BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Macro Evolution is supported by evidence.

1. No fossil is evidence for evolution because you can't prove that fossilized animal had babies, never mind babies different than its self, which is something that has never been observed. 2. Vestigial Structures - There are NO "vestigial" structures. "Vestigial Organs" Are Fully Functional 1.The human tailbone is the anchor point for nine little muscles needed to support the colon, anchor the end of the spinal column, and perform several other functions. 2.The whale does not have a pelvis. Those bones are anchor points for special muscles used during reproduction. The bones of the male whales differ from those of the female. Furthermore, there is no fossil evidence for loss of legs in whales. 3.The spurs on the abdomen of some snakes are also used in mating. We had a fifteen-and-a-half-foot python snake skin at the ministry. You could see the two little half-inch claws; each is attached to a tine bone about two inches long. They are not remnants of legs. 4.The human appendix serves as a part of the immune system today. It"s true that you can live without it. So what? You can live without both of your legs, arms, ears, and eyes as well. That doesn"t prove you don"t need them! Removal of the appendix causes the rest of the immune system to work harder, that"s all. People without their appendix are more likely to live shorter lives and catch more diseases. http://www.creationtoday.org... I'm not sure why an ostrich has little wings but I'm sure he needs them or God would not have DESIGNED it that way. 3. Genome Size "Creationists claim" - Did I claim? However, you said. "evolution can still create better organisms just by working with what is already there. Another piece of evidence for evolution. " This is evidence for creation NOT evolution. "working with what is already there" I think I will just repeat this back to you a few times. "working with what is already there" "working with what is already there" "working with what is already there" "working with what is already there" "working with what is already there" This is evidence that all creatures were CREATED and DESIGNED. evolution can do NOTHING except. "working with what is already there" If Macro evolution is supported by evidence it is NOT this "evidence" as I have successfully shown. http://www.youtube.com...
Love is "Baby Don't Hurt Me - Don't Hurt Me - No More"

What is love?Baby, don't hurt meDon't hurt, me no moreBaby, don't hurt meDon't hurt, me no moreWhat is love? YeahNo, I don't know why you're not thereI give you my love but you don't careSo what is right and what is wrong?Give me a signWhat is love?Oh, baby, don't hurt meDon't hurt me no moreWhat is love?Oh, baby, don't hurt meDon't hurt me no moreWhoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, uh, uhWhoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, uh, uhNo, I don't know – what can I do?What else can I say? It's up to youI know we're one, just me and youI can't go onWhat is love?Oh, baby, don't hurt meDon't hurt me no moreWhat is love?Oh, baby, don't hurt meDon't hurt me no moreWhat is love? What is love?What is love?Oh, baby, don't hurt meDon't hurt me no moreDon't hurt meDon't hurt meI want no other, no other loverThis is our life, our timeWe are together, I need you foreverIs it love?What is love?Oh, baby, don't hurt meDon't hurt me no moreWhat is love?Oh, baby, don't hurt meDon't hurt me no more
Bernie Sanders as President

My opponent fits the same exact characteristics of a young democratic supporter who wants a political and ideological revolution without actual realistic solutions. Now, does Pro backup his conention that Bernie Sanders should be president? No. Instead, his argument is based on speeches and statements by Bernie Sanders. My opponent has not provided any reasons on which Bernie Sanders should be president, and instead posted mainly qoutes from Sanders generally on the corruption of Capitalism, calling for a revolution, and the political system, which has nothing to do with his viability for being president, therefore I extend my argument.
Bernie Sanders as President

IN CONCLUSIONMy opponent Con, has continued throughout this debate excusing my claims over his opening argument of being simply speech material from Bernie Sanders, by dismissing merely as playing semantic games (which, ironically, you aren't using the term appropriately). A simple Google search, as I did, reveals obvious lines from speech transcripts. It appears you took your comment too literally."I'm unsure whether I should accept only because I honestly feel like every argument I would present would actually be Bernie's. He makes his case perfectly. I honestly don't know what I could add."Your citations that you use either cite what Bernie said, or the situations on the "corrupt society/economy of America" through leftist media sites such as Alternet, Common Dreams etc. Which, keeping in mind, are not even relevant to this debate. How is the use of superdelegates, however undemocratic, important to why Bernie Sanders would make a good president?Furthermore, I have provided two founded and relevant arguments on to why Bernie Sanders should not be president. First, that his policies were to unrealistic and optimistic, and that he would in actuality, achieve little. I have outlined the serious implications of his proposed single payer healthcare system as a main example of this point, the futility of the taxes and the price we would actually pay, whether through even more taxes or wait times or lack of proper medical equipment. All throughout this time using numbers from unbiased sources,I have used logic and reasoning using basic understandings of politics, citing appropriate polls and the reality of the laws passing, beyond the common tropes of "millions of people demand change".I encourage any voter to look at this debate objectively and vote on the debate, not the candidate, in question. Thank you stealspell for accepting this debate. Vote Con, and I hope you do it with a smile. (nudge nudge)
Russia is Justified for Not Allowing Gay Marriage and Gay Propaganda

Due to a vacation to a cottage that I had no knowledge of, and I am leaving now, I hereby forfeit this round, and if my opponent wants, will forfeit the debate. I would like to re-debate this topic later if I am forfeiting this debate, as it has been a good debate so far and would love the challenge. So I am forfeiting this round, and if my opponent deems fit, the whole debate. I will be back on monday and if there is time, and my opponent continues the debate, will post an argument then
Russia is Justified for Not Allowing Gay Marriage and Gay Propaganda

To begin I would like to thank my opponent for proposing this debate, as it is not a topic I have debated before, and the climate of Russia, in contrast to the Western countries is a different twist on the original pro/con gay marriage debate. I will not be rebutting my opponents points this round as he does not have a chance to reply to my points in his beginning speech, instead I will just outline my argument and briefly delve into my points. My first point is that even though it is not illigal in russia to be a homosexual, there is no laws protecting homosexual people. This is the case in two different breaches of employment law against openly homosexual people in Russia. Anton Krasovsky, a television news anchor at government-run KontrTV, was immediately fired[34] from his job in January 2013 when he announced during a live broadcast that he is gay and disgusted by the national anti-gay "propaganda" legislation that had been proposed although had not yet passed. In September 2013, a Khabarovsk teacher and gay rights activist, Alexandr Yermoshkin, was fired from his two jobs as school teacher and university researcher. A week earlier, he had been attacked by members of a local neo-nazi group "Shtolz Khabarovsk". A homophobic activist group called "Movement against the propaganda of sexual perversions" had campaigned for his dismissal. Using these examples it is easy to see that there are no employment laws protecting the Homosexual community in Russia, which creates an unwelcome and hostile environment for the homosexuals in Russia. Unlike in many modern nations,homosexuals in Russia are not protected from violent crimes under Russian Law. Violent criminal acts carried out against homosexuals are prosecuted as criminal offenses under Russian law, but the sexual orientation or gender identity of the victim is not considered an aggravating factor which could turn the crime into a hate crime with a much higher sentence, is not considered. This shows that the Government of Russia is clearly although not openly, endorsing the attack and discrimination of Homosexuals. Marriage in Russia, along with most of the world brings large economical benefits, it terms of leave and tax breaks. To deprive homosexual couples of these rights and the right to a legitimate marriage is discriminating against them. The Russian government claims that the laws against homosexual marriage and the blatant blindness of the Russian Government to the attacks on homosexuals are for the good of the children and not exposing them to homosexuality, yet homosexual actions are not prohibited in Russia. One must ask the question when encountering this double standard whether Russia just does not want to spend its tax money on homosexuals, and the "for the children" is just a cover up. I look forward to my opponents speech and hope this to be a good and enthralling debate.
Russia is Justified for Not Allowing Gay Marriage and Gay Propaganda

Recommended Guide, Not MandatoryRound 1: Opening ArgumentsRound 2: RebuttalsRound 3: RebuttalsRound 4: Finishing StatementsJustified1.) having, done for, or marked by a good or legitimate reason.Let it be known to Con that it is illegal to marry, it is not illegal to be homosexual or engage in homosexuality (such as a man and man kissing on the street or private matters in residencies) [1]. Much of the Western World had criticized Russia for their laws which bar homosexual couples from being able to marry. The federal government of Russia has dictated that the law came by the reasoning to protect minors and due to the overwhelming majority of the people to ban the marriage [2]. Homosexuality is not officially considered a mental illness in Russia, although it is considered unnatural and a biological controversy. Under the principles of democracy and the controversy concerning discrimination and prejudice, Russia does not condone employment discrimination in many private and federal branches of the nation. The Russian military has a Don't Ask, Don't Tell [1, again] policy in order to prevent discrimination. As I said before, gay prejudice in Russia is prevalent, yet still illegal. Russia has taken measures in order to maintain peace during attacks on gay communities. There is no international law dictating whether homosexual marriage bans are an affront to human rights, and independent organizations have no basis to claim the Russian federal government is homophobic, they are abiding to democratic values. I will save more of my argument for my opponent, whom I wish good luck.I should also say that I am not homophobic or against gay marriage, I have no opinion on the topic if a person decides to label me as prejudiced. Sources[1] https://en.wikipedia.org......[2] http://www.themoscowtimes.com......
Say no to organ donation

Sure, there are people who think that doctors will not try to save them if they are donors. They are wrong in the face of facts, that's all. In my opinion, the vast majority of people who are not donor are not donors for personal reasons that have nothing to do with that belief, some want to be "whole" when entering the afterlife they believe in. Some want to have their body sacred as it was when they were alive. Some are not comfortable with a part of them being given like a bunch of meat to someone else. There are plenty of reasons, and they are all valid for them. As long as the reason is based on sound thinking, I have no problem with it. I think overall the balance weighs in the direction of chosing an organ donor as a good one, because it's a prolongation of our pure altruistic behavior, which is giving to other, without wanting any reward for it, because instinstively we know we'd like to be the recipient of such altruistic behavior, and thus if everyone is altruistic in some way, everyone wins something. There is probably no compelling secular argument against organ donation and therefore it should be a choice that is easily made and benefits everyone including you, if you ever need an organ you'll be glad someone checked that checkbox The Israeli law has no bearing on this debate, it's not relevant.
Say no to organ donation

So if it's a myth that doctors won't save you. Why isn't everyone an organ donor? Something must be stopping them. I think only half of the population over the age of 18 is registered as an organ donor.I think most people, even intelligent people, still think that doctors won't do everything to save them. I have another question. I read somewhere that Israel passed a law where you have to be an organ donor to get an organ if you are in need of one. If you're not an organ donor and you need one you can't get on the list to receive one. Do you think we should pass a law in America like that?
Say no to organ donation

Ethics and mistakes are two different things. Ethics is how you decide to do things based on principles and values. Mistakes are things that are not under your direct control and that you didn't intend. The decision is not fully made by the doctors that will treat you anyway. There are guidelines that they have to follow, lest they will be stripped of their license and harshly (and rightly so) prosecuted. Sure you don't know if THAT particular team of doctors will make the right decision, they might be corrupted to the core and a bunch of psychopaths. It's also the case that you don't know, anytime you go to the doctor for a cough or cold, if that doctor is not a psychopath that loves making his patients suffer and will prescribe rat poison. There are many things we don't know in life. It's not an excuse to not do anything. It's a moment to weigh the possibilities, and see the probabilities, and to see if you trust that profession or not. Doctors have a good record of making the right decision in that kind of things, the guidelines are clear, they have to wait brain death before harvesting, and they will not stop to save you until you're dead. Go to a doctor and say to his face that he won't try to save you, he'll punch you. That's his greatest pride in life, trying and sometimes succeeding saving the life of its fellow humans. The doctors have absolutely no incentive to stop trying to save you. I'd like to add that my personal position on the subject of organ donation (i.e. if I'm a donor or not) is not relevant to this discussion. You have every freaking right to say no to organ donation. I'd just like you to take the decision on good rational basis and not be swayed by bad arguments. The belief that doctors will not try to save you if you are donor is unfounded, that is all.
Islam is a ruthless and barbaric religion

You said you will feel honored if I challenge you on a debate on Islam. My answer would be: "You're a better debater than I am, I read your debate George Bush Is a good president, and you explained your points really well, and you were really informative and knowledgeable about your topic more than I was. Anyways, lets get to the topic: "I won't make arguments until the pro makes some arguments first about Islam being a merciless and bad religon. "
People should adopt children instead of pets.

Hello Oppent, Thanks for letting me join your debate. You have posted a very strong argument. However, Don't you think that the kids in foster homes would rather be with a proper adult? A real parent that they can trust? I do believe that they would prefer that more. Please take a look at this: A pet can never substitute for a human being, No matter how popular an idea it has become that "pets are family" etc. For one, There is a world of a difference between being responsible for a pet and being responsible for a child. But for people looking for companionship pets can be great. I suppose if a person doesn't want children for the time being (or ever), They might still find joy in looking after a pet. But pets are not really a "replacement" for children. Lots of families with children have pets too. As for adopting a child. . . Where to begin. From the way, The question is phrased I assume that you have very limited knowledge about the adoption process. I believe the vast majority of people would be unable to afford one even if they were qualified in all other ways to raise a child. People generally prefer to adopt babies, Going for private adoptions instead of doing so from foster care. People also prefer babies when they want children, For a variety of reasons that I'll list briefly: they want to see the child grow up and experience all stages of their development; older children will have mild to severe attachment, Mental health, And physical health issues - they have likely been abused in one form or another, Both before they were taken from their biological parents and after. Most people are neither equipped nor willing to deal with these problems. There are also endless lines of waiting adoptive parents wanting to adopt babies - not a single baby that is available for adoption has problems finding a suitable home. Those in foster care are either not available for adoption or children and teenagers who are available but older and very unlikely to find homes, For some of the reasons listed above. https://www. Quora. Com/Can-a-pet-substitute-for-a-child-Why-don't-people-adopt-a-child-but-instead-have-a-pet-at-home
Led Zeppelin is better than ACDC

"ACDC were a great band and i love them a lot but they don't compare at all to Led Zeppelin."Angus Young, Malcolm Young, and Cliff Williams are some of the most well known guitarists in music, while Brian Johnson has one of the most recognizable singing voices in history. Id call it about even in terms of membership. "Led Zeppelin had way bigger crowds and fans"ACDC the second best selling album of all time (Back in Black) while Led Zepplin comes in tenth. ACDC also has the third highest grossing tour of all time as well (Black Ice: $441 Million Grossed: 4.8 Million fans combined) while Led Zepplin didnt even make the listhttp://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...ACDC clearly attracted bigger crowds and fans then Led Zepplin did"Yeah ACDC is still around but only because Led Zeppelins drummer died and they couldn't continue because they realized that Led Zeppelin isn't Led Zeppelin without all 4 men"ACDC's lead singer Bon Scott died and he was the legend who sang 'Highway to Hell', but that didnt stop ACDC from disbanding. They found and even better singer and kept right on going and making music. The best bands can survive the deaths of one of their own and still go strong, which is solid evidence that ACDC is better then Led Zepplin since they didnt disband just because one of their core members died. "2) Full of the greatest musicians ever. Angus Young is fantastic but compares nothing to Jimmy Page, I mean come one Jimmy wrote the one song that every man, women, and child knows: Stairway to Heaven. 3) They had a much closer band and tighter sound! They were able to jam of each other constantly and thats what they did! ACDC had great band members and songs but don't obtain the power that led zeppelin has!"Well thats just an opinion really.... None of that is backed by any kind of evidence, thats just ones personal taste in music. The numbers show that ACDC has made more money and has more fans then Led Zepplin which kind of implies that they are better
Led Zeppelin is better than ACDC

Thank you for accepting the challenge! May we begin this fun debate: Led Zeppelin were clearly one of the greatest bands to ever be on the earth. For the band contains only the best and top notch artist ever. Jimmy Page, ONE of the greatest guitarists ever. John Bonham, the best drummer in the world! John Paul Jones, only the best bass player ever (next to John Entwistle). And last but not least Robert Plant, the man that has a voice of an angel. ACDC were a great band and i love them a lot but they don't compare at all to Led Zeppelin. 1) Led Zeppelin had way bigger crowds and fans. Yeah ACDC is still around but only because Led Zeppelins drummer died and they couldn't continue because they realized that Led Zeppelin isn't Led Zeppelin without all 4 men. 2) Full of the greatest musicians ever. Angus Young is fantastic but compares nothing to Jimmy Page, I mean come one Jimmy wrote the one song that every man, women, and child knows: Stairway to Heaven. 3) They had a much closer band and tighter sound! They were able to jam of each other constantly and thats what they did! ACDC had great band members and songs but don't obtain the power that led zeppelin has!
atheism is theism

I think i'm starting to get your reasoning. Your saying that theism is atheism because they both have a common relationship of being negative. But there is some problems with this reasoning, just because two things are negative doesn't mean they are the same. For example, negative numbers like "-2" and "-4" might have something in common in both being negative, but "-2" is not "-4", they're two completely different numbers. Atheism and Theism might have something in common that they might both be "beliefs", but like -2 not being -4, Atheism is not Theism.
atheism is theism

atheism is the opposite of theism, because they are positions on a claim, doubt is the negative balancing point between belief and disbelief, and I don't know is the positive, 2 options, 0 and 1 and belief being doubt, believing god is false means I doubt god is false, so I must believe god is true theism=doubt=yes position=Positive atheism=doubt=no position=negative(position) agnostic=certain=I accept I don't know=balance
atheism is theism

atheism is the opposite of theism, but belief is the opposite of knowledge theism=belief=i accept imagination a(theism)=dis(belief)=i accept imagination agnostic=i accept i dont know=i accept reality imagination=god, creator and creation the opposite of physical is mental, and if god is not physical right now.. for me to believe god is false, I am imagining the evidence to prove to myself that what I imagine is false, its like me accepting god is false by accepting god is true, not accepting 0 by accepting 0 as both sides are information, god belief is doubt, so to believe god is false, is to doubt god is false, and as a balance I must believe god is true basically: theism=belief disbelief=belief
atheism is theism

According to dictionary.com no it does not. In fact it actually states “opposed to atheism”, I’ll copy and paste the definitions here Theism noun 1. The belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation (distinguished from deism ). 2. Belief in the existence of a god or gods (opposed to atheism). http://dictionary.reference.com... If need be, I can provide more evidence from various dictionaries… But to note, I know not of any dictionary that says atheism and theism is the same, so I’m not sure exactly why Pro thinks that they are.
atheism is theism

I think your just comparing apples with oranges. Atheism is not theism even though they are both a position on the exsistance of God like apples are not oranges even though they are both spherical in shape. I feel like i'm repeating myself =\Belief is not doubt, look up the dictionary definitions of the two, they are not the same.http://dictionary.reference.com...http://dictionary.reference.com...;