BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
THBT Love Marriages are better than Arranged Marriages.

Let me define the topic. Love marriages are a union of two individuals based upon mutual love, affection, commitment and attraction. Arranged marriages however, are the bride and groom are selected by a third party rather than by each other. Marriage is a union of two people often of different genders. Why I say that love marriages are better than arranged marriages is based on one simple four-letter word; Love. Love is the affection that you can only have for your partner or loved one whether it is temporary or permanent. Marriages should be based on love and not what a third party says. In arranged marriages, the two people are practically forced into marriage whereas, in love marriages, you get to fall in love first before getting married. The feeling that you get from falling in love is the best feeling in the world.
Darwin's theory of evolution & creationism are mutually exclusive.

I Pro, think that creationism [1] & Darwin's theory of evolution [2] are mutually exclusive. There is just no way the two are compatible in my opinion. Different time frames, contradictory ideologies for how humans were created, and just plain old different mindsets. In my opinion one side is 100% wrong and the other is 100% correct. Whether it be creationism or Darwin's theory as the correct ideology. I am interested in what my opponent has to say. Thanks in advance for accepting. 1. http://plato.stanford.edu... 2. http://www.livescience.com...
Is Science Essential to Humanity

If, supposedly, primitive humans used some basic scientific observation, that doesn't mean that they had to in order to survive. I agree that humans aren't exempt from the survival of the fittest concept, but I am not convinced that science is necessary to make humans fit for survival. You have not offered any solid proof that science is essential to humanity. Your example concerning the design of a shelter is speculation. Furthermore, there was a time in human history when humans didn't make shelters but rather used natural ones such as caves. Since you are representing Pro, you have the burden of proof. You need more than speculation to win this debate. You have yet to provide a specific example of a situation in which the human race would have ceased to exist if it weren't for science. Speculation about early humans and their activities is not sufficient evidence. Humans are animals, and every other animal manages to survive without science. It is true that humans are different from other animals, but it is unlikely that we would have died out if humanity hadn't developed science. Without science, humanity would be different, but it would still be humanity. Thank you.
Is Science Essential to Humanity

I argue that the scientific method is an extension of basic survival instincts and thought processes used for survival. It's simply the thought process in formal wording. Therefore, primitive humans still use the scientific method, they just don't realize it or publish their work. Humans do need to understand the how and why fire happens. You can't just use any two random rocks to make fire, you need to know which type of rock and why you can't use that one over there. Humans aren't exempt from survival of the fittest. Science makes us the fittest, and without it, we won't survive. A primitive human needs to know how to best design his shelter, otherwise he gets eaten by a lion in his sleep or gets crushed when it collapses on him. "Evolution has gave humans basic survival instincts that they can use to survive. If a plague strikes, some people are naturally immune. If deadly predators move in, humans fight or flee. If the Earth gets hotter/colder, humans migrate. These decisions aren't because humans of studied the situation and decided what to do using the scientific method, but simply because human instincts tell them to do certain things." Their instincts tell them to do things because they've arrived at a conclusion, after thinking (even for less than a second) about it, analyzing the evidence. That's the scientific method. In all the scenarios and all your rebuttals, humans have had to think about the problem and use the scientific method in their minds. Although, instincts don't tell your body to automatically become immune. I'll substitute the humans quarantining or simply moving away from the infected individuals. That required them to look at the evidence that disease spreads from close contact. Then they came to the conclusion that a disease can't spread if it's too far away from any potential hosts. Scientific method. "They build shelters without knowing the physics explanation. I argue that making use of the natural world is not science." Well, you can't build a shelter if you don't know that you can't put everything on one column and expect it to stand. How can you make use of the natural world if you don't even understand it? That's like me using my TV but I don't know that the ON/OFF button on the remote does just that. You need to understand something in order to use it. "That is your opinion on what it means to be human. Someone else might think that walking upright or having opposable thumbs is the foundation of what it means to be human." Little nitpicky, but IIRC orangutans and some other primates have opposable thumbs, and we're far from being the only bipedal species. "Thank you for what so far is a challenging and fascinating debate, and I await the last round." Right back at you.
Is Science Essential to Humanity

"I will not deny that scientific study has greatly impacted the daily lives of humans. However, I argue that science is not essential to humanity. Without science, humans might not study and explore the world, but that isn't required to be human. For most of the time that humans have been on Earth, there has been no science. Although early humans had shorter life spans and less sophisticated technology, they survived." Without science, we probably don't survive out of the Ice Age. How else would we learn to adapt to our changing world? I disagree that science and knowledge isn't required to be human. If we don't have knowledge, what makes us different from chimpanzees? We can argue the definition of humanity more in depth later if you like, but I think exploration and learning is part of our species' nature and what got us here, to being the dominant species on the planet, in the solar system even. "I find it unreasonable to assume that humans are nothing without science. Humans can do many things without studying and exploring the world, and many humans do." Like what? Being nomadic hunter-gatherers who don't even have basic weapons to hunt with? Who live in caves because they don't know how to build a structure? Everything we do today is based on scientific innovations from people before us. "There are still primitive societies in the world with no understanding of science that manage to survive." They barely survive. What happens when a plague strikes, or a pack of deadly predators move in, or when the Earth gets hotter/colder? How can they survive if they don't even understand what's happening? Many of these societies have at least a basic understanding of science, they can make fire, build shelters, etc. Science is the foundation of what it means to be human.
Is Science Essential to Humanity

I will not deny that scientific study has greatly impacted the daily lives of humans. However, I argue that science is not essential to humanity. Without science, humans might not study and explore the world, but that isn't required to be human. For most of the time that humans have been on Earth, there has been no science. Although early humans had shorter life spans and less sophisticated technology, they survived. You can't assume that a God made a world for humans to study and explore. This debate isn't about God, it's about science. I find it unreasonable to assume that humans are nothing without science. Humans can do many things without studying and exploring the world, and many humans do. There are still primitive societies in the world with no understanding of science that manage to survive. Science is important to humanity, but it is not required for humanity. Thank you for challenging me to this debate, and I await the next round.
Is Science Essential to Humanity

You said it yourself, science has done wonders for humanity. Our life expectancy has gone from the 30s in medieval Europe to 70+ in most industrialized countries today. The flu used to be a death sentence. Now, with a little help from Tylenol, it's a minor irritation. Vaccines have prevented millions, maybe billions of deaths. Antibiotics, maybe more. We now know our entire DNA sequence, which will come in handy if we want to cure cancer or other usually fatal, non-viral/bacterial diseases. We sent people to the Moon, many times, and we will send humans to Mars soon, within our lifetimes. Maybe we'll reach the stars before I die. Science is the catalyst for economic development. The Industrial Revolution was sparked by many inventions all at the same time. The Internet was the product of science. The military could not exist without basic science. Science is the backbone for our daily life. You may not know it, but hitting two rocks together is an example of science at work. Physics explain what happens when the rocks hit. Chemistry and geology tell us what rocks to hit together to make fire. Science is the difference between living in trees and caves and our modern industrialized world. We need science to understand what happens in the world and what causes it. I'm not Christian, but I highly doubt a God made such an amazing world and universe for us NOT to study and explore it.
The chicken came before the egg.

Speciation occurs from gradual change over a long period of time. The first chicken would have to be the offspring of a red junglefowl, but one with genetic variations from the first red junglefowl. Between it and its offspring a genetic variation would occur, making it difference great enough to classify it as a separate species. The first chicken could not have come from another chicken as this statement suggests: "But see, if the Red Jungle Fowl laid an egg, it would be a Red Jungle Fowl egg, regardless of whether or not the embryo mutated into a Gallus Gallus Domesticus. " By this you are saying that the species of an egg is determined by the animal of origin, and the offspring and the egg layer will always be the same species. If this holds true every species present on this planet would have had existed since the beginning of life. It isn't a red junglefowl egg, it is an egg laid by a red junglefowl, variated enough from preceding organisms from the sames species that its offspring will vary enough from it to constitute another species. Before the chicken it was a developing embryo inside an egg, therefore the egg came before the chicken.
The chicken came before the egg.

All right, I accept that you do not believe in creationism. However, I think that the voters should take into account their own personal beliefs. If the voter is a creationist, I would recommend voting for me, as I have proved that the chicken had to have come first if god has created the universe. All creationists should logically vote for me, as I have represented them and enlightened them on which came first in their scenario. Not to mention, how could a creationist vote for someone who will not even acknowledge that creationism may be the truth. I mean, what if it is the truth? Then the evolution chicken/egg argument is in vain, and I have truly one here by proving that if creationism is true, the chicken had to come first. And I know that all creationists believe creationism is true. =) So yeah, vote for me. But I ramble. .. "The common chicken which I assume you are referring to (Gallus Gallus Domesticus) came from the Red Junglefowl (Gallus Gallus) which was domesticated and over many years became the chicken. Speciation would not occur in the original predecessor of the chicken, the Red Junglefowl, only in its offspring, with enough variation to classify it as a separate species. The offspring would have come from the egg; therefore the egg came before the chicken. " But see, if the Red Jungle Fowl laid an egg, it would be a Red Jungle Fowl egg, regardless of whether or not the embryo mutated into a Gallus Gallus Domesticus. But when it hatches, you can PROVE that the species that came out of that egg is a Gallus Gallus Domesticus, and not a Gallus Gallus. So yes, if you look at Red Jungle Fowl egg, you can say that it could be a chicken egg. But that's just baseless conjecture. Until it hatches, we don't know what it is. And also, keep in mind, that the Red Jungle Fowl laid the egg, making it a Red Jungle Fowl egg, regardless of what is inside.
The chicken came before the egg.

"It is impossible for chickens to spontaneously come into existence," Tell that to the Christians. "the first of this species would have to come for an egg, as laying eggs is the reproductive behaviour for all fowl." This statement makes no sense whatsoever, and it completely rapes the English language. Come for an egg? What? I shall ignore this for the time being. "Chickens aside, there have been oviparous animals for millions of years, among invertebrates, reptiles like the dinosaurs, or fish and other aquatic organisms. There have been fossilized eggs found dating back to the Cambrian period ( 542 ï¿½ 0.3 million years ago to 488.3 ï¿½ 1.7 million years ago ). The first historical mention of the domesticated chicken we know today was 8,000 years ago. This puts a difference of at least 426,992,000 million years between the egg and the chicken, the egg being obviously first." First of all, you have no proof to back up your statement. Second of all, this is in reference to the chicken egg. Yes, there have been eggs before chicken eggs. But the specific question, is which came first, the chicken, or the egg? The egg is an obvious reference to a chicken egg. Did you honestly think the question was going to be which came first, the chicken or the 488.3 million year old dinosaur egg? Because if it was, we wouldn't be having this debate. I shall take this time to restate my arguments while my opponent rephrases his argument. An egg needs incubation to survive. If you believe god created all beings, god had to have created a chicken first, as if he created an egg first, nothing could incubate it, therefore, the egg would not hatch. Evolution wise, a chicken like creature could have incubated it's egg, and when it hatched, if it was a chicken, the first chicken is born.
The chicken came before the egg.

It is impossible for chickens to spontaneously come into existence, therefore, in order for the chicken, Gallus gallus domesticus, the first of this species would have to come for an egg, as laying eggs is the reproductive behaviour for all fowl. Chickens aside, there have been oviparous animals for millions of years, among invertebrates, reptiles like the dinosaurs, or fish and other aquatic organisms. There have been fossilized eggs found dating back to the Cambrian period ( 542 ï¿½ 0.3 million years ago to 488.3 ï¿½ 1.7 million years ago ). The first historical mention of the domesticated chicken we know today was 8,000 years ago. This puts a difference of at least 426,992,000 million years between the egg and the chicken, the egg being obviously first.
The chicken came before the egg.

I say that the chicken had to have came before the egg. If you believe in creationism, you believe that god created all creatures and placed them into the garden of Eden, ergo, God created the chicken. God had to have created the chicken, as if he had created the egg, there would be nothing to incubate it, causing chickens to become extinct. If you believe in evolution, you realize that a chicken like creature had to have laid an egg, which hatched and became a chicken through genetic mutation. While the DNA is set from the minute the egg is fertilized, it is still the chicken like creature's egg, and not a chicken's egg. But when it hatches, it can bee seen the creature is it's own independent being, a chicken. Thanks to whomever takes this argument. Egg: A chicken egg. Chicken: http://en.wikipedia.org...
Addiction is a disease and should only be a health issue and not a criminal issue.

As Con, I'll argue against our loose use of the title disease in the 21st century. Ill also argue how addressing it as a criminal issue nets less afflicted individuals. Ill relate how the act of removing individuals who act on a risk factor is an effective practice towards removing the risk factor altogether.Ill prove in this argument that:(1) Although diseases can be predicted by risk factors, that those risk factors are (in the instance of drug addictions) based almost entirely on social, educational, and economic factors vs. medical ones. (2) Ill present the arguement that treating disease in a legal manner is in many ways the same as treating outliers and cancerous cells within the body in a medical manner by comparing the benefits of total removal to comparatively a malign tumor of society.(3) Ill prove that with proper punishment the chance for recidivism is none. I'll have you note the senses of pity, compassion, contempt, anger, fear and sadness you fell when you look upon the face of an addict as being poison's to the rational mind. It's obvious that these feelings come about as emotions and spur of the moment feeling that cause us to take up incomplete methods of solving the issue. I believe we need to move closer to this place that makes us so uncomfortable, open our eyes, and begin to make the change we want to see in the world versus accepting and harboring the cancer that holds us back. We need to make people own up to their depravity, stop treating them as sick people, and start treating them like defects that need to be taken care of. Our nation wastes trillions of dollars towards medical treatments of cronic diseases alone. Add those preventables to the Pro's list of illegitamate diseases and we are just adding to a growing problem. A problem that has a>60% projected increase from 2010-2020 by the CDC. Please consider my arguments in this debate with an open and critical mind. I know how radical they may feel to the subverted mind, but try to think out of the box a bit and I think youll find capital punishment to be the best form for reducing degenerate portions of our society. The above numbers and statement was derived from a feature I found on the CDC website to calculate the cost of chronic diseases to individuals, companies, and government. http://www.cdc.gov...; It certainly seems like a waste of time and funds when there are much higher callings in the world that could be recieveing the attention, and by a better humanity at that.
Addiction is a disease and should only be a health issue and not a criminal issue.

CHALLENGE ROUND!Hello and welcome! Is addiction better handled with health care intervention or with criminal and judicial punishment? This is our issue and the focus of this debate.The structure of the debate is meant to be somewhat concise. So, there's a 4,000 character limit. It's my intention to strike a balance so we have enough room for debate, but the debates don't ramble on and waste time. There will be 5 rounds. Here's the breakdown of the rounds: Round 1: Challenge and Acceptance Round 2: Pro and Con's Opening Statements on the Issue Round 3: Instigator's Chief Argument > Contender's Rebuttal Round 4: Contender's Chief Argument > Instigator's Rebuttal Round 5: Closing Arguments I, the instigator, will take the Pro position. I'll argue that addiction is a disease, and should only be a health issue and not a criminal issue. Whomever accepts this debate challenge will take the Con position and argue that addiction should only be a criminal issue.DefinitionsAddiction is limited to drug and alcohol addictions. Other addiction such as addictions to chocolate or addictions to TV shows are not included in our definition. This is because such addictions have a low chance of being criminal and are irrelevant to the issue.Disease is:A pathological condition of a part, organ, or system of an organism resulting from various causes, such as infection, genetic defect, or environmental stress, and characterized by an identifiable group of signs or symptoms. (http://www.thefreedictionary.com...)Where pathological is: Of, relating to, or manifesting behavior that is habitual, maladaptive, and compulsive: a pathological liar. (http://www.thefreedictionary.com...)(There is some freedom to argue the semantics of "disease" because it's at the heart of the issue. But please don't go overboard.)"Health issue" conveys the meaning that institutions that primarily deal with health care qualify. I.e. Hospitals, clinics, doctors, nurses, etc. Health care in prison is obviously excluded."Criminal issue" conveys the meaning that institutions that primarily deal with crime and punishment qualify. I.e. Police, courts, jails, prisons, work programs, etc.Burden of ProofBOP is on Instigator.That's all. Thank you for reading! And GOOD LUCK to whomever accepts.
911 was an inside job

I understand there would be a lot to lose with such a risk, but look at Edward Snowden. An actual rare patriot, a man who is devoted to his country and the people of his country that he sacrifices his 1st world lifestyle, his ease, his high payment, having a hot girlfriend, for the sake of the truth. And this was one man involved in a smaller thing than how big 9/11 would have to be if it were an inside job. Honestly, I don't know how to punish people in power. When hitler, stalin, and tojo rose to power and killed millions, we went to war. So what I've pondered is that is it just that as a world we're that cold hearted? We let it go because it was only thousands? Or because it was the government attacking their own soil? This situation has always puzzled me, and I always end up in a state of indecision, because in the end none of it ends up making sense. Nothing seems to tie together just right. And by that, I don't mean facts, I mean morality. I guess as a moral person I hate the idea a government would kill 3000 people for oil, and as you said I just refuse any evidence otherwise. And it's true. There's way too many coincidences, way too many lies and secrets, but I just can't accept that something like this would happen, and that nobody would discover it in it's fullest, bring it to light, and have somebody go to war with america because of it. I guess I'm just not the kind of person who can accept something like that, but I can say for sure there are a lot of fair and agreeable points towards there being a conspiracy of some sort.