BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
America is a Communist Country

As stated in Round 1, Communism for this debate will be defined as the propositions and theories espoused by Karl Marx, which means that I need to prove that the United States has adopted the propositions of Karl Marx, and that the theories of Karl Max are generally accepted as true. In chapter 2 of the Communist Manifesto, Karl Mark detailed his steps toward communism, ad the agendas of the Communist Party, those are:"1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes."This is called the Property Tax which means that the Government owns all the property in America and that we are just renters. In addition to this, the Government can evict us at any time and use our land 'for public purposes,' and it's called Eminent Domain. "2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax." Check. "3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance." Estate Tax. "4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels." Check "5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly." Federal Reserve- check "6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state." Check "7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan." FDA- check "8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture." This one I'm not sure about. "9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country." Agenda 21- check "10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc." Check.
Evolution can no more be proven true than creation can be proven fake

Abiogenesis is not evolution "What you forget is that both have fact and both have a missing piece for creation the missing piece would be where did God come from and for evolution the missing piece would be we're did the orignal bacteria come from" Evolution can be defined as "descent with modification" this means that it doesn't take effect until after life comes into existence. Abiogenesis is a totally different field of study to evolution and not remotely related. Macro and Micro evolution "we have never personally seen evolution occur on a macro scale only micro which is a completely different from macro we only see common species and fossil and assume through similarities they evolved from this organism" The distinction between macro and micro evolution is first of all completely irrelevant. Second by all definitions macro evolution is evolution from one species to another here are some examples [1]. The evolution of all of life can also be seen through the system of phylogenetics, grouping organisms into classes based on their genetics. For instance our order is Primates which consists of monkeys and apes as well as us, anything grouped into the order Primates is a monkey and we are not excluded from that. Hominidae is our taxonomic which contains all the apes and because we are classed in this family we to are apes wether we like it or not. Our genus is Homo which contains us along with all the extinct homonids. The system of taxonomy was purposed by a christian creationist who lived before darwin ever published his theory and yet this is some of the best evidence for evolution, the fact that we are all subdivided into categories which are identical to the categories of descent with modification. Age of the earth Notice that Pro has not been able to site a source for his claims about oil deposits magically filling back up again in a process that breaks all the laws of thermo dynamics [2]. The age of the earth can be confirmed in so many ways, including the models of reality we use to send men to the moon, they have practical application and predictive capability, two things creationism lacks. Moses There are no records of any great plagues nor Jewish slavery in Egypt. Pro has not been able to site a source for this either just said "Egyptian manuscripts". Nor are there historical records for moses existing as described. [1] http://evolution.berkeley.edu... [2] http://www.haystack.mit.edu...
Evolution can no more be proven true than creation can be proven fake

What you forget is that both have fact and both have a missing piece for creation the missing piece would be where did God come from and for evolution the missing piece would be we're did the orignal bacteria come from you can not prove evolution true other wise it would be fact and we have never personally seen evolution occur on a macro scale only micro which is a completely different from macro we only see common species and fossil and assume through similarities they evolved from this organism also through Egyptian manuscripts we see that a man (Moses) liberated the Isrealites from Egypt right after the great plagues (which in the bible Moses caused). I got the infomation on Moses from the eygpt national muesum Finally I would like to address earths age In evolution the earth is millions of years old In creation earth is thousands of years old Oil rigs in Saudi Arabia that have been dry for years have been drilled on again for a decent amount of oil but according to science this should take millions of years to refill the oil deposits. This is good grounds to question just how old te Earth really is!
Evolution can no more be proven true than creation can be proven fake

My "few biblical errors"You make the claim that Moses rote the genesis account, this is not true. The series of ancient tales now known as genesis were edited together by several different authors [1]. Furthermore if you want to claim Moses wrote the Pentateuch you must realise that the Pentateuch records the death of Mosses [2]. Also my opponent has not cited any evidence for the existence of Mosses.Also the iron age is the period from 1200 BC to 500 BC, the period where many biblical books were written.And the Jewish tribe were predominately goat herders. God Cannot be ComprehendedYou say that "The reason you think god can't exist is because you are putting him on the same level as us but in truth is he is so much more than us that we can't even begin to fully comprehend him." no, I used logic to show that NOTHING could be either omniscient or omnipotent. You didn't even attempt a refutation.Creation is a Theory?A theory must:1. Have predictive capability. Evolution can predict changes in an organisms morphology. Creation has no predictive capability (I challenge you to show otherwise).2. Be the simplest logical solution. Evolution has withstood occam's razor every time it has been attempted. Creationism relies on unproven hypotheses such as the idea that the rate of radioactive decay changes.3. Be consistent with all the facts. Evolution has been shown to be consistent with all the facts otherwise it would be changed. Creation needs to distort scientific disciplines such as palaeontology in order to maintain itself. As you can see Evolution is a theory and Creation is not.You have not even attempted to refute what I see as my trump card and instead attempt to say that it is not necessary to argue for the existence of god. This is an unfalsifiable hypothesis which should be dismissed. [1] Gooder (2000), pp. 12–14 [2] Deuteronomy 34
Evolution can no more be proven true than creation can be proven fake

Firstly I would like to correct a few biblical errors. First creation was not written by a goat herder but a adopted son of the pharohs daughter and secondly you said Iron Age yet in fact they did have steel back. Now to the fact of God . The reason you think god can't exist is because you are putting him on the same level as us but in truth is he is so much more than us that we can't even begin to fully comprehend him. Finally I would like to say that evolution is a THEORY which means it is not "fact" it means it has strong evidence and is most likely true. On the flip side of the coin intelligent design(creation) is also a theory which means it is in the same boat as evolution so much to the point that some believe god created evolution.
Evolution can no more be proven true than creation can be proven fake

Evolution can be shown to be consistent with all the facts as well as possessing predictive capability in the form of ability to predict future mutations. Creationism is based on no facts, just a self contradictory book of fairy tales written by iron age goat herders. Creationism relies on the self contradictory notion of a god to create which can be dismissed with this argument ""I think, therefore I am" is the only thing we can objectively know to go any further you must make three assumptions (the basil assumptions): The assumption that we experience the universe through our senses, The assumption that knowledge exists, The assumption that models with predictive capability are more effective than models with only descriptive capability. Any sentient being cannot know that any of these assumptions are true (even a god) and therefore there is an impossibility in the definition of a god ("A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.") and as a being cannot achieve omniscience it cannot fulfill all the characteristics necessary to be considered a god. Further more there is a contradiction in omnipotence which is very easy to highlight. Can god create an object god cannot object effect? If god cannot create the object then god isn't omnipotent and if god can then god has something god cannot do either way omnipotence is impossible. I have shown you that there are two impossibilities in the definition of god and therefore god cannot be either omnipotent or omniscient. And as any being cannot be omnipotent or omniscient god by definition doesn't exist and it is impossible for god to exist."" (copied from a previous debate because I don't see why I should re-write something yet to be refuted). Furthermore creationism is based on faith which is belief without adequate evidence and despite all the facts, something that cannot be changed is known as unfalsifiable which is a test of a positions weakness, not its strength. Creationism has been proven false in a court of law and every endeavour by creation "scientists" has been dismissed by actual scientists.
Death Penalty

Rebuttal 1:Let me give you an example. You tell me if this person deserves to live. This is a real man. Not a scenario. Does he deserve to live? Look at is face. Does he show any remorse? Do you really want filth like that alive? I don't. If people don't care about the death penalty, then why do they always ask for life in prison instead of death? It is illogical to let scum like that live. Garbage gets burned in the incinerator, and most of the time, dogs get put down for biting someone.Rebuttal 2:Count the new offenders that don't need to fear the death penalty anymore and we'll see what happens.... You also forget my arguments about cutting costs.Rebuttal 3:It hasn't been put to effect yet because all of this controversy with the death penalty! You can cut trails by having less court time, more evidence required to convict them, and making jury deliberations a little bit shorter.Rebuttal 4:Experts are not criminals and have no way of knowing what a killer is thinking when on trail. They could be saying that now, but let's see if they would say it if they would be faced with death. I showed the graph to rebuttal it. You see the crime rates that aren't murder, then compare it to Texas, you see there is a big difference. Most of the non-death penalty states are small states.It's easier to commit murder with a gun than a knife. That is why guns come into effect. Minnesota has less general crime as my opponent again fails to comprehend. it matters how much crime, not just murders, but general crime is in the area. I have shown that Minnesota has less general crime than Texas, so that shows they can't be compared.Again, my opponent fails to understand the different cultures in the area. Rebuttal 5:Murder has changed, but if there is solid DNA evidence (I know DNA evidence was non-existent back then) Then the hemorabi system should be taken into account.Rebuttal 6:You fail to understand my arguments once again. States with the death penalty are often larger, and have a bigger population. A big chunk of that is states with the death penalty.This overall last paragraph made no sense to me. I think the whole argument is in-valid.I think I have proved my point that the death penalty:The death penalty deters murders more than LWOPThe death penalty is not morally justifiedThe death penalty is cost-efficientI also suggest my opponent has not filled his BOP that:LWOP works better than the death penaltyThe death penalty is not morally justifiedThe death penalty can never be cost efficient.These are the reasons I think you should vote Pro. Con has not fulfilled any of his BOP's as shown above. Thank you.Don't try "The BOP is no on me argument." never said who the BOP was on.1. http://blog.al.com...
Death Penalty

Rebuttal 1: Why not just do it with a firing squad? Let them donate the guns and ammunition to kill them. Let the family or concerned citizens execute them or you can just hang them or use the electric chair. All of these are cost efficient ways of executing the death penalty. My opponent may also state that the trial will take longer, but the trial is going to cost money anyways. Death penalty or no death penalty. We can shorten the trials. My opponent also needs to take into account how much money it takes to feed someone for life.Rebuttal 2:These are just taken by citizens who have not witnessed the death penalty and don't know the effect of the death penalty.You also fail to understand the variety of states. States have different Almost all of these non-death penalty states, are generally small states. You also have to take into account gun control and general crime in the area. Seriously who ever heard a serious news story coming from Alaska? Then you have Texas, Louisiana and Alabama, all who are against gun control. Here are the crimes committed in Texas. (1) with the crimes committed in Minnesota, (2) you will see that Minnesota have generally less crime, whether it be assault, or property, than Texas. You also give a compare country to country. You fail to take into account the general crime and culture of the area there! Rebuttal 3:You have one case where the U.S got it wrong. The burning of the DNA test could've just been an error. That is not a problem with the death penalty. it is a problem with the jobs the cops do on the trail, and can easily be fixed.Rebuttal 4:Well, I have to give him this statement because a lot has changed.... Nope! Murder was still murder back then, as it is now. For a source, read in a 6th grade history book.Rebuttal 5:MY OPPONENT HAS ADDMITED THAT THE DEATH PENALTY DETURED CRIME. In states with more murders, the death penalty has helped lower like Texas, Louisiana, and Alabama. These are where many murders happen, and they have started to go down. So, a main chunk of that is the states with the death penalty.Then I ask you this, why do criminals, when they go to court, ask for life and not death. People commit stupid things because YOLO. People commit suicide because they are depressed. people join the military to get out of trouble, for structure, and pride in our nation.Ladies And Gentleman, I have proved that:Murders do go down as executions riseDeath Penalty is cost-efficientRemoving the death penalty will have negative effectsThe death penalty is morally justifiedThank you1. http://www.disastercenter.com...2. http://www.disastercenter.com...
Iowa ought to secede from the United States of America

'Tis the gift to be simple, 'tis the gift to be free, 'Tis the gift to come down where we ought to be, And when we find ourselves in the place just right, 'Twill be in the valley of love and delight. When true simplicity is gain'd, To bow and to bend we shan't be asham'd, To turn, turn will be our delight, Till by turning, turning we come round right.
Iowa ought to secede from the United States of America

Neg- Lets look to my opponents first point when they state that Iowa is first in the national caucus and believes that by removing Iowa from the United States an becoming there own country it will be beneficial to them well this is the most bogus argument i have ever heard by removig Iowa you only damage them even more they would have to establish there own form of currency and physicaly seperate themselves from the united states there economic status would be completly ruined becuase there only export would be potatoes. And they would have no federal backing nor an established government to back them. Second the whole they have a great k-12 education that as well has a lot to do with government funding from the U.S iowa doesnt do it all. Without the no child left behind policy and copius amounts of government funding there is no wy iowa could maintin there status if they were to seperate themselves from the U.S On to my opponents third point first lets look to how many states we have 50 iowa is one of 50 states. In know way is the decisions being made by the U.S government is in know way affecting the financial status of iowa...or un anyway harming thee saftey. Lets look to the fourth point i hate iowa and so do five people sitting around me in this argument alone your whole argument would fall...This case is completley based off of your bias to iowa and in know way has any relevance or actual standing to iowa being removed from the us only because you do not agree with there forien policies.... Lets just some up the rest of the debate...economically iowa wouldnt stand they have no form of currency besides the us dollar...the medical argument is based off of the 1960 and not now the medical advancments and health care in the us are alot better than if iowa were to break away from the us...because once they break away they have no us support for medical advancemnt and no support from the cdc...........for all these reasons you will always vote neg
Minecraft is for retards

Minecraft is not for retards. It is just like any other game, but more. You can create stuff, destroy stuff, play with other people, install mods, etc. In Minecraft, you can create magnificent creations, 200 block tall castles, huge villages, realistic cities, and much more. And if cheating is not your thing, you could be a troll, blow up stuff, create traps, etc. You could also play alone, making through the first night in a tree house. There are also many goals and achievements in the game. So in the end, Minecraft is not for retards, but instead is a multi-function game that allows anyone to do anything.
Minecraft is for retards

To my opponents first point about not everyone liking Minecraft because of the no curve. That is precisely why this game is for retards. Most games have a difficulty curve and a challenge for serious gamers, gaming is all about challenges. Minecraft can be considered a learning tool in problem solving such as Leap Frog educational games, or graphic type learn to read type games. Minecraft therefore is great for people with autism, learning disabilities and retards. Minecraft is no different than a Lego or jigsaw puzzle game, there is no real challenge in this game, there is no difficulty and the game is most popular with the pre teen group of people and retards. The whole object of the game is to build, this is no different than making a tower in Bjenga or dropping blocks in Tetris, there is absolutely no skill required in this game and it's more of an art project than a game Here are 10 reasons why Minecraft sucks and is for retards https://www.thetoptens.com... https://theconcourse.deadspin.com... This evidence clearly shows that Minecraft with it's 1980's pixalated graphics is only enjoyed by autistic people and retards!! Case closed, apology accepted (mic drop)
Minecraft is for retards

Hello again, and I like the "mic drop". But I have a few problems with what my opponent said. First, he said that Minecraft's graphics are crap. But ts how the game is designed, people like the "no curve" of Minecraft. If you don't like it, it doesn't mean it's crap. Many other people like the graphics. Secondly, my opponent stated that the IQ level of playing Minecraft is around 80. Well then explain how people can build working computers (https://www.cnet.com...) if they are retards. And even if Minecraft has the most retarded people playing it, you can find retards in almost every other game out there. Lastly, my opponent said that Minecraft doesn't have any skill required. But that's how the game is designed. You can't just say: "This game is easy, so it HAS to be for retards!" And besides, you can change the game's skill level by playing on hardcore, adding extensions/mods, and more. Now I will get into the final thing I want to talk about. How Minecraft is a creating game. My opponent said that Minecraft is for 12-year-old people with down syndrome that want to build. But you can go crazy with your builds like this Minecraft is a Minecraft (https://www.gamesradar.com...). You could also build hundreds of block tall structures. And like I said earlier, if you don't want to create, you can destroy, or survive, etc.
Minecraft is for retards

Minecraft as my opponent states is for building creations, ok so it's like playing LEGO which little kids play and also people with downs syndrome at the local group homes to keep them occupied. The IQ level for playing Minecraft is around 80, which is retard level. There is nothing challenging or complicated about minecraft, it's a mind exercise for the dumb. The graphics are absolutely atrocious compared to games like Call of Duty or Destiny, or Uncharted and the script is written for children and retards, with it's E rating. Anything more complicated or mature could not be played by children or retards as it would be too complex for them. Minecraft might as well be monopoly on-line. A family oriented game with no skill or intelligence required, the level of sophistication of this game is at retard level. Therefore I stick by my original statement and I would like to see some evidence from my opponent showing otherwise as I will be presenting a large volume of evidence to substantiate my debate argument in round 3. fanboy out (mic drop)
Mitt Romney should be the next President of the United States (continued)

I definitely agree that it was a good debate, however, I wish that you would've defended your stance on the war in round three if for no other reason than to hear rational opposition to my views. I'm not exactly sure whether or not to be happy that Mitt is out. As far as Ron Paul is concerned, the best chance he has to continue his campaign is to keep McCain from receiving the majority of the delegates and getting the Rep nomination. I don't know if Paul and Huckabee together can keep that from happening. Even as an ardent Paul supporter, I'm highly skeptical that he can pull off a win, but I will remain totally supportive and optimistic right until the very end. The main thing, aside from winning, that I would like to see happen is for him to be able to stay in the race until the GOP convention so that the mainstream media will no longer be able to ignore him and keep the people of this country from hearing what he has to say. Thanks for a good debate!
Mitt Romney should be the next President of the United States (continued)

... ... ... So Mitts out... He made a good choice though. He took one for the team and I am very impressed with the way he went down with honor and went down making Huckabee look like a self-interested jerk. I'll lend this win to you my friend... Good Debate! Im gunna go cry in a corner now and figure out where to go now... Im not much of a McCain fan anymore...I really dont agree with Ron Paul's Politics...and I truly dislike Huckabee...so I guess its McCain...