BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Evolution is a lie and evolutionistism is evil

1. Scientific concensusCon claims that scientific concensus says that evolution is right, therefore it is right.This claim is BULLPOOP!! You see, scientists practice scienmacy, or the practice of worshipping the deity of the religon of science, Gaia! (http://www.chick.com...)Some evilutionists claim that some evolutionist scientists are "Christians". That is BULLPOOP!! Only MY intepretation of the Bible is the TRUE ONE, and historical context and metaphorical meaning must not be considered, yet those evilutionists claim to be Christian and decide to disagree with my biased intepretation of God's word! Plus, this is an argument from authority! Only my biased, cherrypicked intepretation of the Bible is the true authority! This is a logical fallacy, evolution is WRONG!!2. WikipediaCon claims that Wikipedia proves evolution. WRONG! In the year 1006, the Vatican decided to promote idolatry of bland, tasteless crackers (http://www.chick.com...) and the pagan moon god of "Islam", by creating Wikipedia to promote their pro-Catholic propaganda! To do that, they forced people to be "neutral" and use "reliable sources", when we all know that my flawed intepretation of the Bible is the most reliable source. 3. Men and GorillasCon caims that we came from apes because we are genetically similar to apes. Than tell me why we have one less chromosome then apes. Some evolutionists explain it away with "chromosome fusion", but that is a lie because of the fact that we have never observed chromosome fusion.MORE EVIDENCE AGAINST EVOLUTION-There is no evidence for new genetic information forming, only destruction of information caused by negative mutations-There are no positive mutations-There are only a handful of supposed transitional fossils, and they are all of dubious validity. For example, all of the alleged ape-men fossils are either fully ape or fully men, all of the alleged bird-reptile fossils are either fully reptile or fully bird. The alleged dino fossils do not have feathers, the supposed feathers are fluff that are actually collagen in dinosaur skin. [1] -The avian lung is drastically different from the reptile lung, birds have air sacs, while reptiles have diaphragms. Evolution cannot explain this.[1]P.J. Chen, Z.M. Dong, and S.N. Zheng, An exceptionally well-preserved theropod dinosaur from the Yixian formation of China, Nature391:147–152,1998; X. Xu, X.Wang, and X. Wu, A dromaeosaurid dinosaur with a filamentous integument from the Yixian formation of China
Dinosaurs Lived With People

SUMMARY The Book of Job correctly describes the size, anatomy, capabilities, and habits of the Argentinosaurus: The Ancient Chinese (Hongshan) correctly depicted a Montanoceratops: Marco Polo records witnessing a Chinese dinosaur. The Cambodians of the Medieval Ages carved a Wuerhosaurus into a temple wall: The Father of Natural History, Ulysses Aldrovandus, had a water color painting made of a 2-limbed variety of dinosaur that he saw with his own eyes a mere 500 years ago: A Spanish altar cloth correctly depicts St. George slaying a Nothosaurus down to minute details: (12) The ancient Peruvians depicted a triceratops: A 1600s artist depicted a stylized pterosaur to represent evil: And last, but not least, Paleontologist and Curator of the Charleston Museum F.S. Homes confirms multiple human artifacts and bones in the same strata as dinosaurs. All this proves the ancients witnessed live dinosaurs.No, the ancients were not capable of reconstructing skeletal dinosaur remains. As recent as the late 1800s, this is what happened when we tried to reconstruct Megalosaurus(11): LOL! Compare that to what Megalosaurus really looks like: If we couldn't get it right 150 years ago, there's no reason to expect people did a better job 4,000 years in the past. I'm disappointed Con forfeited his last turn, but I enjoyed this debate nevertheless! (11) http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk... (12) Nothosaur eating fish by Peter Minister
Dinosaurs Lived With People

I will be arguing that live dinosaurs existed at the same time humans did. I may use the term dinosaur interchangeably with mesosaur or pterosaur. I do not mean birds; that would be abusive use of the term. Voters should exercise their discretion when deciding if my use of the term dinosaur or human becomes abusive. First round is for acceptance and pleasantries, if desired. I welcome TruthHurts to this debate!
The government Should not bother with abortion

The principle of your argument is that a "fetus" under 24 weeks old is not independent (cannot survive on its own) and thus cannot be considered "alive." Lets extract the principle of your argument and apply it to a new situation to show its absurdity. A quadriplegic war veteran is not "viable" because he cannot remain alive without the help of another; he is not independent. Thus killing the war veteran is not murder because his "life (living)" ended when he became completely dependent upon another to sustain him. So your confusing physical independence with ontological independence. Furthermore, the age of viability is an arbitrary standard to define when life begins. "Five percent of babies born at 22 weeks survived without any outside assistance, according to the Wall Street Journal." This demonstates the arbitrary nature of the age of viability. Its definition changes with technology, biology etc. Thus viability is a function of technology and biology etc. For example, "a fetus gestating in the United States, whose mother has access to advanced medical technologies, may be able to survive outside the womb at an earlier gestational age than if the exact same fetus were gestating in Rwanda. If person hood depends on viability, the fetus is a person while in the US, and ceases to be a person if the mother travels to Rwanda. ....This makes no sense." Life begins at fertilization, for this definition is absolute and unchanging.
The government Should not bother with abortion

Rules of the debate 5 rounds If cross ex are put up questions must be answered or round is forfeited Say you take on the debate Then address the arguments provided Site all sources. The united states federal government should not interfere with a womens right to choose before 24 weeks into the pregnancy. Strictly speaking, most doctors define the age of viability as being about 24 weeks of gestation. In many hospitals, 24 weeks is the cutoff point for when doctors will use intensive medical intervention to attempt to save the life of a baby born prematurely.(http://miscarriage.about.com...) If a fetus does not have a viable chance to survive than why should it be considered living? The answer is no, Because the definition of live is "To remain alive" if the fetus does not have the ability to remain alive than how is an abortion murder. The abortion before 24 weeks is just removing the unborn fetus.
The government Should not bother with abortion

Thank you so much for waiting for my response I've been extremely busy. Cross Examiation First what is your definition of Viable. Where did your sources come from there is no citation there fore it is not valid A quadraplegic war veteran does not need an iron lung to breath or tubes to feed and give it milk or an incubator to keep it them warm so that analogy is incorrect. Your argument for ontological independence is completely irrelevant ontological independence relates to countries and nations Give a good paragraph description of rwanda and u.s. mothers(5-7 sentences) Please vote for the Aff team It will keep the government from interfering in the lives of women in america. Letting them keep there bodies as their own and not the governments property. We are not property of the government so women should not be treated as it.
We Should Throw all Blacks into Prison

Blacks are human beings, and as such they're entitled to human rights, and one of those rights is called due process under the law, assuming that every single black person is a criminal is extremely Racist and fallacious, not only it's unethical but it would be economically unfeasible to maintain 39 million people just in the u.s in a prison, There's no scientific evidence that blacks cause hypothermia to people of different races And as such the resolution has been negated.
should mobiles be allowed in school

http://www.youtube.com...So Pro has conceded?I believe Pro has misunderstood my position and has confused the word school with campus. Pro is saying that: students should be allowed to carry cell phones to and in school, implying that they are allowed to have their phones with them during their lectures.I am saying that: students should not be allowed to carry their cell phones to and in school, meaning that they they are not allowed to have their phones with them during their lectures. They are to hand their phones to their teachers or keep them in their lockers._______________________________________________________________________________________Rebuttals: "If a child has forgotten their homework they should be allowed to call their parents to bring it to the school."-This can just as easily be done using a phone within the facilities of the campus."Calling from a cell phone will save time compared to going to the office to use the phone."-Most schools in the United States have individual telephones in every classroom. I will provide a link of your average school district and how it has telephones installed in most of the schools. Therefore, students will not have to go to the office. Furthermore, my resolution allows students to get their phones from their teachers so minimal time is wasted as well.http://www.fortdodge.k12.ia.us...;"Mobile phones are always good to have on hand especially in case of an emergency."-No they are not always good to have on hand because of the previously mentioned points I made in round 1 and my new point that I will explain in my addendum. Furthermore, according to my resolution, if there is an emergency, students can retrieve their phones from their teachers."I believe when you consider the rare school shootings that have happened over the last couple of decades, it is important to allow mobile phones on school property for emergency purposes."-Not neccessarily. Cell phones very can easily be made into bomb detonators. Terrorists have used this and it has killed several people. They are very easy to make (refer to the video I have provided). As you can see from the video, the cell phones can be used both as bombs or as bomb starters. By having teachers confiscate every cell phone, students would be unable to detonate their cell phone bombs had they made one for terrorist intentions upon the school.-If there were an emergency, teachers would give the students back their phones.http://www.officer.com...http://www.textually.org...http://news.cnet.com..."I think it is important to teach children how to be responsible with their electronic devices and school is the perfect setting to do that."-I guess so, but it is at the cost of many children losing their cell phones to begin with that they begin to be more responsible. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Addendum: -As mentioned in my rebuttal, cell phones can be used as dangerous weapons, and having a teacher confiscate all the students' cell phones will reduce the danger.
should mobiles be allowed in school

Yes, mobile phones should be allowed in school.. It does not matter what age the student may be. If a child has forgotten their homework they should be allowed to call their parents to bring it to the school. Calling from a cell phone will save time compared to going to the office to use the phone. This is time the child can remain in class and miss less of a class lecture. Mobile phones are always good to have on hand especially in case of an emergency.I believe when you consider the rare school shootings that have happened over the last couple of decades, it is important to allow mobile phones on school property for emergency purposes. I think it is important to teach children how to be responsible with their electronic devices and school is the perfect setting to do that.
should mobiles be allowed in school

I accept.______________________________________________________________________________________________________________According to Pro: "we particularly emphasize on the students of age group 12-18 years(whether they should be allowed to carry cell phones with them to school or not)"Carry (verb): to wear, hold, or have around onehttp://dictionary.reference.com...School (noun):a regular course of meetings of a teacher or teachers and students for instruction; program of instruction.http://dictionary.reference.com...I will be arguing that students of the age 12 - 18 should not carry cell phones with them to school, but instead, keep their cell phones in thier lockers or with their teachers while school is in session, which excludes recess/break/lunch time and afterschool._____________________________________________________________________________________ Cell phones are a distraction during school:-While teachers are giving their lectures, many students have been known to have paid no attention to the lectures but instead sought entertainment from their cell phones by texting and playing games during lectures. In most cases this will obviously result in students forgetting/not hearing something important the teacher says and in the long run affect their grades.Cell phones give students unfair advantages:-With a smart phone equipped, students can easily find answers to the questions they have been asked by teachers. They can easily look up answers to a quiz/test. This is not only cheating, but it is unfair to students who do not have phones with them during school. If caught, these students will recieve severe punishment.
Resolved: Criminals convicted of violent crime(s) should be executed

I would like to see Pro clearly define what is not violent but is still a crime in Round 2. I think we agree that murder and rape should be included but is there a degree of assault that is violent and some that is not? I will concede that Pro has the power to define this but I want to ensure that they make it crystal clear. I also want to see Pro's reasoning behind death penalty itself; is it to remove them as a threat or simply to symbolically carry out retribution? As Pro has the initial burden of proof it would be illogical for me to post my case since the best way for the opposing side to open a debate is with a slight rebuttal-twist to what they propose.
Resolved: Criminals convicted of violent crime(s) should be executed

Pretty simple. I think anyone who commits any kind of violent crime against innocent people, or as part of a gang, should be killed. And to keep it "realistic," let's only talk about Canada and the US of A. For this debate, we will not use the million-dollar death penalty procedures we have grown to love, we will use... cheaper... methods. However humane. The criminal convicted of the crime will face lethal injection the day of, or after, their hearing. They will not suffer (physically, anyway) and it will cost next to nothing, so price will not matter. We will define violent crime as any form of physical assault/aggression toward somebody, kidnapping, murder, as well as rape and sexual assault, all except in self defense. Pro (me) argues that it is a good idea for every criminal convicted of a violent crime to be killed via "humane" ways, such as lethal injection. Con (you) will argue that it is not a good idea to kill criminals convicted of violent crime. And just a heads up, I won't be back to respond most likely until Monday. I'm making this now so I don't forget what it was that I wanted to debate, lol. Rules: 1. No forfeiture. Seriously. If you decide to leave halfway through the debate, you give up a full 7 points. So don't run away. 2. No semantics. I gave the definitions, I'm sure we're clear on what physical assault/aggression is. If you decide to say "well I define assault as a default butt," then get the hell outta here. 3. No trolling. This is a serious debate. We're talking about the killing of hundreds of thousands if not millions of people. 4. The comments section can not be used for anything other than discussion, and anything added in (extra arguments, sources, etc) will not be counted for anything. 5. No new arguments in the final round. Solidify your points and dispute mine, but don't bring up entirely new arguments. I think I've covered everything. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask in the comments or PM me. I've set the minimum debates to 5, but if you feel that you're ready to debate this, leave a comment. Tootle-loo ;)
Gay Marriage

Gay marrigae should be allowed in all 50 states. There are several aspects to gay marriage. The bible/church, basic human rights, and wether homosexuality is a choice or not. THe bible VERY clearly forbids gay marriage in the Old testament, but says nothing about it in the NEW testament. Jesus never preached anything about gays or gay marriage being wrong. Gays were often cast out of society. Jesus welcomed the outcast. He preached to love everyone, including your enemies. Many churches also forbid interacial and interfaith relationships, yet those are legal. As human beings. we have certain rights. One of them marriage. People say gay marriage is unnatural when in reality it exists in over 450 species, including humans. They also say it's an abomination. But divorce is supposedly an abomination because you vow "til death do us part" yet. But divorce is still legal. Gay marriages have EVEN been proven to last longer and happier than straight marriages. Homosexuality IS NOT a choice. Many studies have confirmed that whether you are gay or not lies in genes. In fact MANY studies confirm that there are more genes to confirm wether or not you are gay than there are when determing if you're right or left handed. And we don't punish the left handed. I would like to end my argument on the not that I'M BISEXUAL.
Winter is a Better Season than Summer

As Pro concluded, preference is the biggest deciding factor.Winter has snow-shoveling, Summer has gardening; In Winter warm foods are more enjoyable, in Summer cold foods are more enjoyable; In Winter there are exclusive sports, in Summer there are exclusive sports; In Winter there is a heating cost, in Summer there is a cooling cost; Winter has more holidays, Summer has (much) more festivals; and the list goes on and on.What we have showed our audience is that both seasons have their pros and cons. What I'm here to say is that Summer is not necessarily better than Winter, but at least just as good in its own ways. Which goes against Pro's claim that Winter is better than Summer.Pro used Round 3 to conclude and not refute any new evidence brought in by me in Round 2 (I was unaware that Round 3 would be only closing statements). I encourage Pro to use the comment section to refute my points on health issues such as our natural development in the tropics and Winter stress as I feel these are strong deciding factors for many who preference either Winter or Summer. Also, I will consider it as part of the closing argument and not respond back to it (unless directly addressed to).Thank you for the opportunity of this debate.
Winter is a Better Season than Summer

As we have seen, a lot of this comes down to personal preference. Unfortunately, I have not found much, if any, support on con's side of his points. Con seems to try to find continual fault with the points that I have made yet does not make any case for why he believes that summer is superior than winter. I think that we can safely acknowledge that cardiovascular exercise is good for your health, no matter the time of year. Winter just provides the benefit of accomplishing a necessary task at the same time as getting exercise. Whether you include holidays that are not commonly celebrated or not in the list of winter holidays, winter still has more celebrations than summer. Personal preference may decide your favorite holiday, the number of holidays is not decided by it. Both winter and summer sports have their downsides, but once again, personal preference will help you to decide your favorites. If you would like to enjoy your favorite warm foods during the winter, Con points out that you can do so in an environment that is temperature controlled. While this is true, the cost of obtaining and maintaining an temperature in which it is comfortable to eat warm foods in the summer will probably outweigh your desire for soup, hot chocolate, etc. Cost of air conditioning and heating depends on your personal temperature preference. There is no denying the fact that travel and summer activities quickly add up in cost. Overall, your preference between winter and summer will come down to personal opinion. I hope that you have been able to see the clear advantages of winter over summer from this debate, and will be able to make an informed choice of your favorite season.
Abortion should be illegal ( Tournament )

C1: A fetus is a human therefore abortion is murder. This will be explained in detail later on. C2: It is morally wrong to kill a person, and society looks down upon that act. This point can't be contested at all, but this point is dependant on my first contention. So for this to be a good contention I must prove the first point. So if I prove the first point than this would be an argument for me as well. A scientific textbook called "Basics of Biology" gives five characteristics of living things; these five criteria are found in all modern elementary scientific textbooks: A fetus is a human 1. Living things are highly organized. 2. All living things have an ability to acquire materials and energy. 3. All living things have an ability to respond to their environment. 4. All living things have an ability to reproduce. 5. All living things have an ability to adapt. According to this elementary definition of life, life begins at fertilization, when a sperm unites with an oocyte. From this moment, the being is highly organized, has the ability to acquire materials and energy, has the ability to respond to his or her environment, has the ability to adapt, and has the ability to reproduce. Non-living things do not do these things. Even before the mother is aware that she is pregnant, a distinct, unique life has begun his or her existence inside her. So according to these definitions, a fetus is a human. Killing it would be murder, and it's not justified because its not self-defense. Life begins at conception. Murder- The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice. Malice- desire to inflict injury, harm, or suffering on another, either because of a hostile impulse or out of deep-seated meanness http://dictionary.reference.com...
Abortion should be illegal ( Tournament )

I accept, under these parameters:Abortion as defined as the common medical procedure which deliberately removes a human pregancy. Also, an abortion occurring specifically in the prenatal period[1] until the 27th week, as per the definition of British Law, and JAMA. If another maximum time period wishes to be stated, or minimum, I will accept most prior the 35th week. This is in order to make the debate correctly revolving around the issue of abortion, and not simply late abortions, or '5-minutes-before' abortions which should be deemed squirelling, or an abuse of the topic.Illegal as not legal: not condoned by the country or countries' law, or not condoned by a body of law.There is no geographic presupposition: e.g. American Constitution is not a viable argument as it does not affect other countries (UN charter shall be assumed to affect all countries, even though a few do not accept it).should be meaning that it is a policy debate, not a debate on whether something is factual or not. Political, economic and other such arguments are viable.1 - http://upload.wikimedia.org...;