you would rather see them die than the fetus?My opponent concludes by asking "what is the moral thing to do?" Whatever it may be, it was certainly not to kill. When we start killing one another because we disagree, all we do is perpetuate a system of violence and suffering. We are a civilized society. We should be able to settle our differences by means other than putting a bullet in someone's skull every time they do something we do not approve of.
logic is cause and effect

Now, taking a look at the resolution, I can already notice some flaws with it. It states that logic is cause and effect, implying that logic is the absolute same thing as both cause and effect. False. Logic-"a proper or reasonable way of thinking about or understanding something" Cause-" a reason for doing or feeling something" Effect-"a change that results when something is done or happens : an event, condition, or state of affairs that is produced by a cause" The definitions show logic is not the exact same thing as a cause and effect. You have to prove that logic means both definitions.
Religion True Or False

I will be arguing that the concept of religion is neither true nor false. I will provide a few examples below. Religion - an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods. True - in accordance with fact or reality. False - not according with truth or fact; incorrect Provided the definitions, the concept of religion can neither be true nor false, however the claims, beliefs, ideologies, and philosophies contained within certain religions, can be true or false. For example; Christianity, as a religion, is neither true nor false, albeit the claim prevalently perpetuated that Noah's flood did indeed occur, has been demonstrably verified as false. I await Pro's arguments in the proceeding round. . http://www.merriam-webster.com... . http://news.nationalgeographic.com...
Adrian Peterson had a better comeback year than Peyton Manning

It is debatable which injury was more severe. While yes Peterson's ACL tear forced to re-learn how to walk, Manning's injury required four operations and was in the neck area. Although it is true that if Peterson was tackled, he could reinjurie his leags, the same could be said for Manning. In fact, it could be said for all injuries. Just because lots of players miss an entire season due to injuries, that does not mean that Manning's neck injury is less impressive. Most players did not play 208 straight games. While the Broncos made the Playoffs last year, they only had an 8-8 record. With Manning, they became a truly Elite team, one of the best in the league. I'm not going to argue that Viking's without Peterson was as bad as Bronco's without Manning. But I'm trying to say that each player improved his respective team the same amount. Peterson improved his team's offense by a lot, but Manning improved it more (as said last round).
Adrian Peterson had a better comeback year than Peyton Manning

Yeah, Adrain Peterson had an amazing season last year, there is no denying that. Yes, the ACL is an important part of the body, espically crucial to running backs. However, as a whole, Peterson's 2011 season wasn't that bad. He rushed for 970 yards in 208 attempts for an average of 4.7 yards per carry. Despite playing in only 12 games in 2011, he scored the same amount of rushing touchdowns (12) and same amount of receving touchdown (1). Peterson also fumbled once in 2011, compared to the 4 times in 2012. I'm not arguing that Peterson's 2012 season wasn't amazing, that's idiotic, but his 2011 wasn't too bad either. For Peyton Manning, his 2011 season wasn't respectable, in fact it was non-existent. Here are his stats: 0/0, 0% completion rate, 0 yards, 0 touchdowns, 0 interceptions, 0 passer rating. And while his 2012 season wasn't record breaking, it was very good. 400/583, 68.6%, 4659 yards, 37 touchdowns, 11 interceptions, 105.8 passer rating. Manning also had a very serious injury. Manning had 4 neck surgeries. Think about this: Before 2011, Manning played 13 seasons and started every single game. He played 208 straight games. Then in 2011, he missed not just one game, but the WHOLE season? A player who has incredible dedication, willpower and love for the game, missed out on a 16 games after starting the last 208? That must be a pretty serious injury if it can keep Manning on the sidelines for a year. Combined with the fact that he was 36, many people did not believe that Manning would even come back. Yet, somehow Manning came back and had the second greatest season of his career. My opponent mentioned that the Vikings were on Peterson's shoulders. But Manning had a huge load as well. Before Manning came, the Broncos scored 309 points in 2011, 25th in the league. The very next season, 2012, the Broncos scored 481 points, 2nd in the NFL. The Broncos improved by FIVE games. 5 games out of 16. Manning had a lot to do with that. Peterson was great, but Manning was better. Sources: 1) http://www.pro-football-reference.com... 2) http://www.pro-football-reference.com...