BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Stem Cell Research

Seeing that my opponent has forfeited this round, I will move on in the argument. Stem cells have helped people very close to me, such as my uncle. He was shot while trying to stop a fight and was unable to move his right leg with full control until a few months ago. He had stem cells injected into him, and within weeks he was finally able to walk without a cane or wheelchair. Although ES cell research is not fully complete, I have high expectations for the outcome of all this research. Additionally, my opponent says "If this form of stem cell research has caused brain tumors and cancer in mice, why would it not cause the same affect among human patients?" Mice's brains and humans brains are completely different in size, complexity, and the way they work. If they were the same types of brains, then mice would be able to speak just like we can. These results must be deemed unreliable.
This house believes that Sponge Bob Square Pants should lend his pants to Donald Duck

First to refute; "Firstly, Donald Duck does not wear a shirt that goes over his gluteus maximus. It is therefore inappropriate, as it is no different from porn. This is duck porn shown on children's television, is this justifiable? To filter such vulgar and mature thoughts into their premature minds? That is taking away the children's rights to a naive and innocent childhood, to not be bombarded by temptation and pressure from society and brainwashed by the media." His shirt does cover his private parts and have you asked one kid that watches that show what he/she thinks about his clothing choices? "As for how Spongebob would have no pants when it is lent: Spongebob Square pants is significant for owning his pants. The telivision show is BASED on his pants, so without it, the show is basically not going to run. Ergo, without his pants, Spongebob is not going to be on TV, be broadcasting his sensual parts on children's TV. This is acceptable. Besides, Spongebob, according to episode 12, has more than one pair of pants in his wardrobe. " Spongebob would still be showing even if he had jeans or pants instead of shorts so that is irrelevant. How do you know Donald Duck doesn't have longer t-shirts as spongebob has more shorts? "go suck on that youngling. time for my afternoon brunch. Godspeed!" How do you know how old I am. for all you know I could be 99 so your the youngling...... and how much do you eat?
This house believes that Sponge Bob Square Pants should lend his pants to Donald Duck

Firstly, Donald Duck does not wear a shirt that goes over his gluteus maximus. It is therefore inappropriate, as it is no different from porn. This is duck porn shown on children's television, is this justifiable? To filter such vulgar and mature thoughts into their premature minds? That is taking away the children's rights to a naive and innocent childhood, to not be bombarded by temptation and pressure from society and brainwashed by the media. As for how Spongebob would have no pants when it is lent: Spongebob Square pants is significant for owning his pants. The telivision show is BASED on his pants, so without it, the show is basically not going to run. Ergo, without his pants, Spongebob is not going to be on TV, be broadcasting his sensual parts on children's TV. This is acceptable. Besides, Spongebob, according to episode 12, has more than one pair of pants in his wardrobe. go suck on that youngling. time for my afternoon brunch. Godspeed!
This house believes that Sponge Bob Square Pants should lend his pants to Donald Duck

Thanks for hosting this debate, First I will rebutt your points and then move to mine. "A good example is the fact that Donald Duck does not wear trousers, it is inhumane to show such pornography to those young minds. Children nowadays should just hang in the 'hood' or whatever. " Donald Duck wear's a t-shirt which almost comes down to cover his bottoms but anyway, he's a duck so he doesn't need any shorts. What the children see is white duck hair which is like the rest of his body and children that age that watch those shows are content with that image. "HOwever, since television is such an attraction ir is my idea that Spongebob Squarepants should give his pants to Donald Duck, it is more appropriate and much more preferable." Suppose that SS gave his pants to Donald Duck, then wouldn't Spongebob be showing his sensual parts? Now to move to mine, If Spongebob gives up his pants he will be showing some sensual parts that children should not see. Donald Duck doesn't need pants because he has a long t-shirt and the TV doesn't even show anything there.
This house believes that Sponge Bob Square Pants should lend his pants to Donald Duck

Back in the good ol' days, we used to get aroused seeing just shoulders of another human being,and these whatchamacallits were only found, ya know, on thingymagigs. But it's absurd for lit'le lads, even of your modern age to see such sensual parts of the body on television.A good example is the fact that Donald Duck does not wear trousers, it is inhumane to show such pornography to those young minds. Children nowadays should just hang in the 'hood' or whatever. HOwever, since television is such an attraction ir is my idea that Spongebob Squarepants should give his pants to Donald Duck, it is more appropriate and much more preferable. I challenge you younglings to contradict me. It will be very hard, ya know, especially as I've been around longer. ... Time for my nap time. Cheerios! zzzzzZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.
The United States Constitution does not give Congress the power to help the poor and needy

The federal government of the United States has, for nearly a century supported programs generally for the poor and the needy. While the results of these programs are continuously argued about between Republicans and Democrats, one thing that doesn't really get mentioned is the constitutionality of these programs. I am here to debate in opposition to the claim that these social welfare programs are a legitimate power of Congress under the Constitution in accordance to the intent of the writers and proponents of the Constitution. Resolved, that the United States Constitution does not give Congress the power to help the poor and needy. The following shall be the definitions and rule of this debate. Definitions The U.S. Constitution: The United States Constitution and all of its Amendments. Social Welfare: A governmental provision of economic assistance to persons in need. This can come into the form of Bail Outs, Food Stamps, Federal Unemployment Benefits, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. Rules 1) No Supreme Court Rulings 2) You must cite the Constitutional Clause you may use, but only those that pertain to the powers of Congress 3) First Round Acceptance Only
Weed be legal !

Ok so mary-J and other worst drugs are two diffrent things, and trying weed out is nothing alike from doing meth etc. I been a pot smoker for 2years and not once in those years did I even THINK about trying anything else. I had a lot of people bug me and bug me about trying harder things but the answer is always the same.(No) With the government allowing mary-J I really doubt people are going to be wanting meth etc. to be legal also. And again weed doesn't harm u (for the most part). And even if people started questioning if the harder stuff should be legal that answer would already be ready to answer with a big fat NO. When it comes to ciggs. Ima have to disagree smoking is awesome bye the way(: Its not the drug dealers part on if the customer is going to come back or not; Yah he/she is going to want them to but they really don't have a say. With the fact that u are trying to say that mary-j & OTHER type drugs are the same is a lie because of the fact that they are two VERY diffrent type drugs. Meth DOES get u addictive the first time u do it; Or it can kill u, but weed is nothing like that.....
Weed be legal !

I meant that if you breath in smoke there is such a low concentration of oxygen it is harmful (going back to my train metaphor). 2nd even though there are so many people doing mary-J if the government legalized mary-j for that reason that would encourage people from trying to legalize more harmful drugs, like meth. it is like lemmings, if one jumps off a cliff, they all do, and that ends up killing all of them. 3rd even if you smoke it with people you know, the drugs had to come from somewhere, probably a dealer with negotiated prices, and not a store bought variety with a higher fixed price. this proves true already when people want pirated videos or video games, if you could pay less for the same thing without much risk from getting caught by the government, why wouldn't you buy the thing that costs less? which brings me to the adding of other drugs in the mary-J. cigarettes wouldn't be smoked without nicotine, if there wasn't something in there making you go back and buy a pack of cigs then you wouldn't, because smoking sucks, this is also true for most marijuana smokers who are chemically addicted, there is some reason for them to come back for it mainly other additives, like heroin, coke, ext. and the drug companies probably would also get nicotine in there as well, because if you have a business you need regular customers, and addicting them to your product is one way to ensure that they come back for more
Weed be legal !

0k in someways weed can be bad for u. And Don't u need oxygen to breath? (Sry I was confused on that.) But anyway thats also why I brought up being with people u KNOW while smoking weed. And with soo many people smoking weed anyway why can't the law already just give up busting people for weed. And 1 im NOT a drug dealer and I c where your coming from and if the government ever did decide to legal it who says its going to be for a cheap price?? Thats where drug dealers can still come in and sell their product for a low price. And with the weed being in stores or where ever the gov. would sell the weed; it also gives the dealers more ways to get the product in order to sell it. :)
Weed be legal !

there is a problem with weed, like all drugs, I'm not saying that weed is going to kill someone if they use it once, but the fact is no inhaling related drugs are good for you. Why? because you aren't breathing OXYGEN. it is like feeding a train dirt sometimes instead of coal, it might work a little at first, but the dirt and nonflammable stuff is gonna build up and kill the engine. Honestly I never said weed was worse for you then cigarettes, but it really isn't that much better because you also don't have a filter, also it can be laced with other drugs. Thus there would obviously need to be a lot of government reforms, and I don't think anyone would listen to them, honestly if you got along just fine buying marijuana illegally why would you worry about limitations on legal marijuana like filtered bongs, or not lacing it? if you were a drug dealer wouldn't you want your customers coming back, because that is how you guarantee it.
Weed be legal !

Weed can help A LOT with getting off debt from other countries; Weed is very useful with helping people who may always be in pain and relaxe those from doing thins stupid; and can just have a good laugh with your peers. For gods sake weed is just a PLANT ! And there is nothing wrong with doing it with your family or friends as long as u can really trust them; enough to not lace it with something more dangerous. LEGALIZE MARY-J !!!!!!!!!! :D
Manning vs Brady

Given that my opponent has forfeited this round, I will post my conclusion. However; I would like to make a quick amendment- Tom Brady threw 12 INTs, not 14. In conclusion, it appears Brady would have a better performance if he had an arsenal anywhere similar to Peyton's. Tom Brady is an all time great- and so is Manning, but Brady has never had a supporting cast built around him, Bill Bellichick is constantly changing it.
Manning vs Brady

This is my first debate so excuse me if I don't do all that great. Peyton Manning and Tom Brady are arguably two of the greatest QBs to ever play the game of football. However; Tom Brady has always been surrounded by less weapons. People were saying last year that Brady was declining given his 25 TDs and 14 INTs along with a 60% completion rate. However most people don't realize that the offense he played with futured several rookies- Danny Amendola(who was out several games with a concussion and also a groin injury at the beginning of the year) and Julian Edelman and Rob Gronkowski(who was injured and misses 9 games of the season) were the veterans in the receiving corps. During the short stretch that Gronk was not injured, the Patriots had a prolific offense. The Broncos, meanwhile, had a fantastic receiving corps including Demaryius Thomas, Julius Thomas, Wes Welker, along with a powerful, end zone hungry run game led by Knowshown Moreno, who had 10 tds. DeMaryius and Julius were elected to the Pro Bowl. Peyton Manning obviously had the greatest year a quarterback has ever had, 55 TDs, 5,477 and 68% completion rate. However, given the nature of his neck injury, he cannot let his deep ball loose like he used to, so his offense is based off quick passes, bubble screens and intermediate passes. This inflates his numbers quite a bit, numbers such as completion percentage and yards per attempt. Brady, however, runs a passing offense that throws a lot of deep passes. In 2013, Brady attempted 174 passes of 31 yds or more. http://www.nfl.com... In 2007, the year Tom Brady threw for 50 TDs, he had two players, Randy Moss and Wes Welker, who were sensational. Now just think for a moment, what if Tom Brady had DeMaryius Thomas, Julius Thomas and Wes Welker? Brady would have amazing numbers. And remember, Tom Brady led the Patriots to the AFC Championship, even with terrible receivers and only LeGarette Blounte-and if it wasn't for the cheap shot hit on Aqib Talib, the Patriots best defensive player, they would of had a shot at winning that game. In fact, most of his career, Tom Brady hasn't had explosive players, he put their name on the board. Also; Bill Bellichick often makes strange decisions- such as the recent cut of Kenbrell Thomkins, who won the game against the Saints.
Evolution vs creationism

From this point forward I shall take a more formal procession to the rest of this debate as it may be simpler to keep track of what is going on, let's begin: Round Abuse Pro has abused the round by changing the definition of the resolution. He asserts that this is a debate about if evolution is real instead of competition between evolution and creationism. "This is not the consequences of evolution, it's about is evolution real" Definition of Versus: in competition with another idea This is a voters issue because the negative team can not expect what to argue over in the round. Are we debating over god This round's resolution imply's that the debate will be a competition to see if creationism is better than the theory of evolution, or vice-versa. In order to assert my side of the argument I must claim that god is real. I can use any method I please to accomplish this, including debating morality. Pro ignores my arguments and thus concedes them, meaning they must be considered true. Earlier in the round I asserted that, If con accepts that god and evolution are both real then the round must flow my direction. He as not responded and because in debate 'silence is compliance', he concedes this, thus he has handed me the round as of now. not enough time for evolution Darwinian Evolution, , "Time Required for Macroevolution to Occur," No Publication, http://www.windowview.org... The short answer, in plain language, is that life appears to have taken hold on earth so quickly that virtually no time was available for chemical evolution to take place. Beyond this, there is no prospect for an evolution of information nor for chance to account for change in species leading from one major phylum of organisms to the next (as is suggested by a wide variety of tree diagrams). When calculated, the time necessary for chance to do the required work amounts to more time than what has elapsed for the known universe from its creation at t = 0 to the present.
Evolution vs creationism

You have made a plethora of fallacies. The first was calling both evolution and creationism theories. Theories are not merely assertions. In science, a theory is a well substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world That is acquired through the scientific method And repeatedly tested and Confirmed through observation and experimentation. Gravity is a theory. Evolution is a theory. Plate tectonics is A theory. Creationism is not. You talk about how a creation worldview is necessary for morality. This, although not true is completely and totally irrelevant. This is not a debate about ethics. This is a debate about whether evolution is true or not. However, I will provide links to several sources about secular ethics. You also bring up the big bang, and talk about atheism in general. This is 100% irrelevant so I shall not address it. Stay on topic please. This is not a debate about the existenCe of god, and I would be more than happy to debate that with you at another point. This debate is SPECIFICALLY about evolution vs creationism, and you only address evolution once, maybe two times in your entire argument. You literally may as well have started talking about your favorite movie, or table tennis, or about how cheese puffs are most certainly better tasting than potato chips. Tell you what: after this debate, you challenge me to one on the existence of god. Then you can say all of that. Then you have your actual comments about evolution. Could you please elaborate on exactly what you mean in your second body paragraph? The one about microbes to man? Then I shall address it. Every mutation we see is destructive? Not true. The overwhelming majority of mutations are completely neutral. Most are simply inherited traits. Some are harmful, some are beneficial. For exaKmple ( and I'll link these below, at least a few of them.) : Malaria resistance, Tetrachromatic vision, Apolipoprotein AI-Milano. Some negative include: projeria ( accelerated aging), EpiderModysPlasia verruciformis. There really is no micro or macro evolution, there is only evolution, change over time. Saying that micro is valid but macro is invalid is like saying that you can walk two feet but you can't walk 10. The only difference is the amount of time. Stefan molyneux " universally preferable behavior: a rational proof of secular ethics.": https://board.freedomainradio.com... http://io9.com... http://bigthink.com... http://www2.lbl.gov...
God's existence is highly unlikely

Hello, I am a fourteen year old High School student practicing for the Debate team. This debate is on a highly controversial topic discussing the existence of a deity. I thank whoever accepts this debate and wish them good luck! I SUPPORT the topic. Relevant Definitions:1. God: noun A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.2. Exist: intransitive verb Have objective reality or being.3. Unlikely: adjective Not likely to happen, be done, or be true; improbable. 4. Evidence: noun The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.5. Logic: noun Reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity. Debate Specifications:This debate is attempting to solidify the probability or improbability of God's existence, contingent on a logical argument advocated by substantial evidence. For that reason, it would be preferable for CON to be an actual believer of a monotheistic religion in order to eliminate the use of semantic ploy and distinguish our arguments with unique perspectives (atheist vs. theist). The Burden of Proof will be on CON, as he is attempting to negate the topic; if the BOP shifts, I will further advocate my argument.
God's existence is highly unlikely

Apologies to JGHOSTBOY but I am conceding defeat (cowardly) for this debate.It is a great debate motion and it is unfortunate I have to ruin this for my opponent and the readers.I recommend he re-start the debate by creating a new thread and hope that someone more worthy of an opponent would accept the challenge!I have recentlu become a father and my wife smacked me in the face for spending too much time debating online and playing online games!!!!
Labour Union membership should be mandatory.

First off I would like to say that I agree with you. I'm a first timer to Debate.org though and am ready for a debate. Your first statement was that you thought labor unions were necessary to any capitolist society. If union membership was not mandatory however it would almost certainly void the power of the labor union. Imagine a strike in which 3/4 of the workers are still working. If as you say labor unions are necessary to any capitolist society, and making them non-mandatory would destroy their power, then you have just destroyed capitolists society by advocating non-mandatory labor unions.
Labour Union membership should be mandatory.

My position is that although labour unions are a necessary part of any capitalist society to function and provide a voice for the workers as well as the buisness class, they should not be able to force membership on people and people should be free to choose whether they believe their workplace really needs a union or not. Because Unions are so often based on seniority, many newcomers are fired easier even though they actually may be more productive and dilligent. Progressive minded governments like Alberta and several US States realize that in order for buisness to properly thrive they must not be held back by overzealous unions, especially if the workers realize that strikes are not viable, for at least in my province, it is extremly hard to get rid of union even if they are unpopular. Because of the freedom of association that both the first Amendment (US) and Charter of Rights n'Freedoms (Canada) no employee who wishes to serve a certain company should be pressed to join an auxilary association such as a labour union. My thesis: In order to preserve freedom, fairness, individualism, and prosperity legislation should be in order to allow each and every worker the right to join or refuse to join a labour union. I look forward to meeting an opponent on this field. :)
Labour Union membership should be mandatory.

I still hold that labor unions are not and were not a NECESSARY part of any capitalist society. I think that they played an important role in our history, but without them I think that as you said, free men would have banded together to strike. A labor union being something that people hold memberships in. In other words something that is still in operation even when a strike is not going on. I don't think that something like that is necessary.
Labour Union membership should be mandatory.

When orginally developed labour unions were made of associations of workers who believed they should all unite together for negotiations with the buisnessmen, lest they be prodded and divided apart. These associations are perfectly good for periods in which there is general disgruntlemnt. They are necessary and more effective than individual people striking though, becuase they provide an orginzation in which to launch demands. People who pay union dues should reap the benefits of strike pay during times of crisis but people who, especially recent immigrints and young workers, often are less picky about their jobs and often unions too aggressive and their demands ridculous. Although strike negiotations would benefit "scabs" as much as it does union workers association to a union should be a free choice. Some would argue this defeats the purpose of a labour union but it actually gets back to the orginal priniciples of the labour union: to gather as free men, and use whatever support they have from the workforce to negitoaite, thus ensuring that workers' wants are balanced with capitalist society.