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

"Fruit Flies, Flowers, and E-Coli ? Are you kidding ? Just because they change in a small way, does not indicate reconstruction." While the changes to the E-Coli were rather minor, the changes to Fruit Flies and Flowers created new species. "Where is the science regarding apes ? Apes are still among us. Have the chimpanzees changed ?" This misunderstands evolution for a linear process, when it is actually branching. Evolution states that humans and apes had a common primate ancestor, not that apes got bored one day and decided to turn into humans. The existence of other primates does not disprove evolution.[1] "You mentioned that there were many similarities between us. Like what ? " Modern day apes were similar to the primate common ancestor between humans and other primates. We share 98% of our genome with gorillas. [2] Also, the human genome contains genetic material for organs that are no longer present.[4] However, the genome does not prove anything. What does is the vast collection of transitional fossils between humans and primates that show that evolution really happened, and that the genome similarities were not coincidences.[3] "You are very lucky to have people who believe that there is a life after death and that there is a penalty after we leave here to pay, if we are bad. If the scientists were able to convince enough people of your beliefs, than surely you and I would be dead men. If the majority of people don't believe in religion, and their is no God, there would be so much killing, as in the old day's that there would hardly be anyone alive." This is an argument from adverse consequence. Why? Because it boils down to this: P1:If A is true, than B happens. P2:B is unpleasant/bad C:A is not true. While a valid argument argues that B is not true, an invalid argument argues that B is not moral. TL;DR: Just because the results of Evolution can be negative, does not make it untrue, it is a non-sequitur. Also, con has failed to prove that belief in evolution will suddenly make you want to kill everybody. Con has failed to attack the validity of any of my original arguments yet. [1]http://rationalwiki.org... [2]http://news.nationalgeographic.com... [3]http://www.talkorigins.org... [4]www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5LzKupeHtw
Evolution is supported by scientific evidence

Fruit Flies, Flowers, and E-Coli ? Are you kidding ? Just because they change in a small way, does not indicate reconstruction. Where is the science regarding apes ? Apes are still among us. Have the chimpanzees changed ? You mentioned that there were many similarities between us. Like what ? Give me specifics, no vague answers of Micro and Macro. You didn't prove anything to me, maybe others, but not me. Before you answer, I will tell you this, and it doesn't mean anything to you, but it does to me. You are very lucky to have people who believe that there is a life after death and that there is a penalty after we leave here to pay, if we are bad. If the scientists were able to convince enough people of your beliefs, than surely you and I would be dead men. If the majority of people don't believe in religion, and their is no God, there would be so much killing, as in the old day's that there would hardly be anyone alive. Only the physically superior would survive. There are more people here, than would be otherwise, making advances in science because of their intellectual prowess. Not, their physical abilities. And, giants exist today, just look at some of the players in the NBA today. Skeletons of giants (Over 7 Foot Tall) have been found in all the different ethnic groups. Nobody, however, wants to pay for DNA analysis of them. Why, because it's expensive for one thing. If that was your only proof, in my eyes there is none yet.
Evolution is supported by scientific evidence

OK, I am looking for your proof that we came from apes, nothing more. Our intelligence is so far superior than any ape on this planet, unless Bigfoot exist. Cause they sure are slippery to say the least. We are simply a hybrid species. The gods brought some of there genomes to this planet. It is written in Ancient Sumerian texts as well as the Bible. We are not a specific animal (Ape). We were created. What I would like to know, and don't, is whether Giants from long ago had different DNA from that of today. According to Ancient sources they were the first men of the gods and lived longer than most men. No proof, but I believe this is how the pyramids around the world were built. Why does science try to prove the bible wrong ?
Evolution is supported by scientific evidence

Resolution:Evolution is supported by scientific evidenceDefinitions:Evolution:"change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift."[1]Rules: Burden of proof on me. Con gets to start first, but cannot post any arguments at the last round to make the number of rounds even. No semantics, cheating, votebombing, or other dishonest tactics Sources:[1]http://dictionary.reference.com...
Gun Control

I want to start off by saying that all these shootings are a tragedy for those losing loved ones,friends, co workers, and neighbors. My argument against Gun Control will give you an understanding why we can't have it. I. The second Amendment gives citizens the right to own a firearm The constitution reads "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. " More laws will infringe that right. II. Gun control causes more Gun deaths In the last 30 years the Assault weapons ban has not effect much in towards of gun deaths. States and cities with strict gun control had more deaths let me get an example Chicago has the strictest gun laws in the country and in the past 22 months there have been 1,310 people killed by gun violence.
marijuana

The CDC reports that between 1999 and 2007, there were 26 deaths with marijuana as an underlying cause, in the United States.(http://wiki.answers.com....)Falling coconuts kill 150 people worldwide each year.(http://www.unisci.com...) Telling me to give up is not about this debate through some facts about Marijuana at or something. And the people in smokers alley are dumb but not all of them smoke weed i used to go back there come on Alisha give me a good argument .
marijuana

Its illegal because the government doesn't want people to cross the boundaries in your mind that they have made! Out of every single drug in the whole wide world THC kills your brain the slowest. (Fact: Marijuana kills less people then coconuts.) You do have a point it does make you oblivious to your actions but that's why most of us stay in our houses and do it not wondering around outside so that actually means we are not completely oblivious to our actions. Like a wize man once said don't knock it until you try it.
The US Postal Service should continue Saturday mail deliveries

1. Saturday is not the only day people can use it. They still have Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday. Even if the addressee is not home during delivery, letters and small packages are usually placed into the mailbox or in front of the door. The addressee can easily collect his post accordingly.You argue that the hours are inconvenient. Maybe, but most people do not work such long hours that they're completely unable to visit a post office on one of the aforementioned day from 7:00am to 6:00pm. Even if they did, they still have FedEx and UPS, both of which operate on Saturday. The USPS is not their only option.2. Individual and corporations dependent on Saturday mail can use either UPS or FedEx. And exactly who is dependent upon Saturday mail anyway? Inefficient start up companies? They can just send mail during the week or use FedEx or UPS. If they cannot, then a business with such inflexible operations shouldn't be allowed to exist. Communication? We have cell phones and the Internet. It does not seem justified to spend millions of dollars to help a few old ladies and "disabled" persons who refuse to embrace new technology.3. It doesn't matter whether part time jobs will be lost. Western civilization has advanced to the point where we no longer need a postal service, except for package delivery. And for that we have UPS and FedEx. For everything else, we have the Internet and telephones. By your logic, we shouldn't have stopped ice block delivery. After all, some people don't have refrigerators. The postal service is a huge cash suck, has been bleeding money for years, and is no longer necessary for society. The money saved can be better spent of health research or aid to the poor.
Ripsticks are More Fun than Skateboard.

Skateboards are ultimateley better because on a skateboard yes you have to keep kicking and with a ripstick you dont, but that is just for riding. How many kids do you know who can grind, to kickflips, and other maenuvers on a ripstick. I have a rip stick and i find them fun to ride but thats it. Skateboards are fun to ride and do tricks so skateboards have the upper edge.
Troll debate, pick a topic.

Troll defintion "b. To sing heartily: troll a carol." [0]I will now troll the debate. The liberals lost and the alt-right won thanks to breitbart lalalalalalalala.[1]We all know that breitbart is the best site because it has much bias hahahahhahaha. [2]All can hear the angels sing because of the alt-rights victory and stance on abortion. Yayayayyayayayaya! [1]We all know that that the alt right loves LGBT "World Health Organization Report: Trannies 49 Xs Higher HIV Rate" [3] LalallalallalallalalallalalaThere is more to this happy story. "Alex Jones Says The Government is Turning Us Gay with Chemical Warfare" [4] hehehehehehehehehehhehheNow everyone is jumping with joy and shouting out with glee.Since infowars is the most reliable source on the Internet. whehehehehehhehehehwhee"CONSPIRACY-PSEUDOSCIENCEThese sources publish false information that cannot be validated or are related to pseudoscience. The information on these sites is speculation that is not supported by evidence. These are the most untrustworthy sources in media.Notes: A site run by the legendary conspiracy theorist Alex Jones. Non-stop over the top conspiracies. This is the gold standard for Tin-Foil Hat conspiracies.Source: http://www.infowars.com...; [5]All the LGBT are super happy now. lallalalalallalallala.Now all women and LGBT are super duper happy whehehehehehehheheeee!We owe this all the Internet. Now we are are all blessed with Donald Trump. Every Christian should be caroling away. YayayayayayyayayayayyayaO Donald Trump o Donald Trump how great a president you will be. Sources.0.http://www.thefreedictionary.com...1. http://www.breitbart.com...2. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com...3. http://www.breitbart.com...4. http://www.alternet.org...5. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com...
Abortion

Introduction: Con’s case is rather unstructured so I am going to just make a few points of my own that address his case and build mine and then we can precede from there. Con has not offered much and I am a bit tried for time due to my AP exams so I will keep my arguments brief and to the point. CA1: Argument from Potentiality Con believes that because a fetus will become an adult, it is the same as an adult in value. However, that is not in line with how we determine value for nearly everything else. A pile of building materials is worth less than a house and an uncut stone is worth less than a gem. Similarly, we do not grant rights based on what rights someone will later have. A child will someday have the right to vote, but a child does not have the right to vote until maturity. That means that if a fetus will someday have the right to life, we need not grant it the right to life as a fetus by default. It is necessary to actually assess the rights of the fetus. C1: Fetus is not a Person Philosopher Mary Anne Warren proposes five criteria by which we may determine if something is a person: it is conscious, reasoning, or has self-motivated activity, self-concepts, or the capacity to communicate them. She does not require that a being exhibit all of these traits or exhibit them all the time [1]. However, a fetus does not even have one of these traits. The fact that it merely has a human genetic code does not provide us with a moral guideline to distinguish it from other unthinking living beings like plants. There is no reason to give a fetus higher moral standing than a tree or other similar organism. C2: Self-Ownership Even if the fetus is a person, the rights of the mother must be considered. Hans-Hermann Hoppe makes the following argument for self-ownership [2]: A person is necessarily the sole owner of her own body; no one can exert a claim over it because no one else is its user or occupier. Only a system of ownership based on who is the first occupier and actual user of a scarce resource (in this case a body) can rightfully exert authority over it. As the owner of her body, a mother has the sole right to exercise authority over it. That means she can consume food into it, inject harmful chemicals into it, kill it, and expel unwanted organisms from it. The fetus cannot make a positive rights claim to her body without violating her inalienable ownership of herself. Sources: [1] http://instruct.westvalley.edu... [2] http://mises.org...
Abortion

I meant for grape to defend his point of view in round 2 but i guess that’s not how it worked out. Ok now that we have wasted 2 of the 4 rounds, let’s get going. abortion should be illegal based on the principal of value. Killing a human that is still developing is the same as killing a fully developed human. Look at it this way; which is more valuable, an adult, or an infant? Now you might say the adult because he/she is smarter, stronger and more capable than the newborn. You might say the newborn because he/she has the potential to become an adult. But, the adult was once a newborn, and the newborn will become an adult. Therefore, because the newborn will grow into an adult, and the adult was once a newborn, they are equally valuable If they are equally valuable then should it be legal to kill one and illegal to kill the other?
Is The Christian God Immoral

So children can't be blamed for their actions and the habits that are pressed onto them by their parents? So when they become adults and those habits are unchanged then they can be held guilty? The Binding of Isaac was not an example of God being impatient; it was to show that Abraham was a man of God, he loved the Lord so much that he was willing to sacrifice his only son to please his Father. Up until that time people sacrificed themselves and even their children to their gods to ask for something, to release themselves from something, or to be forgiven. In this text, Abraham did the dead strictly because of his love in the Father, a point that you seem to miss entirely. The Lord never had the intention of killing Isaac; He instead wanted to test Abraham's faith, knowing that Abraham would follow. The fact that Abraham was willing to do this and Isaac willing to allow it has given so many Christians stronger faith, a better trust in the Lord, and a more readiness to give whatever He asks. You may not have looked into this story much, but Isaac was not that defenseless. Isaac was between a the years of a teenager and a man, while Abraham was well over the age of 100; meaning that Isaac could easily overpower his father. Isaac loved the Lord as well, enough to give his life if his heavenly Father requested it (which he was well aware of the situation by the time he reached the top of the mountain). This story is one that not only helps the common Christian in their walk with God, but also foreshadows the horrendous death of God's son, Jesus, which did not get stopped by an angel. God did not do this out of spite or hate, but He did this knowing the impact it would have on His people's faith. His plans may not seem to work out like we expect, but they always end up being what is right for the time and future- without contradicting the past. Abraham had waited patiently for his son to be blessed to him (as stated prior- Abraham waited till the age of 100), once he received his blessing, one that he got as a gift for his obedience, God had to show to the future generations that Abraham did not just request something and then turn away, the Lord wanted to prove that Abraham truly did love the Father and hadn't forgotten who gave him his gift (Isaac). Again, God knows what is best and His actions never lead to an overwhelming circumstance. He only gives us tasks to strengthen ourselves and show to others His love and power to accomplish anything. Nothing is too overwhelming in His world with His help.
Is The Christian God Immoral

Children are children, they learn from adults what is right and wrong and it is not their fault for being indoctrinated. Even if a child is taught to hate a specific people they are not the bearer of guilt. Anyway, this is irrelevant and has nothing to do with God being immoral. You are assuming that God exists, I am not assuming this at all. I am trying to make the point that the Christian God is evil and immoral and does not deserve the respect that he deserves. I have other examples of God being immoral that I would like to present. The Binding of Isaac is a good example of God being spiteful and immoral. He tells Abraham to kill his son but he changes his mind just before he kills him. This example makes it clear that God is very impatient and has a short temper, why would an all powerful "moral" entity have the emotions and attitudes as a child.
Is The Christian God Immoral

You again either overlook or refuse to accept the fact that children can be guilty. Those children were taught to treat a specific type of people as slaves, taught that slaves were worthless and could be treated as if they were animals. These children were not innocent, an ignorant child becomes a hateful, even murderous, adult. God has his wisdom, and we do not understand it, but He has a reason. You forget that He had Moses go to the Pharoah several times, had given him several chances, and even gave him several signs to release the Hebrews... but he didn't. God didn't want to massacre those people, but if He hadn't then no one would respect His command to release His people. Again, life is a gift from God; not a right. We live in His world, He has a plan that will lead to the best outcome. The children of the Hebrews were killed, raped, and everything else that may come from slavery.
Is The Christian God Immoral

Just because the Egyptians were holding the Israelites as slaves doesn't make it moral for God to kill the innocent. The children had nothing to do with Israelites being slaves. If God holds life so preciously then why would he kill the ones who had nothing to do with it? It would have made more sense if he actually killed the people who were responsible for this, even though it doesn't make it any more moral. You do put forward a fair argument however that by killing a few you do save a million, but the fact is that the Amalekite women and children were innocent. The idea of slaughtering a child is abhorrent, disgusting and immoral.Children cannot be held guilty for something they have no control, you cannot blame children for being indoctrinated with hate and dogma, children usually lack perception of the world and they cannot control what they are taught. Children should not be held guilty for being indoctrinated.Comparing human life to a computer program is ridiculous. A human life is precious, a human feels pain and emotions, a computer program does not. Of course, it doesn't really matter whether a computer programmer deletes his creation or not, because it is not living. However, killing people and families is tantamount to genocide, it is wrong. Whether or not you created it is irrelevant, I ask you this, if I created life and gutted them all, you would feel disgusted?Just because we are something he created doesn't mean it is moral to commit genocide, for something that demands we follow his rules, worship him he is very sudden to go and break his own moral code that he supposedly put down on us.
Is The Christian God Immoral

Argument Can you truly compare our morals to that of God's. His plans and actions are far to advanced and complex for any man to comprehend. When the Lord put to death anyone in history it was for the betterment of mankind and His chosen people. ("For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,"declares the Lord. "As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts." Isaiah 55:8-9). When the Egyptians lost their first born sons, it was so the Israelites could be set free and ultimately experience the rest of God's plan. And when He had His people wipe out other nations and civilizations, it was not out of spite or hatred, but because He knows what's best. Many times He told His people to destroy other nations, but because of their immorality and evil which could spread and corrupt other peoples. Is it not better to kill a few to save a million? Because of the gain in freedom, the Israelites went on to become one of the most enduring people in history which led to the birth of Christ. Many people object to commands of God such as the killing of women and children because they have the idea that women and children are innocent and blameless. But women and children are not always so guiltless. We can now compare the children, back then, to the Middle Eastern ones now, they are taught in grade school to hate their Jewish neighbors. Nazi German women and children also held a hatred of the Jews and committed their own hate crimes and murders. Also, keep in mind, is it actually wrong for God to kill? Is it evil for a computer programmer to delete his creation, or an artist to throw away his paintings? We are all God's creations and whether we are used as pawns or kings is His decision. This may sound harsh, but to be in His world is a blessing and a gift- one that He may choose to take back... But when He calls His people home, they are rewarded for the sacrifice and suffering (I Samuel 26: 23 The LORD will repay each man for his righteousness and his faithfulness). Every bit of pain and hard work pays off, God gives us retribution (Jeremiah 17: 10 "I the LORD search the heart and examine the mind, to reward a man according to his conduct, according to what his deeds deserve"). Evidence http://www.godandscience.org... http://www.bible.ca... http://www.godandscience.org...
Ninjas would kill stargate people

My opponent's definition of a ninja is so skewed, it amazes me. That black-suited faggot (I know, spelling. It wouldn't let me put the real word) in the video is a punk kid making a few laughs. Is he pretty funny? Sure. Does he represent the ninja population? Heck no. First of all, ninjas are inherently silent beings. Practitioners use stealth to their advantage, and they NEVER post themselves on the internet. Secondly, Ninjas can still not create matter. Regardless of some video, ninjas obey the laws of physics. That's actually what makes them awesome. Without physics, their mover would be impossible to achieve. Thirdly, my opponent has no idea about the ninja code. I was never instated as a ninja, but I did practice ninjustu. Only ninjas know of any code, and my opponent is certainly not a ninja. His arguments are bull. Vote NEG, or shame the ninjas forever.
Abortion is always immoral

Hello im reformistBecause my opponent has not defined morality and morality is subjective i will use my moralityYour opening arguement is your opening argument and you cannot use these arguements as definitionsMy morality is that all abortions are goodKilling innocent people is okay in my sense of morality. This means abortions are moralBecause my opinon cannot be changed you have effictively lost the debateP.S.: Morality debates are impossible unless you give the opposing side a fixed stance on morality. In this case you did not.