BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Chocolate is good.

First and foremost, my opponent says that I stated "chocolate is not a healthy food no matter what." However, this rebuttal is false because in my first speech I clearly stated, "He says that, 'Chocolates have some health benefits.' This is true..." This shows that I do agree that chocolate does have health benefits. Therefore, his first rebuttal is false. Secondly, he says that white chocolate can give calcium and milk chocolate has a high or medium level of cacao. I disagree with his white chocolate rebuttal because milk or other dairy products could just as easily give calcium without other downsides chocolate brings. As you can see, white chocolate is one type of chocolate that should not be praised, as its benefits can be achieved with healthier means. In addition, I also disagree with his milk chocolate argument, because he does not clearly explain what cacao is and how cacao affects the body. Therefore, his rebuttal is invalid. In my opponent's third rebuttal, he mentions how a counter example is irrelevant to the topic at hand. However, I disagree, my counterexample is valid and acceptable. The opposition's job is to knock down all of the proposition's arguments; the opposition is not arguing the opposite of the proposition. To sum up, my opponent's rebuttals are invalid, and you should vote for the Con/Opposition.
Chocolate is good.

My opponent says that chocolate is not a healthy food no matter what. I believe that this argument may be correct, but it still gives benefits. Chocolate, like any other food, is bad if you have to much. However, this does not mean that it is bad. For example, if you have too much water, it would be bad. Though that may be true, water is still good for you. About the same goes for chocolate. Chocolate may not be a food you want to eat too much, however it does give benefits. Chocolate is still good. In addition, she says that chocolate can cause headaches, however, according to http://www.everydayhealth.com..., coffee can do the same. Yet people still drink it! Thus, chocolate is still something good you can enjoy, like coffee! My opponent then says then says that not all chocolates have the same health benefits. Though this may be true, the chocolates each do have at least one thing. White chocolate, for example, can give calcium, while milk chocolate can give a medium or a high level of cacao. She then gives a counter example, which doesn't really relate to the topic. Vanilla and chocolate are both good, and we are arguing about how chocolate is good! She believes that chocolate is not good, and I believe it is. This is not chocolate vs vanilla. Thus, this counter example is useless. In conclusion, chocolate does give health benefits.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument is not logically sound

The essence of the Kalam Cosmological Argument is based on the principle of causality and can be framed as follows:1. Everything that had a beginning had a cause.2. The universe had a beginning.3. Therefore, the universe had a cause. As Pro is the instigator and making the claim as to the alleged lack of soundness of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, he bears the burden of proof. The argument is definitely valid, as the conclusion follows logically from the premises. For the argument to be sound, all of the premises must be true. Pro bears the burden of proof to show why one or both of the premises are untrue in order to win the debate. I look forward to a thought-provoking and interesting discussion.
God is an Interventionist in Modern Times.

The only requirement I have is that my opponent must be a theist. This is, of course, not a debate on whether or not there is a God- the debate runs with the implication that there is. It also goes without saying that I would like to have a serious debate; please do not accept merely to troll. All rounds are for debating/arguing/refuting. For the challenger's information, I am a Christian (if you want to know specifics, perhaps for the sake of your argument, I'd be happy to explain my faith in further detail). My opponent will be taking the Pro side that God is an interventionist. I am taking the Con stance that God is not an interventionist in the modern era. There is little to support otherwise. My main point is thus: There is too much suffering in the world to suggest that God has a hand in its affairs. There are people and children of all religions, races and nationalities all across the world starving, destitute, and in pain. If God had some sort of control, I cannot imagine he would leave so many in suffering. This makes even more sense when people say that God has performed miracles for them. God is a just individual, and does not show favoritism (Deut. 10-17). Why then, would he perform a miracle for one person, and not the nations of people who suffer daily? This is not to suggest that God does not watch us or care for us, but that he leaves what happens here entirely up to our will- kind of a universal Sims game, if you will, in which the player simply sets up the game and leaves the rest to chance.
Prison is pointless

Had this debate before, didn't get as much out of it as I liked, so I'll do it again :). I think prison is a waste of time and a waste of money, for everybody involved. Better consequences vary depending on the crime; examples include taking back stolen property and more from a thief, capital punishment for murderers and rapists, taking illegal substances away and forced rehab for drug users (assuming doing drugs stays illegal, different topic though), etc. Prison is just putting people in a cell for a while, which I think has no benefit to anybody.
The existence of a Biblical God

-If Jesus claimed to be God, it doesn't prove that he was, in fact, God. -It was an empty claim.-The resurrection, was not proved. It was only mentioned in the Bible, which is not proof of anything.All three points were addressed in round one with logical reasoning and criticism for each point. The example of Steven illustrates evidence in various forms, and concluding it's highly likely, opposed to highly unlikely. You need to submit a debate on this topic.The resurrection without proof follows similarly.---Although we cannot prove what existed, exists today - we can see proof that it did change, to what exists today.If something once existed but then changed, then such change does not undermine it's potential to exist today.
Divorce in General isn't Bad and Homosexuality is Good

(D1) Ok, I see right off the bat one problem. We have different definitions of love. I define love to be the giving of oneself. I see love as a choice. I want to know more clearly about your definition of love. When you say love, it sounds like an intense liking of someone. Is that true for your definition? For my side, you can love someone, and not like them at all. I would define like as a desire for something, wanting something because it interests you. For my definition of love, you're not so much interested in what you can get out of it. I would be concerned if anyone in general didn't know what they wanted. The question I have is, is what I want truly the best thing, or is there something better? I don't know what you mean by "mature man" exactly. Can you explain the qualities of a mature man? It is true that women and men know their own gender better than the opposite. The reason I don't see that this works with homosexuality is that you don't have to be a homosexual to have this advantage. You could just be strong friends with them, and have the same benefits. I agree that a consequence that each gender knows their own better is that they trust those of the same gender more. Explain when you say that one can't stop or force love. How would this be more than just behavioral, where one can stop if one changes one's behavior? (D2) My point on divorce is that it's not ideal to get one. I agree two people should separate if there is an abusive relationship. I'm referring primarily to heterosexual marriage here from my Catholic perspective, in that if one gets a marriage which follows the Catholic requirements for being a valid marriage (meaning no annulment, which means that there never was a marriage in the first place), then one shouldn't get remarried. I should have made that clearer, so it is my bad. We don't have to debate D2 if you don't find disagreement or change your mind after seeing what I wrote on D2 here. That being said, I think D2 would hinge upon how love is defined, and so we could just restrict it to D1 until we have that figured out.
Divorce in General isn't Bad and Homosexuality is Good

I accept your argument Matt! I want to argue about both, only because I strongly disagree with you, first I wanna debate about sexuality. 1. LOVE IS LOVE! You can not stop love at any cost, you can't help who you love. The good thing about having the same sex as the love of your life is, they know what you go through. Men don't know what us woman go through, with periods, cramps, birth, maturing etc. Most woman like a mature man, and most men don't mature until an older age. A woman on the other hand knows what a woman wants, so it also is a little more satisfying when a woman is with a woman and a man is with a man. In my head, I think it's okay to love the same sex. 2. A woman is more trusting then a man, it's a scientific fact, so when two lady's are together it's a fact that they are more trusting of their partner. Logically love is love and you can't stop or force love. Marriage or love does not have to between a man and a woman , you can be the same sex. My Second debate is on divorce. 1. This is kind of similar to my first argument, love is love. You can't force it. Sometimes marriage does not work out, and yes it may be sad but what are you going to do? Nothing. 2. It's better to divorce and try to be someone else and be happy, then to be depressed and cheat and commit adultery (if you don't know what this is, it is where a married person goes and cheats with someone else who is not their spouse) and then they have a weight on their shoulder's. It's just better to get divorced and be happy then be together and be miserable.
Divorce in General isn't Bad and Homosexuality is Good

Please accept only if you disagree with me on either both my side of divorce and homosexuality, or if you only disagree with me on homosexuality. I am against both. I am against homosexuality in particular because I don't know about any good coming from it (in regards to what makes homosexuality unique), and so I would like to listen to the other side's view. When I say homosexuality, I mean practicing it and living that sort of lifestyle. The purpose of this debate is to have a conversation on these particular issues. Rules (for the voters to look at): 1. Definitions are non-binding, but encouraged (but the meaning in this first post is more-so binding). 2. One side may ask the other about definitions. If the other side fails to give an answer or one that makes any progress, then favor the side asking the question. If the definition-question is frivolous (e.g. define word), then favor the other side. However, the questioner can overcome the frivolous part if the questioner explains clearly enough why he asks if there is a possibility of it being frivolous, or the questioner gives their own guess to the definition (obvious frivolousness on the part of the questioner should favor the other side though). 3. No disparaging (to "regard or represent as being of little worth" (Google Dictionary) ) the other side unless it is used in the context of an argument, and then its use ought to be minimized (The purpose of this is to prevent ranting against the other side; I know that some people are passionate against the Christian God, but I want a more logical, organized debate). 4. I want a more logical, organized debate, so judge the content by how effective the logic is. 5. Excessive emotion (or emotion without developing one's argument, but merely restating it with emotion) shall favor the other side. 6. Rules may be changed if both sides agree, and on which rounds they apply to. The default for which rounds would exclude rules being applied retroactively.
Communism is better than Democracy

this debate has four rounds, I am for communism and you will have to prove that Democracy is a better political ideology. each round will proceed as following. round 1: introduce topic, structure of the political stances round 2: benefits that your political stances achieves for the country E.g. industrial, economical round 3: social standards that the country has, E.g. no religion or free speech round 4: summing up points. Communism as a political ideology is better than a Democracy. The definition of Communism is a social organisation in which all property is owned by the community and each person contributes and receives according to their ability and needs. As we know a Democracy is very different, it is a system of government that represents the people and is usually run by elected representative. As a from of government communism achieves more for the country and is better for the people and the economical state of the country. A true communism is run by the people, however there has usually been a one party system. unlike a democracy where there are multiple parties running the country. multiple parties running a country can be problematic, party policies and political stances on matters creates a confused country and can create frustration and a loss of power for the party that is leading the country at the time. for instance, in communism one particular party is in power, they have the ability to form the country as a whole. under the same political page there is no policies clashes and varying laws in different states, also each representative forms the similar opinion and form as a collective. this does have cons however I believe the benefits outweigh the bad. A Democracy couldn't be more different for example in Australia two parties run the country, officially one party leads the country with their elected prime minister and elected ministers. what I mean by two parties run on country is that the liberal party may own majority seats in the whole of the electorate say they won 90 seats, then labor will have 60 seats. this almost half the country that labor still run. therefore they still can place their parties policies within their elected area. another problem is that the senate controls what laws, amendments and bills can pass through Parliament. if labor party and its affiliates (minor parties that have alliances with the major two parties) controls the senate then there parties policies come first, this can be a problem for the party in power because none of there policies can pass the senate unless is benefits the labor party. how is the country expected to evolve and become better if both parties do not agree on each others ideas. this is why communism is better as political ideology, there is minimal in-party fighting and no resistance towards policies. the country is run as a whole and not separate districts.
Is Goku Faster than Superman

So rough estimate here that's 19.2.x 416 Goku moved at 66 m/s with 416 kai so if we use a linear relationship between kai and speed here we should expect his travel speed to be 1,276 m/s at 8000, but in fact it is 5787 m/s indicating power levels aren't linear, but maybe exponential so the value i have for his travel. Kid Goku's combat speed is FTL. Goku is confirmed to be faster than light when he fought burter and jiece. So how fast are super saiyan 1, 2 , 3, and 4 exactly. At the battle between Raditz, Piccolo says that Goku is 'faster than the speed of light', which he is faster than. When Raditz power level is 1200 he moves at light speed. Goku and Vegeta had a power level of 20,000 or so during their first encounter. They are 16x Radditz. Goku is over 10000 times the speed of light. So instant = 10000 speed of light? How do you precisely measure the speed of instant transmission?
Evolution is a fact

I'm amazed that you would cite creationist non-scientific idiots as a reliable source to disprove carbon dating. The fact is that we do know when the candle was lit. The same is true for carbon dating. We can prove that carbon dating works because it continues to provide reliable results. By your very definition: "In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as "true.". This is the case in the scientific world. No serious scientist with any qualification doesn't believe in evolution. Also the process of both evolution and natural selection has been observed in moths: https://en.wikipedia.org... Charles Darwin provided a hypothesis that has an overwhelming body of evidence for it. Your main argument is that because we cannot see evolution happening therefore we can't be sure of its truth. This is nonsense. The same argument could be applied to quantum field theory, gravity, the big bang and all kinds of accepted truths in science. I think that idiot Ken Ham has used this silly argument quite a few times before. We don't have to see it to know it's true. Otherwise why would we ever lock up murderers or terrorists? After all the Jury didn't see them kill a load of people. We have an overwhelming mass of evidence (not cherry picked false studies) supporting evolution. That is why it is in High school text books and why it is on the national curriculum. You can't debate facts so don't try. Don't take my word for it. Listen to what scientists are telling you. Evolution is an undeniable fact just like climate change. Also evolution can be tested. We have done tests showing that certain traits are more desirable and are thus more likely to be passed on: http://www.pnas.org... Therefore darwin's hypothesis (unopposed) does have sufficient empirical evidence to back it up. No serious scientist denies it. Most people who oppose it tend to be of some evangelical persuasion. I call to the audience: DON'T BE STUPID. Vote yes
Evolution is a fact

Each time you have told the audience not to be stupid. I find this rather disrespectful of their ability to decide who to vote for. On the subject of respect, I feel that it is a universal idea that being in a debate means you must adopt the concept of tolerance. You must be able to tolerate other ideas and be open to them. Now, this does not mean you have to believe these ideas, but rather, be open to considering the idea such as the "why" the "how," etc. Let the people form their own decisions without having to be called stupid. But never mind respect, I will continue the debate. It is not one petition, it is one of many. Here are a few articles that show this happening across the world: "Few Biologists but Many Evangelicals Sign Anti-Evolution Petition," Kenneth Chang, the New York Times "Antievolution petition rebuffed in Serbia," Glenn Branch, the National Center for Science Education "Anti-Darwin comments in India outrage scientists," T.V. Padma, Nature Besides this, can you not deny the fact that these are startling numbers of doubters for the idea of Evolution? Does this not cast wonder as to why there is such doubt? "Testing of predictions" but "there is no way you can do experiments," seems like contradictory statements. Forgive me, if I misunderstand the context here. You have had very vague explanations that simply consist of 'yes we can, because of this.' Yet, you do not go into the 'how' and specifically 'what.' For example, on the subject of when the candle was lit, how do you use these dating methods? What specific dating methods are you referring to? How can you prove that they are "true and reliable?" Is there people in the community that reasonably doubts these methods? The point in citing these professors is that they are proof that people doubt the methods used to explain and prove Evolution- it is not proven to be reliable, necessarily in their views. "The consensus is overwhelming and therefore the scientific community is able to trust the FACT of evolution." But this is not a accepted fact by the science community as a whole- otherwise there would be no opposition in the forms of these petitions, for example. If there is such a large number of doubt in the scientific community how can a person such as you or I believe in this idea of Evolution? Facts, by the definition I have provided, requires that these observations "have been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as "true."" If people have been claiming that some methods used to prove Evolution are not accurate, logically would they fully confirm and regard these observations as truth? Would those who have repeatedly been signing and forming anti-petitions fully confirm and regard these observations as truth?
Evolution is a fact

I reject your subtle suggestion that I am being disrespectful. I have no respect for bad ideas but I am not disrespecting people for themselves only if they believe in things which aren't true. Now 1 petition is not at all any evidence of serious doubt in the scientific community. Of course the scientific community is not a monolith but no scientist that is taken seriously has doubts over the fact of evolution. Evolution happens and we have observed it. There is no way you can do experiments to prove evolution but the same goes for the big bang and climate change. We use logical explanation, observation and testing of predictions. We could predict that a species of moths would turn black through evolution and they did. We can prove that we know when the candle was lit by the way. We use reliable dating methods. Which have been proven to be true and reliable. Once again, I can't fully explain how overwhelming the scientific body of evidence supporting evolution. This should not be a debate. You can't debate an accepted fact. " "We don't have to see it to know it's true." This is a common argument for religion- are you suggesting that Evolution is faith-based?" No it isn't. Scientist use other ways to measure and calculate. We don't see global warming causing climate change but we know that it does. The same is true for evolution. We know that natural selection and genetic variation takes place in animals. We know that life has been around for a long time. We know that there are genomic patterns showing that we all share ancestry. We know that early humans migrated out of Africa. We know that certain species of moths changed based on an environmental change. We know that there were other species of human. And yet people still argue that this isn't enough. The consensus is overwhelming and therefore the scientific community is able to trust the FACT of evolution. The professors you cited have voiced concerns over the impact of natural selection as the filter process. I have heard this argument. In no way does it doubt the existence of evolution it merely states and is mentioned in the book What Darwin got Wrong that there may be some internal constraints that filter genetic variation and NOT that evolution doesn't happen and NOT that natural selection isn't a filter merely that other filters exist. Once again I call to the audience: DON'T BE STUPID. Vote yes