BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Intelligent Design should be taught in mandatory education in the appropriate science classrooms.

Before making any arguments – I would like to point out the framework of this round. In judging these debates I ask the judges who are reviewing to stick to what the debaters have said and to not substitute our positions for their own ideology. Additionally I think it's time to pick apart the voting issues – 1. "Who had better conduct? " This is a direct appeal to ethos/pathos, but I think at least in debate forums a focus on logos is much more productive and conducive to educational discussions. Just because many people ARE swayed by ethos and pathos doesn't mean we should fall prey to similar shortcomings. 2. "Who had better spelling and grammar? " This shouldn't matter, if you can understand the debate, then judge the debate. Frankly this is just oppressive and exclusionary. As a first generation immigrant, writing this rebuttal is already such a challenge. Focusing on spelling in grammar just makes it much harder for debaters whose first language isn't English. 3. "Who made more convincing arguments? " I don't think this is external from "what do you think afterwards. " So this shouldn't be a relevant voting issue. 4. "Who used the most reliable sources? " Again, this shouldn't be separate voting issue. Reliable sources should contribute to "convincing argument" which should contribute to "what you think. " THIS DEBATE IS OVER - he has a burden of rejoinder to answer my arguments as I present them, don't let him make any new arguments. I will concede the argument that religion should be taught in theology classes and that it isn't a scientific "truth. " If I win the premise of what a "science" class is or the purpose of education, then I win this debate. The purpose of a school isn't JUST to teach the "truth," but rather to teach what is good, what is best for students in the future. If this is true, then theology is at its least a social science class. His interpretation of science as biology or chemistry is exclusionary and doesn't encompass the humanities. That's totally unfair! It is, in the end, theoritically a "science" class. That appropriate "science" classroom is social science (even history is to a degree science), not biology. Who wins this debate? I think I do. In round 1 he says that it should be pretty straightforward. That means you should default to my interpretation of the resolution. Additionally if you buy his interpretation of the resolution, then it's useless and not controversial enough for a debate. A very small minority actually believes that intelligent design is science proper, so if you agree with his interpretation,this debate shouldn't have happened in the first place.
Legislation needs to be passed in the US to prevent terrorists from buying guns

Hello all! It's been awhile, but I'm glad to say I'm back! In this debate, I will be arguing the following:Legislation needs to be passed in the United States to prevent people on the FBI terror watch list from purchasing firearms.I do believe that is specific enough. I will be giving evidence of why legislation needs to be passed to bar suspected terrorists from buying guns.The Con will argue the opposite:Legislation does not need to be passed in the United States to prevent peopl on the FBI terror watch list from purchasing firearms. With this argument, the Con would more than likely argue that legislation would be insufficient or ineffective. I will leave that up to him/her.Debate Itinerary:Round 1: Acceptance, DefinitionsRound 2: Opening ArgumentsRound 3: RebuttalsRound 4: Rebuttals and Closing ArgumentsThis debate should be impossible to accept. If you are interested in accepting this debate, please make it known in the comments.If there are any details of the debate that you would like to change before accepting it, please let me know in the comments or in a message so we could work something out.Thanks, and I look forward to a good, complete debate!
People should not hack in Dragon Fable or other AE games

The resolution is clearly false. My opponent simply cannot determine what “people” should find fun. Contention 1 – Many people do consider Hacking fun: We see as proof that people find hacking on these games as fun from the shear VOLUME of websites setup to service the people. It would take far to long to list them all but here are a few. [1] [2] [3] Contention 2 - My opponent simply is not in a position to determine what people should do to have fun. My opponent must give some source that shows he has an authority to dictate what is fun for other people or how he can make the claim of “should”. Contention 3 – Gamers hack for status with friends I personally was surrounded in clan gaming and many of my clan gamers hacked for status which superceded fun. Fun was not the status symbol of the gamer. Contention 4- There was an exceptional time in my life with playing counterstrike that I cheated just to “piss” off my opponents with relentless headshots. This hacking led to fun. Many hackers have fun in a competitive hacking. Needless to say we see the resolution negated: I do want to point out I personally do not cheat as I find the challenge more fun myself as I have matured. But this is clearly a rarity. [1] http://www.gamewinners.com... [2] http://www.supercheats.com... [3] http://www.cheatsguru.com...
Exterminating Killer Whales

Dear Pro, The Resolution is about exterminating killer whales, not that killer whales are good. Now lets look at your arguments, 1) Killer whales offer nothing to the environment This has been negated since killer whales, along with all other top-of-the-food-chain animals, die and their nutrients are all released by decomposers back into the ecosystem2) Humans are in great danger from killer whales in the wildFalsified since there hasnt even been a recorded attack by a killer whale on a human in the wild ever. .. .3) Killer whales make fish-sustained lifestyles less sustainableIrrelevant since thats the main staple of killer whales's diet whereas humans can center their diet on just about any other animal besides fish. 4) Killer whales destroy habitats of other animal populationsIve shown that in every scenario youve listed that killer whales only play a minor role in those events and that more than half the time HUMANS are more responsible for the decline in populations there. ============================================================================All of the Pro's arguments about why killer whales should all be exterminated while other top-of-the-food-chain animals get to live have been countered. Nature works by having animals eat other animals, it starts with plants and then goes from consumer to larger consumer to larger consumer. I dont know why the Po wants to kill all killer whales for doing what nature meant for them to do but all other reasons he has given have been debunked. Dont kill all killer whales just for being themselves.
Athiests Cannot Truly Be Moral

Now I've argued both sides of the Atheism debate, However this particular argument never sat well with me. In the spirit of the debate, I'm gonna try and steer away from attacking specific scriptures or beleifs, And instead focus on making an argument with pure reason. Let's start by assuming your right. The next logical question is, are all religions equally moral? If yes, then how can we explain that different religions encourage different kinds of morals? This would mean morality is inconsistant. If no, then you really meant to say "all religions which are not my religion do not provide a solid basis for morality". This is a problematic statement by itself. I'll let my opponent decide.
Viewing porn does not have a negative impact on relationships

Thank you for your reply in a timely manner. I just hope the content on this debate does not get it removed. ;) My opponents main argument: That the disliking of your partners various activities, beliefs, etc...Does not effect the relationship, and if it does, then the relationship is not stable. Though this is not entirely relevant, i will contest the "vegetarian" analogy. The partner that dislikes his or her partners consumption of meat is very acceptable in the following areas. 1. The partner killed the family dog and ate it. 2. BOTH persons have agreed not to eat meat, the wife is a major animal rights enthusiast and cries at the thought of animals dying. So the man, loving the woman enough to do this, told her he has given it up, The woman later finds out that the man never stopped eating it, he would just do it when shes not around. Now, because it's a stable relationship she has not immediately divorced the man, it just brought a frown to her face. She was kind of disappointed for all the animal's deaths he has taken part in. Thus being a negative impact on the relationship. I don't feel the need to explain the dog. ________________________________________________________________________________________ Back to the porn. Scenario one: A 10 year happily married couple. One day, the woman in the relationship gets up from dinner, goes to the computer and so on. She then comes back to the dinner table and resumes eating with no washing of any sort. The man noticed she has been doing that a lot lately. It only gets worse, she is doing it all the time. She is not even wanting to have sexual intercourse with the man. This would have a negative impact on the stable relationship. ________________________________________________________________________________ Although I did, I do not think that i must give a scenario in order to win. My opponents whole argument is based on the fact that nothing one partner views as wrong could negatively effect the relationship, and if it does than the relationship was not stable, and that is simply balderdash. Your whole argument is based on a baseless false assumption.
Viewing porn does not have a negative impact on relationships

Thank you for opening this debate. The resolution being "Viewing porn does not have a negative impact on relationships" means two things that must be noticed. 1. That under different circumstances it does not negatively effect on relationships. 2. Because you say "Does not" that means that it never happens, nor has happened. However I believe my opponent is confusing what should happen, and what does happen. I think my opponent believes that the viewing of porn SHOULD not have a negative effect. Which I would agree with for the most part. However, he says that it "DOES not have a negative effect" Which means that in any relationship out there, it would not have a negative effect. But, because many different people have many different opinions, some being against porn, they are entitled to disliking their partner viewing porn, thus having a negative impact on the relationship. I await the next round.
Viewing porn does not have a negative impact on relationships

Good morning, afternoon or evening. My argument is simply what is stated above, but I will clarify further. I am arguing that this fact is true: If one or both of the participants in a stable relationship view porn, this will not have a negative impact on their relationship (like causing tension, suspicion, or expectation, for example). Note: I say "view" porn, not participate in its production. I say a "stable" relationship, not one built on insecurities I say "porn" which in this case I mean moderately light porn that I believe the average interested person would be likely to watch, excluding the subjects of illegal or immoral crimes like rape or child porn. To clarify further, I believe "porn" to mean consenting and law-abiding adults, real or fictional. I say "impact", meaning that the problem is caused by the viewing of porn, not by the relationship itself And lastly, I say "relationship" which in this case I will mean a male and female who are dating or married. I await the reply of my future opponent. I am pretty new to debate.org still, so please be gentle with me.
Obedience in marriage

I, As a 24 year old woman myself, Believe women should be completely obedient to their husbands and be punished when they are disobedient or do something to piss off their husband. I think the current society of women fighting and arguing with their husbands is disgusting. What are men"s honest opinions on this topic, Do you live your marriages like this or not and if you do, What do you do if disobedience occurs? How do you feel about this? If you don"t agree, Why don"t you? Please no judgments as I know how controversial my opinion is, I"m just mostly interested in everyone"s opinions and stories. Thanks
Home Schooling can be more benaficial than Public School

Firstly, the statistics supporting home schools (such as the ones mentioned above) does not reflect on the demographics of the families that home school their children. Most importantly: how wealthy and educated are the parents, as compared to those that send their children to conventional schools? According the statistics from: http://www.hslda.org... 54.1% of the families that home school their children have household income above $50,000. On the other hand, 32.2% families with children have a household income above $50,000. This clearly shows that parents that home school their children are much richer that their counterparts. Parents who have higher income tend to put more resources and focus on the education of their children, and it is a statistically proven fact that children from higher income bracket acquire better grades and have higher graduation rate. Also, according to statistics from: http://www.intellectualtakeout.org... (for home schooled) census.gov (for overall) 66.3% of males and 62.1% of females who home school their children have bachelor's degree or higher. Compared to that, only 30.94% of overall population has such degrees. This shows that parents who home school their children are twice as likely to have parents with college degree/s as compared to the entire population. Again, parents with better education have better resources, and children from families with parents who have better education tend to have better academic records. Hence, the reason behind such statistics is that the parents of home schooled children have higher income and education level. Children of such families, whether they are home schooled or not, are proven to outperform others. Hence, those statistics simply capitalize on the proven fact that children from families with higher level of education and income tend to perform better. It does not prove that children perform better because of homeschooling. While such statistics show the level of grades and rates, they overlook the social development of the children. Public schooling allows the children to socialize with much larger peer groups for a longer period of time. They get a chance to interact with the peers, which provides them with skills required to interact in colleges and in jobs/businesses. Home schooled children are very prone to indoctrination. Throughout their schooling, they learn with the help of their parents. As a result, their perception of the society is largely framed by the beliefs of their parents. On the other hand, children in conventional schools are exposed to numerous teachers who have differing ideals and perceptions. As a result, they are exposed to a diverse range of ideals and values. On top of that, the curriculum in such schools is designed to make sure that correct ideas are taught in an unbiased fashion. Hence, home schooling, in terms of overall development, is not only not better but worse.
Home Schooling can be more benaficial than Public School

Thank you for accepting and yes only puvlic schools are being compared. Study’s- “More than 2 million U.S. students in grades K-12 were home-schooled in 2010, accounting for nearly four percent of all school-aged children, according to the National Home Education Research Institute. Studies suggest that those who go on to college will outperform their peers. Students coming from a home school graduated college at a higher rate than their peers­ -- 66.7 percent compared to 57.5 percent -- and earned higher grade point averages along the way, according to a study that compared students at one doctoral university from 2004-2009. Work Cited from- http://www.huffingtonpost.com... Now this is not the only recent study http://i.bnet.com... Work Cited from- http://www.intellectualtakeout.org... Due to character length issues I am done. This concludes my opening argument.
having more then one best friend

As mentioned in the comments, this topic isn't debatable because it's a true proposition. Anyway I will try to follow."in this world you can only have one best. that is the meaning of best"Okay so the general meaning of best is 'having most positive qualities' but you described it as having "only one". You imply that there can only be one best friend, but what if the traits of two people are the same or similar to one another. This is the problem that occurs when choosing between two friends of which one is best. Wouldn't it be easier to just call them both best friends? Putting a restriction on just one best friend is just tedious.Okay so the rest of your points are just true facts that can't be argued at all. If you want a real debate choose a proper topic that can be debatable.
Zaradi's Prized Tournament: Animal Rights

PrefaceThis is the Semi-Final round of Zaradi's Prize Debate Tournament. I want to extend my thanks to Zaradi for hosting and for being magnanimous enough to attach a prize to this tournament. I also want to thank 16k--it may have taken us awhile to agree on a topic (and by "awhile" I mean eons...), but we got here nonetheless :)This is a judge-only, "select winner" debate. The judges are Raisor, Dalt, Endark, BV, Cermank, Wylted, Bluesteel, Thett, Zaradi, and Whiteflame. If 16k has any objection to this panel, he may PM me prior to acceptance and I will make the necessary and agreed upon modifications. I would also ask that 16K NOT accept the debate until 4 days from this point; acceptance prior to that time will empower me to have the debate reset.Full TopicJustice does not require the recognition of animal rights.TermsThe following definitions were influenced by Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Merriam Webster, and Encarta:Justice - 'giving each their due' and/or 'fairness or reasonableness esp. in the way things are treated or decisions are made'Require - 'to demand as essential, where essential means extremely important or fundamental'Animal - 'a non-human, vertebrate mammal'Right - 'something that one may properly claim as their due' and/or 'a moral or legal entitlement to (not) perform or have others perform certain action(s) and to (not) be in certain states'Rules1. No forfeits2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be individually provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final round4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere5. No trolling or semantics6. No "kritiks" of the topic (e.g. moral skepticism, moral nihilism, rights don't exist, etc.)7. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add definitions8. The BOP is Shared9. Pro must go first and must waive in the final round10. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a lossStructureR1. Pro's CaseR2. Con's Case, Pro rebuts Con's CaseR3. Con rebuts Pro's Case, Pro defends Pro's CaseR4. Con defends Con's Case, Pro rebuts Con's CaseR5. Con rebuts Pro's Case, Pro waivesThanks......again to 16k; I am looking forward to a truly stellar and engaging discourse!
Are All Furries Truly Perverted Or Just Misunderstood

Are all Furries Really perverted? This is a question that has been floating around since the fandom began. I am here to prove to you that they are simply not all perverted. Want to know why? Furries in a sense have proven to have a softer side to their fandom. They enjoy conventions, cartoons and silly art that many count as G-PG rated. Which of course it is. There are two sides that split this fandom apart just like the Paw Patrol Fandom, Video Game Fandoms, and the Anime Fandom. Side one is the easy going art and ships as well as polls and commissions. (The fun stuff.) Then there is the other half which is full of the perverted and sexual portions of the fandom. Also known as YIFF. 70% of the fandom has proven to be G-PG rated where as the other 30% of the fandom has given the pornographic side or the YIFF side. There is one question that remains from all of this. Why are the furries bullied and misunderstood? Should we do research on our own fandoms prior to judging others for their likes and fandoms?
Gene Therapy 2

As i said gene therapy is an ethical issue because when you intentionally insert a virus into your body it makes inheritance traits change. And when you use gene therapy you are more prone to Cancer, AIDS, heart attacks, and Alzheimer's disease. I don"t think gene therapy is worth risking getting any of these or even having to consider that you may just get another disease after trying to fix one. I understand that gene therapy could treat untreatable diseases, but you can the limb amputated, or find another way to deal with it (like you stated) but i suggest you do NOT use gene therapy.
Gene Therapy 2

It's an option. You don't have to do it. No one is forcing you to do this. It's always your choice. If you're willing to out up the money and go through with it great! Go for it! But according to http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov... " Gene therapy is currently only being tested for the treatment of diseases that have no other cures." Scientists are working on treatments for diseases that were thought to have no cure! And also from the website above it says ," Sometimes when a gene is defective, no functional protein is being made from it. In cases like these, adding a functional copy of the gene could correct the problem." You could even have a normal life with gene therapy. It's not 100% effective but it's also not 100% defective. In my first statement, I used a website that states that it's about 70% effective. That's a huge chance to life a life you've only DREAMED about. But my opponent doesn't think this is right. If you think about it, if you're willing to do it, you should know the risks, so don't complain if it doesn't work effectively for you. If you're responsible, you'd search something and learn facts, not just agree to it because you think it sounds great. Think about what you're doing before you do it. Learn something. No more doctors appointments, no more crazy treatments, just comfort. It could help people, isn't that all that matters?
Gene Therapy 2

if gene therapy gave the disease then why would the family want to use it again in risk of making it worse, just to reverse it? I do believe that the public should not be allowed to use gene therapy until it is fully developed and is no longer an experiment. because of right now the solution of gene therapy is still an outcome that we are on edge about, even though many other solutions wont come out with the same outcome gene therapy has many more things a risk if anything goes wrong. And what if a citizen tries gene therapy dreaming of the life she will have after the implant just to find that it went wrong, either even more sick or dead. I think that until it is better developed it should not be allowed to be used on human beings because it is still in experimental mode.