BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Senior citizens over a certain age should not be able to drive

I want to begin this debate by thanking whoever accepts. On the ride home from my practice, there was a car in the left lane (2 lane road) who was driving between the lanes and crazily began to cut in front of my car. If I hadn't noticed her reckless driving as soon as I did, she would have easily swerved into my lane and caused a severe accident. When we pulled up next to each other, I could easily tell she was at least 75 and she could not handle driving. This is why I believe that seniors over 75 are prohibited from driving, and seniors older than 70 take driving "check-ups" monthly. This is all to insure the safety of the public, and the safety of the senior, as well.
What Grande PATISSERIE is better

You think your facts are accurate but to tell you the truth the are not. You went on to say the cheese and berry flavor was healthier but it is not. The apple flavor actually has 2 less grams of sugar while having 1 more gram of protein. You also went on to say "The Berry has 2 flavors and the Apple is just , but that is wrong. The apple also has 2 flavors, apple and cinnamon which are a great combo. The apple flavor also tastes like an apple pie in a danish shell, fantastic.
What Grande PATISSERIE is better

Well, I think that the Cheese and Berries flavor is more consistent than the Apple flavor. With the apple flavor you only get one flavor and for the same price? So why wouldn't you want to 2 flavors for the same price? It's crazy that this is even an argument. The nutritional facts may vary by person, but for a good snack during 3rd hour, you can get 250 calories worth of deliciousness. The Apple flavor has 370mg of Sodium, so obviously the Cheese and Berries flavor is a healthier choice and a good choice and a great snack.
it is more probable than not that mermaids exist

My apologies I thought you were trying to prove the existence of mermaids. In this case, I actually agree with you, there is a possibility that they could exist because of evolution and the fact that 95% of our oceans are undiscovered and the fact that the NOAA discovered as many new species as they did in a relatively small area compared to the rest of the globe. I am sorry to have wasted this debate by misunderstanding the topic statement.
it is more probable than not that mermaids exist

This so called "documentary" from animal planet, was actually made by animal planet, it's not a hoax, however the entire "documentary" is a work of science fiction. The producers admitted in an interview that this whole thing is science fiction. The whole show was for pure entertainment. There never has been or will be mermaids. http://www.cbsnews.com... http://www.latimes.com... http://www.webpronews.com... Sorry to burst your bubble.
it is more probable than not that mermaids exist

The audience most likely thinks I'm crazy for posting this. but there is substantial evidence to support this claim. Along with logical arguments. The weighing mechanism for this debate will be convincing the audience that either it is more probable or less probable based on cross examination and evidence that mermaids exist. Structure 1-acceptance 2-positions 3-rebuttals 4-rebuttals 5-rebuttal/summary Definitions Probable-: 1.supported by evidence strong enough to establish presumption but not proof 2. having more evidence for than against, or evidence that inclines the mind to belief but leaves some room for doubt. mermaids- a fabled marine creature with the head and upper body of a woman and the tail of a fish Sources http://www.merriam-webster.com... http://dictionary.reference.com...
should the government be banned

Huh, going to forfeit eh? Well I'm not. Argument #1: Society "The political direction and control exercised over the actions of the members, citizens, or inhabitants of communities, societies, and states; direction of the affairs of a state, community, etc.; political administration: Government is necessary to the existence of civilized society." Thank you dictionary.com, I love that website. Anyways, What do we mean by society? I'm not talking about a village with a population of 36, no. I am mean the human population of a large city, province, state, country or region. Sometimes order is needed amongst a large society. Could India and it's 1.2 Billion population function without their leaders? I don't think so. That is why in countries like my homeland of Canada why we have three levels of government: Municipal, for the cities and towns. Provincial. For the Provinces and territories. And federal, for the whole nation. Government is needed to a certain degree in all nations, big and small. Something gives me a feeling you are not going to respond. Anyways, thanks.
The US should create a limitization law on cars and who gets them.

People shouldn't be pushed around to which car they can buy because the government tells them to. People should be allowed their own personal choice, you know, make their own decisions. Owning a certain type of car for some people, including myself, brings those people happiness to suit their needs and wants, and the government tells those people that they can take that away from them? NO WAY!!! Think about it.
The US should create a limitization law on cars and who gets them.

My first rebuttal is to say that this topic does not concern one guys gas mileage in a highly fuel inefficient vehicle. Its about restricting automobile sales to persons based on their need. He himself may be getting better mileage, but his vehicle and the gas emissions he is still letting out are harmful to the air as a hold. A Civic is still more efficient than a truck fuel-wise no matter the speed. Which is exactly my point. Suppose that yes, going 70 is more efficient than the speed limit, a small car with lower emissions will still be less harmful than a truck or SUV. It still has four wheel, and will get you where you need. It won't however, smog the air nearly as much. The only drawback is you won't be able to have that selfish feeling of size superiority. Poor American consumer, where ever will you be without your ego? Thats my rebutal, now whats yours? In conclusion, I believe I've made my point that the limitation of vehicle choice to consumers would be beneficial. Yes, you won't be able to go lightspeed down a highway. Yes, you won't be able to run over a small child or animal and not feel a thing. Yes, you won't have that huge container that comprises half your vehicle that you never use. I believe that is the only price consumers will actually face: pride. But then, do we really need even that? If the people can't make the choice for themselves, then a more drastic plan is needed, and the good old government is the only force than can establish such a change. After all, they can mandate a switch across America to stop analogue TV, why not a more important and ultimately beneficial one? Thank you for your attention dear reader, and I beg for you to not vote on your own personal opinion on the subject, rather on which of us (meaning myself or Mr. C-Mach) presented a better argument. I don't wish to influence your opinion, but if this does, I can't say I object to that either.
The US should create a limitization law on cars and who gets them.

Sorry about mentioning Al Gore and Rachel Carson (even though what I have said about them is true). Anyway, still, it should not be restricted. And no, it does not have to be a monopoly, government or privately owned. About the guy driving the Tundra really fast, that guy actually got HIGHER GAS MILEAGE by going faster. The EPA says you should go 40-45 mph for optimum gas mileage, but the truth is, it's TWICE THAT SPEED that's optimum. Go for a drive at 70+ mph and look at the mpg meter. It should read HIGHER when you're going FASTER (Not when you're accelerating rapidly, of course. It just goes down then). If not, there's something wrong with the meter. Your rebuttal?
The US should create a limitization law on cars and who gets them.

But in some cases the government must play a role because the general populace will not do what is within their best interest. There are numerous examples. For instance, had the government not put a law restraining monopoly's then we would not even be able to have this free trade you speak of. The American public would still be buying their goods from one company at whatever cost they deemed necessary. But this would not stop people from being able to have cars, it would only limit the car choices to fit a rational and logical need. One person does not need a truck that is only for show. Just today, a truck user passed me going, what I estimate to be, 85 miles per hour on a 70 mile per hour highway. The massive amount of fuel used by this driver was wasted so that he could get to a destination five minutes earlier. As it turned out, he went to the exact same destination as I was, and I arrived going the speed limit approximately 2 minutes behind him. The emissions for those two minutes where most likely enormous. The wasted fuel used by that car, and the many others like it, could power so many other vehicles. It is the same concept as gluttony. Just because you can continue to eat even after your full does not mean that you should. Like wise, just because you can drive a truck at 85 miles per hour, wasting gallons of fuel for a few minutes, really does not mean you should. The problem though, with both concepts is that when the people have 100% of a choice they will almost always make the bad one. This is why America is not only the fattest country on the planet, but also the most polluted. In the case of food, the issue of survival comes into play. But with vehicles, a fuel efficient Honda Civic will get anyone to the same place as a fuel inefficient Escalade. In essence, nothing is lost, but everything is gained. No one will get to work any later. No one will not be able to get to the grocery store. But everyone will have that much cleaner air, that much less traffic, and that much less of a gas bill. Secondly, I truly see how Rachel Carson, who stopped pesticides being injected into our food, or Al Gore, who simply wants the world to be less polluted, have anything to do with this topic. I also fail to see how an act like this would be a manner to control the public via secret police, mass surveillance and widespread terror tactics, as defined by wikipedia. And how having fuel efficient cars would cause us to all die alludes me too. If you'd care to back this argument up in a way that actually has to do with this topic, it would be very much appreciated.
The US should create a limitization law on cars and who gets them.

People should buy any car they want. The government sould have no say. Even though I do believe we should reduce smog, the rest is just a bunch of bullcrap. Whether is an SUV or a hatchback, a supercar or a hybrid, or left-hand drive or right-hand drive, a person should be free to purchase any car, or any item for that matter, they want. That's the beauty of lasseiz-faire capitalism adherents to Neo-Environmentalism don't get: Buyer choice and competition. Neo-environmentalists believe that if we adhere to the prophecies of Al Gore and other idiots like him, we will be safe from all the disasters that we have caused. EXCUSE ME?!?!?!?! I think this is all a plot to control how we live, like totalitarianism. Oh, wait, it IS totalitarianism!!! Rachel Carson, at the highest estimates, has killed more people inderectly with "Silent Spring" THAN CHAIRMAN MAO!!! I mean, come on. We need an industrialized society with lasseiz-faire capitalism OR ELSE WE WILL ALL DIE!!!
The US should create a limitization law on cars and who gets them.

To clarify the title: My main argument is that the US should stop the free sale of automobiles to civilians. DOes this mean stop letting people buy cars? No. It means stop allowing 1 person to buy a Toyota Tundra who lives in the city and will never use 90% of the vehicle. It means stop selling Escalades to a family where only one or two people will ever be in it at any one time. It means stop making cars with the capacity to go at 200 miles per hour when in most areas the maximum speed limit is 75. Yes, this does step on American rights, and violate Constitutional amendments, however, I believe in this case, the ends justify the means. I believe the only people who need trucks are those in construction or some other type of business involving hauling or carrying of large amounts of equipment. SUV's should be limited to those who actually need 4 wheel capable vehicles, like those who live in primarily rugged terrain, or in a climate where the weather has a grossly large effect on driving conditions. There is a definite line between need and want. Had such a law been passed, perhaps cities would still be able to see starlight. Perhaps LA would be able to see more than 5 feet in front of them. Families do not need the use of an all terrain vehicle in the suburbs, rather, they need a minivan. Personal experiences: I used to live in Colorado. The massive snow storms that we encountered there did make an SUV both safer and more reliable on the road. I also have a dad who is constantly obsessed with renovating the house, thus we use our truck on a regular basis. Now I live in Texas. On my walk from the parking lot to work, I take the liberty of looking into the backs of the many trucks that I pass on the short 2 minute walk. 9 times out of ten they are spotless. (I will not relate this to global warming as I do not personally believe that man has had a massive influence on the atmosphere or weather. My reasons are my own and will not be discussed here.)
Evolutionism and old-earth creationism can go together.

I would also like to finish by thanking the affirmative team, and by stating that although he did argue the points of my previous argument, he did drop one, being that evolution takes millions of years, and I proved it was six literal days. By proper criteria that argument does go to the negative. And I would like to push farther two things. First, if evolution is true, than we jumped from soulless monkeys, to humans made in the image of God. Now, if we can make that jump, what's to say we can't jump the chasm between mortality and omnipotence. And also, if we have souls... where could we have gotten them from. Do monkeys have souls, no. So where did they come from. And in Genesis it says we are created in the image of God. Well if evolution l real, than when did we become humans, when did we gain souls, and when did we gain the image of God. I would like to thank the affirmative team. And would like to say that I thoroughly enjoyed this debate. And would like to encourage the affirmative team to keep reading the Bible. Thank you.
Evolutionism and old-earth creationism can go together.

Thank you for the compliment, but honestly I found that out because I had heard something about it one time and decided to look into it. Yes, I will admit that you are correct about the context issue. I too used that source, as well as a couple others which said the same thing, but in the spirit of a lively debate I opted not to use that as it would hurt my argument. Now to answer your logic argument. God did not leave anything to chance; He had a plan since before creation, showing that He truly is a loving god. And I do not see the connection between natural selection and whether or not God is loving. He had a plan for the species that were "picked off," and that was his plan for them: to be stepping stones in the chain of events that eventually created Homo sapiens. As for man becoming like God, I agree that it "will not, cannot, and should not happen." Evolution could not develop omniscience, omnipotence, or omnipresence in a species. Evolution is a constant flow of adapting and becoming more fit to survive in the environment, and I highly doubt that speaking things into being will ever be necessary to survive. Lastly, to answer your final question, we are not monkeys. We may be closely related to monkeys, but we ourselves are not monkeys. So no, God would not send His Son to die for a monkey. As this is my final argument opportunity, I would like to thank Con now for being an excellent debate opponent. You have brought up some very good points and I sincerely believe that both of us learned something, whether it was something small or life changing (although it probably wasn't life changing).
Evolutionism and old-earth creationism can go together.

Now, first I would like to start by stating that I admire the affirmatives biblical knowledge. Now on with my 1st rebuttal. Now my first argument shall be simply a logic one. Now lets examine these to seemingly, and for good reason, polar opposites. Now these two can exist about as much as ice can exist in the sun. Now here is my reasoning. The first thing the theory of evolution does, is it undermines God. God is definitely powerful if he speaks the universe into existence. But not nearly as much if he creates a single bacteria and leaves it to explode. Now this also undermines Gods love. God himself created man from the dust of the earth. He took great care in this, and he created the earth for our pleasure. Now, if evolution is true, than God simply left a bacteria, and said. Hey, lets see what happens. And would a loving, caring God, who died for you, allow natural selection to happen. For things to be picked off one by one. Now also, when talking of evolution, people always debate the past, but what of the future. If evolution continues, than eventually man will become as God. Which will not, cannot, and should not happen. Now to clarify the affirmatives argument. The Hebrew word Yom is completely dependent on the context. Now in the old testament there are over 2,000 times the word Yom appears outside of Genesis 1. But in only 359 of these, does a number appear after the word. All of these other 359 times the number appears afterwards, it is obviously a day. And as you can guess, the word Yom in Genesis 1, every time, has a number. This means the Hebrew word case of the affirmative team, has literally been taken out of context. And lastly. and I wont elaborate on this, but I will just put this question in our readers minds. Would God send his only son, to die, for a monkey. In closing, I again thank the affirmative team, and would like to say, I truly encourage your biblical knowledge. Thank you, and I now surrender the virtual platform. This is my sources source. I encourage you to read it. It is Hebrew research. http://creation.com... > V17;
Evolutionism and old-earth creationism can go together.

I'm not necessarily talking about a metaphoric six days, but just a different meaning of the word "day". If we look at the Hebrew language in which the Old Testament was first written, we see that there are much fewer words in the language than English (English has around half a million words, whereas Hebrew has 8,700). Because of this, some words had multiple similar meanings, as is the case in the creation story. The Hebrew word used for "day" is "Yom". It has several meanings, all pertaining to time. Here are ways it is used in the Old Testament: 1. A growing season, about a couple months (Genesis 4:3). 2. Forty literal 24-hour days (Deuteronomy 10:10). 3. Forty years (I Kings 11:42). 4. Forever (Isaiah 30:8). 5. A year (I Kings 1:1). 6. Age (Genesis 18:11 and 24:1). 7. A lifetime (Genesis 47:28). 8. Ago (I Samuel 9:20). 9. Always - lifetime (Deuteronomy 5:29, 6:24, and 14:23) 10. Season - several months (Genesis 40:4) 11. Chronicles 12. Continually/continuance (Psalm 139:16) 13. A long period of time of unspecified length (Deuteronomy 19:9) 14. Evermore - a lifetime or eternity (Deuteronomy 28:29) As you can see, Yom isn't just used for a 24-hour period. It could very well mean millions of years in the context of Genesis 1, allowing plenty of time for evolution to take place.
Evolutionism and old-earth creationism can go together.

Now first, I am going to assume by the nature of the comments that you are talking about the creation account relayed in Genesis. Now for this debate I see it being a battle of literal six days, verus a metaphoric six days. Now evolution takes millions of years, and that is the first reason that this resolution falls short. That brings me to CONTENTION 1: which is a six day creation. If evolution were true, the Bible would not say, " the morning and the evening were the sixth day", or etc. no doubt the affirmative team will reply that this was not a literal day. So I am going to head that off at the pass. One must remember about the pentetuch. That genesis was not written while it happened. Genesis was written probably a thousand years later by Moses. Exodus 17:14 A " Than the Lord said to Moses, " write this for a memorial and recount it for the hearing of Joshua." (NIV, Exodus, 17:14A) Now by then the day had been established for a long time. So if Moses meant millions of years, he would not have said six days. This brings me to CONTENTION 2: which is biblical disagreement. Now the Bible has a specific blueprint for creation. One day the Bible says fish were created, another man. Now God through Moses, mentions man speciffacly. It says in Genesis 1:26 A " Than God said," let us make man in our own image". ( NIV, Genesis 1:26 A) This means that MAN WAS CREATED. Now if he was created in one day, how could he evolve in millions of years. and last I would like to say, If the affirmative team is talking of greek creation, or hindu creation. Than I cannot continue this debate, as I have no knowledge of those subjects. I would like to thank the affirmative team. And I do sincerly hope that the judges cast a negative ballot. Thank you and I now end this speech.