BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Arts needs to be established as important for ever child of any age for public/private schools!

(Please play the filthy rap music while reading my rebuttals~) http://www.youtube.com... Well first off, allow me to apologize for my painfully awkward mistake of gender. I should have checked your profile instead of just assuming, or writing mindlessly. Now that said I will move onto my opponent's refutation. First as a general overview, I would like to point out that my opponent is blantantly disregarding not only my own arguments, but an entire genre of music based on personal preference. While urban art, and the art which takes place outside of the classroom may not be my opponent's forte, nor something which leaves a pleasant taste in his mouth, it must not simply be disregarded. That's how hipsters are born people. But more importantly than that, but through my opponent's refutation we see the arrogance and pride complex that established are institutes create among it's members. Art is no longer art. It can no longer be taken on the merits of what it is, but instead is ranked based on the tastes of those with degrees. Thus the true purpose of at is lost in the first place. Furthermore, art does not cease to be art because of the meaning or influence behind it. Just in the same way a person does not cease to be a person because of their moral code, or agenda. Rap music is vulgar? It inspires gang violence? Not only is this statement a blatant ad hominem, but it does degrees to refute my opponent's intention. As for the latter half of my opponent's arguments, please extend my prior arguments in which I have already discussed this issue. The have not been refuted, or even recognized.
There is empirical, testable, undeniable evidence that Earth is closer to 6000 years old than 4.6bi

Well, I'm going to like automatically win this debate for 3 reasons: 1) My opponent has the burden of proof 2) My opponent is arguing my side 3) If my opponent attempts to affirm the resolution, he will contradict himself Perhaps my opponent didn't realize that he was AFFIRMING the resolution, thereby stating the Earth IS closer to 6000 years old than 4.6bi. Well, anyway, I 100% agree with my opponent's arguments. Since we unanimously agree that the resolution is negated, this is obviously a victory for CON Please vote CON. Thank you.
There is empirical, testable, undeniable evidence that Earth is closer to 6000 years old than 4.6bi

Lets start shall we ok my friend lets explain first the earth been around for a long time and i mean a really long time as we can see so long before the history was written down. That also leads me to ask how do you plan to show evidence, but alas i'll have to wait. Number 1: Scientists have found multiple ways to see back how old the earth is like studing artifacts,cuting ice in antartica, and e.c.t . So far the earth has been billions of years old in each of these discoveries. Number 2: Now heres were i explain B.C and A.D we have history writen down for the late B.C and the whole A.D so far A.D lasted 2009 years 6000 - 2009 and you have about say 4991. Number 3: Also explain the ice age, jerrassic age, then theres the age were the continents split, and the the rise of human civilization. Now are you telling me that that only took 4000 - 5000 years. I'll finish for now.
Requested Sing-Off take2

So I'm currently in a disagreement with my laptop. It seems to have the most annoying habit of making my voice sound lower than it actually is, and it's irritating me to no end. Oh well, I shant make that my excuse for sucking xD If I'm going to have any hope of winning this, I'm going to have to push your vocals to the limit xD So no offense if the songs get really harder, I just don't want to lose xDYour next song: Lonely Day - System of a Down
The concept of free will is incorrect and outdated.

I will attempt to keep my conclusion as simple as possible.1. It must be remembered that scientifically, and philosophically the difference between living and non-living is only a matter of slight difference.2. Performing an action is not the same a making a choice. 3. Religion and divine forces cannot be considered in this debate.4. The human brain is only a highly complex mechanism, and cannot be considered anything other than that without proof. My opponent has made no such proof.5. My opponent has failed to prove that one particular type of action is a choice, while another is not.6. My opponent has used inappropriate examples, that do not match up to the point he is trying to make.7. I do not deny that there are various elements that make a person an individual, but the fact of the matter is that variety does not prove the existence of free will. Final Example: If a rock exists in midair, and it has the possibility to move in any direction that it can, does the repeated choice to follow the force of gravity prove that it has chosen that course? Does that then mean that the rock has free will, because it is rational in the fact that it is not irrational? The answer is no. One can argue all day that any action is the result of a choice. That argument is clearly circular, and proves nothing. I hope that you can see that the my opponent has not meet his burden of proof, in that he has even failed to prove that certain actions are choices, rather than the result of simple mechanical yields. I compliment con on his debating skills. I have sincerely enjoyed this debate, and I appreciate my opponent's tolerance with the fact that I am a novice.
The concept of free will is incorrect and outdated.

So I have supplied a better definition. “Free Will” is a philosophical term of art for a particular sort of capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among various alternatives. [1]My arguments proceed as follows.1. NeurologicallyNeurologically speaking the actions of an individual are the product of the chemical reactions of the brain. That is to say the resulting neural signals that command non-sentient organic matter, results from the interaction of neurotransmitters and the interneurons of the brain. Therefore any stimulus that would produce a set of action potentials (neural firings), would result in only one predictable action. Proof: Benjamin Libet a neuron expert tested the human brain for many years. He found that when a participant was given stimulus, the brain would give the body the signal to react a full .5 seconds before the person felt the urge to react. Therefore the act could not have been from free will, but it was a simple action, and reaction occurrence. [2]2. Quantum Mechanically In the world of physics, actions on precipitously smaller levels are increasingly difficult to predict. With that said the actions of humans, which are macro scale can be predicted with ease. On the smaller levels actions can only be explained with probabilities. This led to only one conclusion, that since objects existing beyond the atom size can be predicted, so can humans, or any other organic creature. If something can be predicted that means that it cannot choose a course of action, because that action would have to be dependent on the stimulus. [3]Proof: If an object (a) reacts with object (b), and the resultant of a+b is constant, then either both a and b are constant or both are varying in relation to each other. Therefore anything that follows this model has a dependency on other things, or is constant. In either case it is not independent, and therefore cannot possess free will.3. PhilosophicallyProof: Anything that reacts with its environment has actions that are dependent on the environment. That does not mean that there are not possible options that present itself when in relation to the environment, but if the decision is predictable, then the action is dependent, and not independent. Since humans in general always do what suits them best, one can thereby assume that their choices are dependent, on whom they are. If this is the case then one can also extrapolate that any action about to be performed by an individual can be predicted, so long as one knows the nature of that person. Therefore one can predict the actions of a sentient being. Therefore their actions cannot be seen as the result of free will, but the actions of an object that just happens to be sentient. I would also like to remind my opponent that there are no rebuttals in the 2nd round, and would also like to request that their response be kept to a manageable size. Works Cited[1]. http://plato.stanford.edu...[2]http://en.wikipedia.org...[3]http://en.wikipedia.org...
The concept of free will is incorrect and outdated.

"I will argue that free will does not exist, while con will prove that it does. " As my opponent did not define his terms, I will provide a suitable definition bellow. free will ( . http://dictionary.reference.com...) noun 1. free and independent choice; voluntary decision: You took on the responsibility of your own free will. 2. Philosophy . the doctrine that the conduct of human beings expresses personal choice and is not simply determined by physical or divine forces. As round 1 is for acceptance only, I will not raise any arguments. I look forward to hearing my opponent's oppening arguments.
The concept of free will is incorrect and outdated.

This debate is simple. I will argue that free will does not exist, while con will prove that it does. BOP is shared evenly.Rules of ConductRounds1. Acceptance2. Opening statements3. Rebuttals only4. Conclusions onlyGeneral Rules1. Research without a source will be considered void.2. No repeating statements that have already been said, with the exception of the conclusion.3. No opinions! Only statements that can be proven philosophically, or scientifically.4. No religious arguments. (I do not want to have a debate on religion, and theology).I look forward to a good debate.
The youngest girl I molested was only 2 years old

The youngest girl I molested was only 2 years old I walked into a large store I wondered around Then suddenly I saw a small girl who looked like she was only 2 Only 2 years old She was alone, No one was around I approached her from behind I grabbed her by the butt She turn around and looked at me She looked at me and smiled She was a little slut She obviously liked it She wanted it so there, Now she has it If she likes to be touched by men I will do her a favor And touch her by the butt She separated from her mom Only to be touched by me We both enjoyed it She is so young She probably won't even Remember it when she grows up But I will always have that memory Of the day when I saw a 2 years old girl And grabbed her by the butt
Cheese and onion crisp packets are blue

The variety of hex hues include things indicating yellow, white, red and even black from the shadows under the crisps.To say that they are blue 'period' is incorrect.It should also be noted that British English doesn't define the puncutation mark '.' as period instead it says it's a full stop and since this debate calls those things crisps and not chips, this is a British English debate so the 'period' was a wrong term for Pro to use unless he is saying that the packaging is a blue menstruative action.
Single sex schools are best

Ok, I was looking forward to some rebuttals, but my opponent has not provided an argument, only what appears to be a very subjective statement.I would just like to declare some things before I start my argument.1) I will play devil's advocate for parts of my argument2) I am completely for and homosexual relations - marriage. Please do not take anything I say to offence3) I might rant on about a few things... Don't be alarmed. My first argument:1. Our worlds population will decrease!!!Schools in most LEDC countries will most run officially (lesson period total) for 7-8 hours. Single sex schools will only house students of one gender (with the possible exection of sixth-form colleges in UK). This means that for 7-8 hours out of 24, many students of either male or female genders, are being gender isolated and segregated without contact from the opposite gender. This would inevitably more homosexual relations being developed and therefore the opposite for heterosexual relations. As you will guess. Due to two people of the same relationship will not be able to reproduce naturally- this bad situation is exacerbated by the fact that there will be less children of any gender to adopt ( caused from a chain reaction originated from population decrease). It also means that there will be a global scale deprivation of surrogacy candidates (caused by the last problem). Furthermore, this will cause the global population to drop, what is uncertain is when the government will abolish these evil single sex schools.I go to single sex school so I should know what happens (there totally isn't a girls school close to our school, ok... yes, there is girls school right next to us.... but forget that, you never read this). To back up my argument, I will quote what an older student said to me (he had been at that school longer than me...)"Don't go to a grammar school, it will fvck you up". I dont think that he meant this literally.... who knows?THIS IS WHY WE SHOULDN'T HAVE SINGLE SEX SCHOOLS!!!! s://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com...; alt="" /> s://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com...; alt="" />random:I dont care whether you are homosexual or not, or what sexual orientation. It dont matter to me. 2. Mixed- sex schools are obviously better!!! My opponent has said that dating at a young age is a bad thing but he has not explained why.Mixed schools will act as a social and sexual-relationship catalyst as more students will develop heterosexual relationships. Given the development of childrens minds, this will encourage younger pregnancies. This is good because the world population will not decrease but infact increase greatly. This is good because the encouragement for having many children per family will always be successful. To back this up, I ask you to consider what Mao zedong did, and that obviously worked perfectly. Mixed sex schools will lead to making many ledcs and medcs great again, incrase the income from many industries and will help make many countries military great again. Just ask this guy, it worked out for him. Please note that none are arguments are based on my real views. I remain neutral on many topics.Anyway....VOtE CoN!!1!
Obamacare should be repealed.

Obamacare is the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) [1. http://en.wikipedia.org...]. It is a is a United States federal statute signed into law by President Barack Obama on March 23, 2010. The Act is concerned with health care in the United States. A recent Supreme Court decision upheld the Constitutionality of the legislation. [2. http://www.thenation.com...#].In is debate I will argue that Obamacare should be repealed, and my opponent will argue that it should remain as law.This debate is part of the second round of Phantom's 99th Percentile Tournament. [3. http://www.debate.org...]We selected this topic because it is in the news and will likely remain important in the upcoming presidential election. I thank my opponent for the opportunity to debate the topic, and I'm looking forward to a good debate.RulesThis opening round is for definitions and acceptance only. I will give the Pro case at the start of the second round.Standard debate conventions apply. I list them here for the benefit of new debaters and readers. I believe there is nothing tricky or eccentric. Both sides agree to the following rules, and that violating the rules is a conduct violation, with anything contrary to the rules to be ignored by readers judging the debate:DR 1. All arguments must be made in the debate. Evidence may be cited or linked from the debate, but only in support of arguments made in the debate. Arguments made in Comments are to be ignored.DR 2. Source links or references must be included within the 8000 characters per round limit of the debate. No links or sources are permitted in comments.DR 3 Any term not specifically defined before use is to be taken with the ordinary dictionary definition of the term that best fits the context of the debate. The definitions given in the challenge stand as a condition of acceptance.DR 4. No new arguments shall be made in Round 4. Arguments and evidence may be presented in R4 in rebuttal to any previous argument, but no new arguments are allowed.DR 5. DDO site rules always apply. Neither side may add or modify rules for the debate once the challenge is accepted.DR 6. Dropped arguments are not immediately counted as concessions. They may be taken up again or left to be judged as part of the case.
Jesus Christ is God

John 1:1John 1:1 explicitly identify the Word as God by nature*. We know that this Word is a person because he has God's nature and God's nature only subsists in a person never in inanimate things. Premise 1: Nature denotes all the qualities/attributes in totality. Premise 2:God's nature includes personality. Premise 3: The Word was God by nature ( John 1:1). Conclusion: Therefore, the Word is a Person. * The third clause in John 1:1 reads KAITHEOSEENHOLOGOS in Greek and the underlined word is "God" in English. It is to be noted that this noun functions as an adjective because the Greek lacks the definite article. It is qualitative in sense. Therefore, it refers to God's nature per se. This Word who is God by nature is the only-offspring of the Father based on the immediate context:John 1:1 The Word was with God and he was God by nature. John 1:2 The Word was with God in the beginning. John 1:14 The Word became flesh. He has a glory as of the only-offspring* of the Father. John 1:18 The only-offspring* who is God by nature. John 3:16 The only-offspring*, who is a Son. * only-offspring is monogenes in Greek. This is compound word of "monos" ( one,only) and "genos" ( kind, stock,offspring). These definitions are accepted by all Bible scholars and is not in dispute by any Christians theologians. Monogenes has a lot of definitions. When it refers to parent to offspring relationship, it means either "only one of its sort" ( i. e. unique) or "only-offpring. For this very reason, we found out that Jerome ( and others) justly translated monogenes into Latin as unigenitus specially in reference to Christ because it is in the context of a parent to offspring relationship specifically of a Father and Son relationship. To be an only-offspring of a Father highly implies to be an only-begotten. Source:. http://biblehub.com...Philippians 2:6 Philippians 2:6 says that Jesus is "existing in the form of God(ASV)" Morphe means "form" ( nature, shape). It's dual meaning is used in the Bible, morphe is used in the New Testament as "nature" for about 5 times ( Phil. 2:6, Romans 12:2, Phil. 3:10 and 21,Gal. 4:19 ) and as "shape" in both Old Testament Septuagint (Daniel 3:19 ) and New Testament ( 2 Timothy 3:5 ). Philippians 2:6 explicitly conveys that Christ existed in God's nature before He took on the nature of a human slave. Source:. http://www.etsjets.org...Colossians 2:9 In Christ all the fullness of the divine nature dwells bodily ( Colossians 2:9). The Greek word for the English phrase "divine nature"in this verse is "theotetos" and it means "the very nature of God himself. "On the otherhand, Ephesians 3:19 says that Christians are to be "filled to the measure of all the fullness of God. " The Greek word for the English Noun "God" in this verse is "theos" and it means " God himself as person" NOT his nature. Source: . http://biblehub.com...
Banker (the Debate.org user) has poor spelling and grammar

The resolution is: Banker (the Debate. org user) has poor spelling and grammar This means I must prove banker (. http://www.debate.org...), has poor [1] spelling [2] and grammar [3]. Contention 1: Banker has poor spelling. In numerous cases, banker fails to spell words at a fifth grade and nonetheless fails to bring his point across as well. Some examples of this poor spelling are as follows: Example 1: . http://www.debate.org... (Multiple spelling mistakes, as well as grammatical errors) Example 2: . http://www.debate.org... (an entire debate filled with extraordinary examples of grammatical and spelling errors) Example 3: . http://www.debate.org... (See Example 1) Example 4: . http://www.debate.org... (Example 1) Example 5: . http://www.debate.org... (Example 1 again) Example 6: . http://www.debate.org... (. .. ) Example 7: . http://www.debate.org... (. .. ) If you would like more, I will be happy to provide. Contention 2: Poor Grammar See above. I thank my opponent for this debate. Please vote PRO/
The Buffalo Bills should be relocated instead of the Jacksonville Jaguars.

I will now list why the Buffalo Bill should be relocated: 1: The buffalo Bills have had numerous problems financially. First off, they have had to pay their cheerleaders minimum wage [1], which shows that they cannot afford to pay good salaries to their employees. 2: Struggling attendanceThe Buffalo Bills have had a declining attendance. The Bills annual game in Toronto has seen a nosedive in the crowd average. In 2008, over 51,000 people saw the Bills play. But during the 2013 game, a mere 38,000 saw the game [2]. Also, in 2013 when the Bills played a game, stadiums were filled up to only 91.8% capacity, while when the Jacksonville Jaguars played a game, stadiums were filled up to 92.8% capacity[3] This shows that the Jacksonville Jaguars draw larger crowds than the Buffalo Bills do.3: The Bills currently do not have an ownerDue to the death of Bills owner Ralph Wilson [4], the NFL currently owns the team. This means that the Bills are relying on the NFL to pay the team's bills (no pun intended), and makes them a very high choice for relocation.4: Poor on the field play over the past 9 yearsOver the past 9 years, the Bills have a combined record of 54-87, with their best record being 7-9. [5] This means that the Bills have not had a winning record in that time. Meanwhile, the Jacksonville Jaguars have made the playoffs twice since 2005, and have a record of 62-82 since 2005[6]. Thank you. Sources:[1] . http://abcnews.go.com...;[2] . http://auburnpub.com...;[3]http://espn.go.com...;[4]http://espn.go.com...;[5] . http://en.wikipedia.org...;[6] . http://en.wikipedia.org...;
The Christian God can not be proven

Con is using sematics by assuming I mean to portray that I can not prove the Christian God exists. Pro is confusing the resolution. The Christian God can not be proven. I have no way of proving the God of Christianity and believe nobody does, Con took the debate so he must show that the Christian God can be proven. .. .I have met my burden of proof and maintain that I can not prove the Christian God. .. I will now take this a step further and proclaim that nobody has proof for the Christian God, that why they call belief in God, faith. If we had proof that of the Christian God we wouldn't need to have faith that he exists we would know for certain, but nobody has that much proof for the Christian God, otherwise we would not have sincere atheists who demand proof but after scrutiny they do not consider it enough to say without any doubt that the Christian God has been proven and make it a shut case. .. .. . Even for the theists, they also can not prove the Christian God, they have to rely on their faith to come to the conclusion that the Christian God is proven. .. . Any sincere truth seeker knows that God can be neither be proven or disproven, I am taking the side of having not being able to prove the Christian God, Con on the other hand has taking the opposite side and must prove that the Christian God can be proven, something he has avoided all through the debate. .. .And something he is unable to do. Conclusion The Christian God has not been proven in this debate, and neither can it be, otherwise Christians wouldn't need to have faith in the Christian God, they would actually have proof. .. .. And the case would be shut in that the Christian God can be proven and everybody would have to accept Christianity on the evidence of proof, making all other religious claims about their particular God being the supreme being nullified. .. .But we all know this isn't the case. .. .. . The Christian God can not be proven.