BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The chicken came before the egg.

Well, different people have different believes. I wrote three main arguments and Opposition rebutted all of them. Instead of rebutting back, I would like to ask for the evidence of the egg coming before the chicken. If Opposition refuse to give some reasons or evidence, and only rebuts me, I think I should take this debate. Here is my reasons why the chicken came before the egg. This time I have 2 points. 1) If you are religious and believe in gods, the chicken MUST have came first because some sort of your God (be it Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Taoist, or something else) created it. 2)If you choose to believe in the Darwinian or Evolutionary Theory,as Opposition mentioned, the egg MUTATED into a chicken, and this means that the EGG, because of external factors, CHANGED and became a chicken. But do you think it changed completely? Of course not! The egg mutated into the ancestors of the chicken, but not defined as the chicken we see today. This means that the mutated "half-chicken" who came out from the mutated "half-chicken egg" started spawning with the other birds and their offspring continued to evolve until it became the chicken we see today. Now, I'm coming to my most powerful point. If the first egg was only a "half-chicken egg", and "half-chickens" started to evolve into the modern chicken, there is still no evidence to prove that in the evolutionary process, the "half-chickens" laid an egg which become the modern chicken. It could have been the egg, which was still "half-chicken" hatched out an "almost-there chicken", and in the growth and maturity process of that "almost-there chicken", it became 100%, genetically, and physically the modern chicken. In conclusion, I think I deserve to take the first point as the majority of religious people believe that the chicken came before the egg. Even though some religions may have different thoughts, the few largest ones in the world believe in my first point. Now, moving on to the second point. I think I can get half of the second point as their is a 50% chance that the chicken came before the egg, and the Opposition deserves the other 50%. Adding up our scores, I should take 1.5 points and Opposition only gets 0.5, unless Opposition come up with something good the next round.
The chicken came before the egg.

I think that the egg became before the chicken. I will contradict the 3 theories that have been presented by Pro. 1.) This theory isn't very specific. You have failed to explain why and how the chicken just appeared out of nowhere. Neither dinosaurs, humans and giant insects appeared out of nowhere. They gradually evolved due to helpful genetic mutations that allowed them to adapt and survive more easily. This means that chickens cant have just come out of nowhere. 2.) Not everyone believes in God and since you have not presented any evidence to prove that God exists (not that there is any) we will have to assume that God does not exist. If we assume that God exists then you can say that anything happened. You could disprove anything and claim that God did it. 3.) This theory is in favor of my case. If the egg evolved and mutated into a chicken that means that the egg was there first. This is the theory that I would have used to present my case. My theory is simply that a similar bird to a chicken laid an egg and due to a genetic mutation or fault the egg ended up mutating the bird and made it a chicken. In the current area in which the birds were living these birds could not survive in the long term. However the chickens were able to survive because there differences suited the are and its climate. Eventually, the original birds died out and the chickens were left to live in this new area (survival of the fittest - Darwinian theory). I look forward to reading Pros rebuttals. Sources https://www.google.co.uk...
Affirmative Action

Seeing as you have made a series of baseless statements to begin your argument, it is unnecessary for me to rebut what you have said, although I'm sure you will provide evidence in the coming rounds. On the contrary, I believe affirmative action is an effective method to counteract elements of de facto segregation and racial discrimination that are naturally prevalent in society in terms of employment and education. This is especially important in the United States of America (which I assume will be the primary example of the debate), where minorities, such as African-Americans, have been hindered in their economic and social growth as a group for centuries due to societal negligence and more importantly, slavery. Although affirmative action is undoubtedly a preferential system, it is only preferential to a member of the minority group when both candidates (for a job or enrollment in a university, etc.) are equally qualified or deserving of the job (http://en.wikipedia.org...). While you might say that if affirmative action was not in place, majority or non-preferred groups (such as whites) would be given more jobs, this is obviously not due to some kind of inherent qualification or intellectual excellence within members of the white population. Due decades of financial and social inequality, minorities have been offered less opportunities, and have naturally been retarded in their development as a group in society. For example, the black population of American has higher unemployment and less education than the white population. This is not because they are 'lazier' or more 'inefficient' than whites, but because they've been deprived of economic and educational rights in society to such an extent that their community has been held back socially, despite the fact they are legal equals of whites. Affirmative action is an method to reverse this social inequality and balance the economic and educational gap between racial and/or other social groups.
Affirmative Action

Affirmative Action - http://en.wikipedia.org... I am against affirmative action. With every positive benefit of affirmative action, there is an equal and opposite negative effect. With every other negative effect of affirmative action, there is no positive benefit. People argue that it gives minorities more opportunities. It equally robs majorities of their opportunities. It also places restrictions on employers, which decreases their ability to make a profit. It also increases resentment towards minorities. I await whatever my opponent has to say on the subject.
Why do the majority of people turn a blind eye to animal extinction

1. There are now Zoo's guaranteed to keeping endangered animals alive. 2. A lot of Animal populations are decreasing but going extinct is just farfetched, only a few went extinct between 1900-2000 less than 50 if I can recall.http://listverse.com... 3. Evolution creates new animals all the time (especially when animals are separated.) I know this is a poor example but there are 2 different types of squirrel's (Kaibab and Abert) that are separated by the grand canyon, but once weren't, now they are so diverse now they can no longer reproduce with each other. http://uccpbank.k12hsn.org...
Why do the majority of people turn a blind eye to animal extinction

1.Animals really aren't going extinct that fast. (most of these are only extinct in the wild) http://www.buzzle.com... 2. There can only be so many animals in the world so if a few go extinct it's fine as long as a entire Genus never goes extinct so similar DNA is never lost(is it sad if 1 breed of dog goes extinct?) . http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. Evolution is constantly creating new animals so it makes since that a few go extinct. (only the strongest should survive) http://listverse.com...(whether there are recently discovered or newly evolved is debatable but there odds are we would have found them already or found some fossils.)
Can this be considered a lesbian work

Let's just recap. Con is making the claim that this cannot be considered a lesbian work. He said that it can't be because the author is a male. I responded by saying that the content of the work determines what genre the book is or whether it can be considered "gay" or "lesbian". Since the work is about female genitalia, it CAN be considered lesbian work. Meaning it's fully in the realm of possibility. If you walked into a lesbian bookstore you could find this work there. It's just erotica on the adoration of vaginas. Furthermore, my opponent doesn't contest that he has the burden of proof as I argued in R2. As such, my opponent should assume it. He has not upheld his BoP that this cannot (not possibly) be considered a lesbian work.
Can this be considered a lesbian work

pro say "This goes for his second point too. Sorry the rebuttal was so brief but that was all that was necessary. If my opponent fails to uphold his BoP as the claimant the resolution is negated and the debate goes to me by default. Back to you con." in conclusion I made two distinctions in the debate 1) who WROTE the work ie male or female I pointed out the work is by a male thus it cant be by a lesbian/female 2) as to CONTENT I pointed out that nowhere in the work is it indicated that a female is a speaker thus you cant not say the content is lesbian if as pro says it is by a female speaker then pro has to prove that-and not just assert that thus 1) pro says a male can write a lesbian work wrong the title of the debate is "Can this be considered a lesbian work" what that means unpacked is can this work be by a lesbian - as dean is a male he cant be a lesbian ie female so it cant be a lesbian work it is the same thing as "Can this be considered a homo sapien work" meaning is this work by a homo sapien 2) pro no where shows from the work that the speaker is a female-he just arts that with out proof I have stated that you CAANNOT find any reference to a female speaker in the work for pro to argue that this is a lesbian work ie about lesbians- he has to prove/ show that the speaker is female all pro does is make assertions ie this is a lesbian work-without proof you cant win a debate just by making assertions pro has to prove his assertions-which he has not therefore I must win the debate -as I have backed up my assertions with proof- which pro has not
Can this be considered a lesbian work

A male can write a lesbian work. A work is considered "gay" or "lesbian" by its content. This has nothing to do with which gender wrote it. This goes for his second point too. Sorry the rebuttal was so brief but that was all that was necessary. If my opponent fails to uphold his BoP as the claimant the resolution is negated and the debate goes to me by default. Back to you con.
Can this be considered a lesbian work

pro says "To that I will reply "Yup" thus saying that this is a lesbian work I will show it is not a lesbian work for 2 reasons 1) the work is written by Australias leading erotic poet colin leslie dean he is a male so the work cant be a lesbian work as it is written by a male 2) the poem is about the adoration of the woman's c*nt no where in the poem is it indicated that the speaker is a female-it is simplye about deans - a males fantasy so now pro has to disprove my points or show evidence that the poem is about another women admiring another women's c*nt just because an anonymous person admires a women's c*nt that does not make said anonymous person a female most men admire a woman's c*nt
Death penalty

Throughout this debate, Con has consistently stated that his system is morally correct because it gives automatic death penalty to any self-confessed killers/rapists. Here are the fundamental issues with his system, as opposed to mine. On retribution, his system doesn't even incorporate a different punishment for more brutal murderers or rapists, it simply has a one-for-all solution. My system is ultimately not only tempts criminals to confess (for a reduced prison sentence) but punishing to the scale of the crime (as I explain in round one very explicitly with the top ends of crimes whereas Con would punish a serial killer and crime of passion the same way. On deterrence, my opponent's system again has the problem of not deterring a killer from becoming a serial killer or rapist form raping more brutally or repeatedly. With my opponent's system people who have once done a heinous crime will keep committing it because they're a "dead man walking" regardless of what they do. My system not only makes the death of serial offenders and brutal offenders far more agonizing than those who offend less brutally and often but also has prison as a non-killing middleman between the outside world and kill-zone. This also deters people from bothering to blackmail people to confess if they know that person can later retract their statement once they live long enough to work out how protection works. Both our systems encourage rehabilitation, my point was to establish that my system foes people to live all the way through rehabilitation and offers them no easy way out via death. As for protecting the public, my system encourages people to confess without any risk of losing their life, it also gives an incentive for them to confess before imprisonment. My opponent's system encourages criminals to fight their trial to the bitter end with no hope of lesser sentence, putting the public at a greater risk. In conclusion, my system is the superior one of death penalty.
Death penalty

R1) In my system people can do suicide as well, whenever they want. But people who did a smaller crime, but don't want to die should have ability to confess, and save "everyone's" time. In my system, time convict spends in prison is scaled to their crime. I consider rape and murder of innocent to be worst of all crimes, and the only ones that are deserving more then prison sentence. R2) Number of suicidal individuals who are brave enough to kill another person and rape, but not brave enough to kill themselves is completely negligible, if any. My opponent was not clear in 3). I will ask him to try to explain what he meant. R4) is same as R2) Since my system meets all 4 aims of sentencing that Pro listed, I will ask him to name the one he considers not to be met in my system and why.
Death penalty

Due to the 2k restriction, I'll leave out the rest of the details for now. Just so you know, it would gradually get as merciful as lethal injection and electric chair. Guns would be out of the question; too kind.I shall explain the four priorities of sentencing and highlight how each is met better in my system than Con's:http://slidesha.re...1) Retribution - Punishment of offenderMy system incorporates the prison system and all punishments go accordingly. However, some may not want to go through with their sentence and are free to confess to be killed. It saves the taxpayer's money (since prisons can be gradually shrunk with less living bodies being held in it, and the pain the person receives in the death is scaled to their crime. Con never explains why rape and murder deserve death while other crimes do not.2) Deterrence - The Reduction of CrimePrison, community service and anklets are all still present in my system. On the other hand, in Con's system, many suicidal individuals would carry out rape and/or murder for the sake of the death penalty (if they don't have the courage to commit suicide but want to die). In my system such individuals would probably only bother stealing, especially since the death method for that is more merciful than greater crimes.3) Rehabilitation - Reforming offendersMy system only allows prisoners to confess for death penalty, it does not allow those in asylum or rehab clinics to do so.4) Protection of public - safetyOur systems equally ensure safety form murderers and rapists but mine offers further permanence in protecting the public from other types of criminals (who prison life itself may suddenly turn to suicide).Our systems seem to equally do this except for one thing: Mine is more likely to tempt non-suicidal rapists and murderers to turn themselves in for a lesser sentence. Con's system immediately kills, discouraging confessions prior to prison.My system, meets more aims of sentencing than Con's does.
Death penalty

1) If death penalty was delivered on absolutely every prisoner that confesses a crime: A) Many people would unnecessarily be executed. B) Many people who are guilty of smaller crimes would lie. *) Since my opponent said people who confess crime before sentence should not be executed, I will assume he wants people who are proven guilty of crimes he listed bellow "shall differ per crime". 2) Purpose of punishment is to prevent people from doing the crime again. Torturing is not necessary, and is evil. 3) If people were executed without confessing crime, many innocent people would be executed. 4) If people accused of severe crime they did not confess are sentenced with jail only, in the case they are proven not guilty later, it is possible to release them. Once they are executed, nothing can be done for them. 5) Delivering as mush death penalties as my opponent suggests would: A) increase disdain towards government, B) make society less productive, since people are not attending their jobs for a time when member of their family dies C) make society have less adults in proportion of adults and children. Therefore there would be more children without parents, and children would have less people to guide them well. I am asking judges to punish my opponent's profanity, cause profanity is not allowed on DDO.
Death penalty

Death penalty should be used on absolutely any prisoner that confesses to their crime, once in prison. However the original sentence must never be death penalty. Death penalty can only be given to someone who is confessing that is above the age of majority. If they confess before the prison sentence, their confession is not death-penalty worthy. This can even be given for someone confessing to stealing a lollipop. The death penalty, itself, shall differ per crime. Brutal murders of first degree or serial killers that made the deaths fast: Ramming a burning hot rod up their lubricated a**hole to burn their insides and let he stomach acid burn them to death. Serial killers, war crime convicts, slow and painful murderers who had prior intent and planned to make the victim suffer a lot, rapists who used cutting or permanently damages the victim's genitalia: For men or MTF trannies: Prior the this process, it is important to involuntarily tickle the prisoner, while in handcuffs until they scream with laughter. It is important that they are screaming with it. this must be recorded on a computer that can play the sound on loop. Once this is in,peel the penis with a carrot/potato peeler with penis being wanked to erection and a cock ring being placed on it beforehand to ensure it stays that way during the entire process. Then pour liquid nitrogen to freeze their peeled penises. If they are circumcised then they got off slightly lucky, good for them. Now what you do is you get a nutcracker and must slowly but surely crush each testicle with great precision. Once once testicle is done, you must play the sound of their own laughter back to them, over and over on a loop. Headphones can help you block it out. Feel free to increase the volume to uncontrollable levels if you want to be kind to them and take their mind off of the pain down there. 2k character limit is preventing me from further detail. In R2, I'll go into further detail why my system is superior to Con's.
In the United States, plea bargaining in exchange for testimony is unjust.

This is my first debate on this website, and so I wanted to start it with a prewritten Lincoln-Douglas Debate speech I had. Obviously, I'd like to debate this LD style. If you wouldn't like to debate the Con side, I will be happy to switch places with you. I want to see if anyone's interested before I edit my case so it fits the format of the site. I'll post my case once I get a challenger. To begin, I'd like to just offer the following definitions and parameters (we'll settle the argument later): Justice: Giving each their due. Just: to seek punishment for those guilty of unlawful behavior, and to ensure fair and impartial administration of justice for all. Punishment: Penalty inflicted through a Justice System Is: The present tense form of the verb to be This excludes any past or future applications of plea bargaining, as well as any possibly reforms. Rather, we must debate the current application of plea bargaining within the current context of the system to determine what is just. The word "is" is absolute, therefore both debaters should have to win by affirming or negating the resolution as a whole. This Debate focuses on determining whether or not plea bargaining in exchange for testimony is just. The objective for the aff is to prove that it is just; the objective for the Con is to prove that it is unjust.
In the United States, plea bargaining in exchange for testimony is unjust.

Before I can really argue the merits of your case, you should probably have a case. But I will argue your definitions. You define justice as "giving each their due. " Now I don't know where this came from, and it may have come from yourself. That's cool I don't mind. I still think it is wrong. I say justice, is the punishment of a wrong doing. I have a couple of problems with your definition of just. You define just as "to seek punishment for those guilty of unlawful behavior, and to ensure fair and impartial administration of justice for all. " My first problem is that the word just cannot be defined as an action. Which is what you do. Just is an adjective. which means it describes a noun. So I will define just as being fair. Therefore unjust is not being fair. I believe that these are pretty common understandings of the words, and therefore should be allowed. As far as everything else goes, I agree. I must say that plea bargaining is just, and you must say that plea bargaining is unjust. I await to hear your arguments.
Mirza is sexist and uses his religion as a shield

I do not know why the link didn't work, but moving on. Okay there is a difference between how one's body works, and telling people what they are capable of just because of their sex. My main point was that if there is a chance of something, it should be considered, like breast cancer in males, it exists, it should be looked for just as much. That is comparable to gender roles, they are not always accurate so the best system would be to make sure before marriage that the positions that they cover are compatible. Whether the woman stays home, or works, whether the man stays home or works, whether they have sex often or not opposing sex drives is another issue that could and does lead to many problems in relationships), and many other factors without one being in control of the other, and without anyone being forced into a role that doesn't fit them. Actually I would prefer women choose, choose to be at risk in a workplace, choose to work from home, or choose not to work if she is luckier than most and has that option. No I have never seen parents fight over who raised the kids a certain way, most parents are intelligent enough to know that both are responsible for a child's upbringing, as well as any other people that were involved (aunts uncles, teachers, grandparents, even friends' parents in some cases) "Women like to be complimented" I do not; not to the point of lies. I like the good to be acknowledged, as well as the bad, for me as well as other men and women. If what you say about Islam is true then the mother should be respected because she gave birth, the father should be respected because he provides for the mother and the child. The same goes for honoring them. Islam imposes gender roles, even though it is not true in all cases, or even most cases that I have seen. Imposing gender roles is sexist, from my definitions in round one. My opponent has not refuted it, but only explained the system more. My opponent supports this. My opponent and Islam are sexist.