BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Noah's ark never happened.

I'm debating that it would not have worked Now I'm going to list the things i see make it impossible for Noah's ark story to be possibly true 1. since all the humans on board where of one race how did new races arise in 4000 thousand years? and 8 people is not enough genetic diversity 2.'"19The water prevailed more and more upon the earth, so that all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered. 20The water prevailed fifteen cubits higher, and the mountains were covered. 21All flesh that moved on the earth perished, birds and cattle and beasts and every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth, and all mankind;"' So i assume you know Mount everest is the highest mountain in the world ? and since in the Bible it says that water was that high animals would either die because of Lack of Oxygen or because they froze to death 3. There would have to be 50 animals of each kind for there to be enough genetic diversity . there would be severe genetic defects 4. If there was only a few thousand pairs of kinds of animals why is there so many species right now estimates show there is roughly about 15 million species of animals so how did that happen in 4000 years 5.As the animals left the ark there was no plants and food therefore wouldn't the animals eat each other or just die out 6.There would be signs of migrations for example after leaving the ark the kangoro would travel to Australia and we found find fossils on the way 7.The Problem of Food and Water , i really dont need to explain much on this one for example 2 elephants would require 365,000 Ibs. Of Food and 36,500 gal. of water , the Girrafes are going to need 54,750 Ibs. of food , the hippos are gone need 65,700 Ibs. of food and the Lions 16,060 Ibs. of Meet and that meet is going to rott , what makes it even more incredible is that in Genesis 6:21 it says 'You are to take every kind of food that is to be eaten and store it away as food for you and for them." . 8.Most Sea Life would die , Because there would be Changing Water temperature , pressue , salt&fresh water mixing = fish die
Gun Bans

"In my opponent's first argument he pointed at raising the price of ammunition. If indeed my terms were finalized, his argument is declared irrelevant." A gun ban suggests an ammunition ban, the same way that a ban on nuclear weapons suggests a ban on weapons-grade plutonium. Your entire first argument was speculation as to the PROBABLE CONSEQUENCES of a gun ban. I, in turn, speculated that a probable consequence would be an ammunition ban. If I violated the agreement by appealing to probable consequences, then so did you. Regardless, the ammunition ban had nothing to do with any other part of my argument, so it should in no case make the entire argument irrelevant. On that note, feel free to respond to the remainder of that argument, which you've yet to do. "How can you suggest killing an industry that provides our economy with billions of dollars?" The same way I can suggest killing the high-emission auto industry: the concentrated profits don't justify the widespread human cost. Incidentally, I find territorial nationalism idiotic and don't care one way or the other where that capital goes. Presumably, though, it would stay in the U.S., unless of course the economic factors of foreign gun markets incited our producers to expatriate. But your precious terms are about "gun bans" per se, not gun bans surrounded by gun legality. Your first argument, though flawed, was to the point; you're now on a tangent. "How can you find 126 million (96') guns? Will they vanish into thin air?" Unlikely. If your "civilian" profile is accurate, civilians will immediately turn in their guns. Beyond that, guns will be confiscated at the normal rate, destroyed at the normal rate, and lost forever at the normal rate. "How can you keep people from refilling cartridges?" How can you keep people from possessing stolen property? You go after them with the full force of the law, which in this case prohibits not only gun possession but also ammunition purchase—that is, if you're keeping to your word: "Nevertheless I will still argue against [TombLikeBomb's argument, which assumes ammunition bans]" "If you kill our gun industry, you will hurt our military. Our gun industry sells guns to our military, if we don't have an industry, our military will be forced to rely on foreign weapons." God has blessed the world that includes a weakened U.S. military. And are you suggesting that the only thing keeping military-grade weapons producers in the U.S. is civilian gun purchases? I hope you don't think bans apply to military markets. If the specific "assault weapons ban" doesn't apply to military markets, why should the general "gun ban"?
Gun Bans

In R1 I said "my opponent (Pro) will argue in favor of gun bans." My opponent did not object to these terms. Due to the fact that my opponent did not object to the terms provided by me in the opening of R1, the terms are final. In my opponent's first argument he pointed at raising the price of ammunition. If indeed my terms were finalized, his argument is declared irrelevant. Nevertheless I will still argue against it. Due to lack of time I will summarize: Overall Argument) 1.4 million Handguns - 1997 USA Production (CFAF) 2.2 million Shotguns - 1997 USA Production (CFAF) According to MSNBC, gun sales are up since October. How can you suggest killing an industry that provides our economy with billions of dollars? How can you find 126 million (96') guns? Will they vanish into thin air? How can you keep people from refilling cartridges? If you kill our gun industry, you will hurt our military. Our gun industry sells guns to our military, if we don't have an industry, our military will be forced to rely on foreign weapons.
Gun Bans

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes ... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -- Thomas Jefferson I (Con) will argue against gun bans, my opponent (Pro) will argue in favor of gun bans. I wish my opponent luck, and I thank the readers for reading as opposed to bombing me. Contention A) A criminal is someone who doesn't obey the law. Criminals kill people. If a ban is put into place, what would be the point? Do to the fact that criminals don't obey the law, they don't obey bans. Therefor criminals have guns. Contention B) If criminals don't obey laws, somebody has to. Innocent civilians obey laws. If innocent civilians obey laws, they will obey the gun ban. If the civilian is indeed innocent, he wouldn't commit a gun crime regardless of ban. If Contention A and B are true, gun bans are a failed idea. Gun bans seek to end gun crimes, in order to do so they must disarm criminals. Let us look at a before and after if gun bans are installed. Before: Criminals - w/ guns Civilians - w/ guns After: Criminals - W/ Guns Civilians - Without Guns Final Contention: I will argue this contention with two examples, situation A and B. Situation A (W/ Guns) It is 3:04AM in the PoeJoe home. PoeJoe is home alone, his parents are on vacation. PoeJoe wakes up to a loud bang, he immediately knew it was the back door. The criminal takes off his mask, he apparently knows PoeJoe's family is gone but obviously didn't know that PoeJoe stayed home. PoeJoe races into his parents room and finds his dads 9mm. The criminal creeps into their room. PoeJoe jumps up, pointing his gun at the criminal with fury. The criminal races out the front door. PoeJoe hears a car outside speed quickly away. PoeJoe was able to identify the criminal as brian_eggleston to the police, who later caught brian. Luckily PoeJoe had a gun, what would Debate.org be without him? Situation B (W/O Guns) It is 3:04AM in the PoeJoe home. PoeJoe is home alone, his parents are on vacation. PoeJoe wakes up to a loud bang, he immediately knew it was the back door. The criminal takes off his mask, he apparently knows PoeJoe's family is gone but obviously didn't know that PoeJoe stayed home. PoeJoe runs to the kitchen in fear, and grabs a knife from the sink. The criminal creeps around the corner to see PoeJoe cowering in the corner. The criminal quickly realizes he has his mask off and shoots PoeJoe to make sure his identity isn't made known. Brian_eggleston continues to 3 different homes until he is confronted with a gun, which is when his his crime spree comes to a halt.
Music Battle: Rapper Edition

So basically in this debate each side will pick a rapper (living or dead, I'd prefer you be original but if you must pick 'Pac or Biggie I guess I'll understand) and debate on why they think their rapper is more superior. This judgment will be made on four different criteria: * Voice: What kind of voice does the rapper have? Does it sound ill or has been put through the abuse of black and mild's and way too many blunts? A rapper's voice is just as important as that of any other singer, so is his/her voice something you want to listen to? * Flow: The way a rapper's lyrics fit to the beat, how well the lyrics fit into the bars, all that sorta stuff. In addition to how confident the rapper seems in his material/execution. * Lyrics: What a rapper actually says, how original he/she is, all that. Anybody can have really imaginative lyrics but you also have to take in account how well the lyrics fit the beat/background, everything. * Presence: If you've seen the rapper live, you can include that, but its more of how he/she appears on their tracks. Does it sound superficial? Are they struggling? That kind of thing. *Holistic Judgment: How well do all of the aforementioned fit together? Does the rapper bring something special when they step to the mic? I'm leaving this first round for introductions and declaring your rapper. I'm Untitled_Entity, U_E and I choose the rapper known as "Macklemore" for my rapper.
islam vs crishtianity

:Legitimate evidence that their specific god exists. Christianity = None Islam = None :Religions resulted in multiple problems and bloodshed throughout history. Christianity = Yes Islam = Yes :Religions have shitload of followers and target children below the age of 12 for said religions survival. Christianity = Yes Islam = Yes :Proceeds the destruction of critical thinking skills. Christianity = Yes Islam = Yes :Followers believe whatever said religion says despite any evidence presented that proves against it Christianity = Yes Islam = Yes :Believe that their religion is not a religion but reality/relationship even though its a religion despite what they think. Christianity = Yes Islam = Yes :Religions have been proven wrong with real evidence, religions still in denial over said evidence and proceed to try to disprove said evidence without knowing what the hell their even talking about. Christianity = Yes Islam = Yes Seems pretty even if you look at it closely "\_(-_-)_/" this debate is a waste sir.
Should Cannabis/Marijuana be legalized

'A prohibition can not fail, it can just not be applied or respected, if prohibition fails then the state has no control over its population and its habits' The Population will not accept rules that they do not support , The government should not have controll over what drug people want to consume , the best it can do is ensure a safe enviroment and a regulated drug. ' Prohibition on murder also failed since it still happens quite a load, so does stealing, assault and rape. ' All the things you listed are crimes in which there is a direct victim , If a guy decides to smoke cannabis one day at his house,it doesn't directly harm anyone and usually indirectly aswell . ' it is forbidden motivate people to do it? No idea, but if it does there is something wrong with your population, and not with the product. ' There is nothing wrong with humans we have used drugs for thousands of years and therefore drugs are a part of human culture but let's not get to the drugs debate but focus on the topic. 'Legalization of a product does not mean the product will be of better quality, it's quite the opposite actually. As shown here, the fact that a product is legal does not stop multinationals from taking advantage of the consumer by putting dangerous chemicals in their product. As shown in following scandals and studies. ' None of your articles are related to use of marijuana drugs and good are two different things Cannabis would be of better quality because companies would start selling it legally they would have an interest in giving you the best product possible to make the most money they would put drug dealers out of business do you really think someone would prefer to buy cannabis from someone in a dark valley rather than a company? . http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk... http://economics.about.com...
Should Cannabis/Marijuana be legalized

Thank you for your answer. Currently, as you might know, Marijuana is getting legal in the US, this movement will surely evolve and will expand to other states. I am against this movement for several reasons which I will explain after countering your arguments.To counter your first argument:A prohibition can not fail, it can just not be applied or respected, if prohibition fails then the state has no control over its population and its habits. Prohibition on murder also failed since it still happens quite a load, so does stealing, assault and rape. I do not think you want those things to become legal because the US failed to prohibit them correctly. Does the fact that it is forbidden motivate people to do it? No idea, but if it does there is something wrong with your population, and not with the product. Legalization of a product does not mean the product will be of better quality, it's quite the opposite actually. As shown here, the fact that a product is legal does not stop multinationals from taking advantage of the consumer by putting dangerous chemicals in their product. As shown in following scandals and studies. http://www.dailymail.co.uk...http://www.mirror.co.uk...http://www.collective-evolution.com...http://health.howstuffworks.com...Legalization of Marijuana will not improve its quality. The price will go down, I can agree with this, but according to you a significant use of marijuana could mentally impair one. Price decreases > More to buy where you had less for the same amount before > More marijuana being used > Possible illnesses. Hemp can surely be a bio fuel source, I highly motivate this and think this should indeed be put into effect, but bio fuels are legal already. So are hemp based fuels, and legal plantations of hemp (to make bio fuel) already exist.By saying it is not as harmful as legal drugs you agree it is actually harmful. Marijuana caused less deaths than tobacco, but the consequences of using it are different. A person using marijuana will lose his reflexes and his self-control, which could potentially cause trouble.As you said, Cannabis can cure a whole load of ailments, like pain (Pain reducers work too...), Nausea (Already a cure for that), spasticity (yet again, can already be cured). Cannabis does not help people go through a depression but helps them forget it, a night out with friends will have the exact same result. As for anorexia, I highly doubt the use of cannabis can help one cure anorexia. Unless you can stuff food in them while they are high. http://alcoholism.about.com...You say it has a relatively low dependence liability and easy-to-manage side effect, the last one might be true from the afflicted person' point of view, but it most certainly is not from its friends point of view, most urban fights are cause by one being mentally disoriented or impaired. This is caused by the use of a drug. The use of a drug, marijuana is a drug, it alters one mind and unless the US want a nation of mind-altered people they should stop this movement. The short term economical benefits do not outweigh the long term societal problems that will occur.
Eigth Notes are Better than Quarter Notes

I will argue the case of the quarter note indirectly, but the fact that Eight notes are better than Quarter Notes more. You said: "Eighth notes are generally better than quarter notes simply because you can fit more of them into one measure." Now lets not get hasty and start to make wild and random generalizations. Just because there are more of them doesnt mean that they are better or have any advantage over the other. If I said to you, "there are more McDonalds in the U.S. then Subway's (the sandwich shop), so MickeyD's must be better." Im not going to debate about how bad McDonalds is but you get my example. You said: Eighth notes are also the easiest to play, as the quarter note is too slow, the sixteenth note is too fast, and dotted half-notes are the hardest to play simply because of the long wait and the precise counting you must endure. I do not neccesarily think that the eighth notes are any easier, as quarter notes are shorter, and If we are going to be making generalizations, then the slower the better. I do agree that dotted half-notes are hard, but not that hard. you said: The whole note may be the only long note easy to play, but there is a long wait involved and they are generally boring or take out a lot of breath at a time when you don't have much due to the sixteenth notes and holding long quarter notes. Now, as far as run-on sentences go, this one didnt make my list. I apologize. You said that they are boring, which is another generalization. A whole not can prolong a dramtic moment in an incredible piece of classical music or it could be a gut-busitng beat in a modern day rap song. In conclusion, there is no comparison as to which is better between the eighth note and the quarter. Thank you.
Eigth Notes are Better than Quarter Notes

Eighth notes are generally better than quarter notes simply because you can fit more of them into one measure. Eighth notes are also the easiest to play, as the quarter note is too slow, the sixteenth note is too fast, and dotted half-notes are the hardest to play simply because of the long wait and the precise counting you must endure. The whole note may be the only long note easy to play, but there is a long wait involved and they are generally boring or take out a lot of breath at a time when you don't have much due to the sixteenth notes and holding long quarter notes.
Eigth Notes are Better than Quarter Notes

Hello, and as this is the final round I will keep it short. you said: "Actually, it does. Since you can fit more of them into a measure, they are used more commonly for fast paced songs and musicals, the quarter note is rarely used. They are also more commonly used because they are in the middle of the range of tempos, and are therefore easier to play. Quarter notes are taught to a young musician the first thing, but then they seem to become abandoned, what happened? Simple, they are being replaced by better eighth notes." Fitting more of them into a measure means nothing, besides more common use. Common use and frequency does not make anything better, take drugs, for example. I do not think they are easier to play, as quarter notes are slower, thus not taking as much thought. As to the point of eighth notes neing more natural, that is for another debate. being replaced with so called "better" eighth notes is a blatant assumption, becuase i could say that quarter notes are better. In conclusion, the quarter note is quite easier because of its tempo and easy readability. Thank you.
Eigth Notes are Better than Quarter Notes

Okay, once again, you made no arguments against my case. I will, however, make arguments against your case. "Just because there are more of them doesnt mean that they are better or have any advantage over the other." Actually, it does. Since you can fit more of them into a measure, they are used more commonly for fast paced songs and musicals, the quarter note is rarely used. They are also more commonly used because they are in the middle of the range of tempos, and are therefore easier to play. Quarter notes are taught to a young musician the first thing, but then they seem to become abandoned, what happened? Simple, they are being replaced by better eighth notes. Prove me wrong.
Eigth Notes are Better than Quarter Notes

Since you did not refute any of my arguments concerning eighth notes are better than quarter, then I assume you concede my arguments to me. As to your McDonalds argument... "Well, since there are more "MickeyD's", more people must go there, therefore McDonald's would be better, because if it wasn't, it wouldn't have as many people going to it regularly and it wouldn't be getting more money." thats what you said. Now the reason for this. The reason that may people and families go to McDonalds is because of the really cheap prices and the amount of food you get. It is cheap, fast, and easy and a great way to eat for a family that is not exactly in the money. Ummm i dont have much to say about the actual arguments concerning the eighth and quarter notes. I guess you concede these to me. Thank you and I await your rebuttal.
Eigth Notes are Better than Quarter Notes

The only real argument you made against me case was the one that used the comparison of McDonald's, which is what I will retaliate against. "If I said to you, 'there are more McDonald's in the U.S. then Subway's (the sandwich shop), so MickeyD's must be better.'" Well, since there are more "MickeyD's", more people must go there, therefore McDonald's would be better, because if it wasn't, it wouldn't have as many people going to it regularly and it wouldn't be getting more money. This, however, does not at all relate to our debate, so your comparison was uneeded and useless. Prove me wrong.
The U.S. Federal Government should increase its exploration and/or development of space

I would like to add that by space I mean outer space, beyond the Earth's mesosphere. Position descriptions Pro: has to say why the U. S. federal government should increase its exploration and/or development of space. Con: has to say why the U. S. federal government shouldn't increase its exploration and/or development of space. I will leave the first round for my opponent to ask any questions and/or to say any comments or concerns to the topic. Thank you and good luck.