BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
If a crime fighting vigilante like Spiderman or Batman existed, He should be stopped.

Would we not want average people to be Good Samaritans? Want them to stop a harmful crime if they had the power? How much more then, When they have great power as Batman and Spiderman possess? I'm not saying we wouldn't want them to call the cops, But time is not always available, Nor are the police always able to do what should be done. Not without being assigned paperwork until the end of their lives behind a desk. Now to be fair, The title says stop them. I say this because Batman did join the Justice League. Spiderman in many iterations has joined the Avengers (I think). But, If they did not want to work for the government or an organization, Should they be forced to? This I think is more than can reasonably be expected. To expose themselves as even more targetable than they already are. Take the Spiderman crazy journalist fan. Would it not be worse if she could target Peter Parker personally? His loved ones personally. You ask of them a decision, Sacrifice 'all of your normal life and the normal lives of your loved ones. Should we not expect of any man to be a man unto themselves? Able to make their own decisions about what is right or wrong? Do more than robotically follow orders of a military or government? Perhaps the supervillains would go away as they did in the Incredibles, But I do not think that they would in the DC or Marvel universes. (Not sure on that though) Riot shield and back breaking can be explained away by video game physics. Never an actual danger. Like Looney Tunes. I'm not sure what governments policy on crime lords is. Do they avoid arresting them because they are avoiding a power vacuum and lack the power to contain it, Or are they enmeshed in yellow tape and so weak as to even remove them in the first place quite often? The questions were rhetorical, Though you can answer them if you feel you must, There were a lot.
If a crime fighting vigilante like Spiderman or Batman existed, He should be stopped.

(Yes, I'm aware that they're fictional) In the PS4 game, Into the Spiderverse, J. Jonah Jameson's podcast makes the argument that Spideman should receive police training and become a part of the official law enforcement if he really wants to stand for justice in New York. And he's not wrong. In the game, Many people get hurt by Spiderman, Who isn't just harmlessly webbing it up. He swings heavy riot shields at the bad guys, Which could definitely result in bodily harm. Ya know what, Just watch this https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=7Ri8PK0oaQE It says most of what I have to say.
Feminist Movement is outdated

Well, since my opponent either plagiarized or forfeited every round, I have nothing to refute. Having said that, I will still offer my own argument why feminism is not outdated and is still needed. Equality The feminist movement is not outdated because women still aren't paid equally to men for.the same job. According to the bureau of labor statistics, women only make $.78 for every dollar men make. [1] With this in mind, we still need feminists fighting for the rights of women. Sources: 1. http://money.cnn.com...
People are Basically Selfish

When I said that people are basically selfish, I don't mean every single action they commit is for their own gain. There are the occasional acts of kindness. What's really interesting about your argument is that it cost the pizza delivery boy nothing to give you that dipping sauce. If he wanted dipping sauce, he could just go back to the pizza shop and get his own. This actually supports my claim due to the fact that it cost him nothing and it made him look like a better guy. Maybe if he not only gave you dipping sauce but also paid for the pizza you ordered, that would be a selfless act. My argument supported my claim by showing that that act of kindness cost the pizza delivery boy nothing he couldn't easily replace and, in the end, looked like a better guy.
People are Basically Selfish

Are people basically selfish? My answer, as you could tell from my position, is yes, people are basically selfish. 1. History If you look throughout history, specifically tyrannical rulers, revolts, and wars, you'll see that people desire something and are willing to hurt others in order to get what they want. Examples include the Spanish Conquistadors, the Aztecs, Rome, etc... 2. Current Day Events If you want to see if people are selfish or not, then I want to you to look at the Mainstream news. It's covered with war, tension between counties, and terrorist attacks. A great example would be the civil unrest in the Middle East. 3. Religion Personal definition of Religion: The quest to find God. If you look at various religions, including Islam, Christianity, Buddha, etc, you'll find that they agree with me. In fact, you'll see that part of the goal they're trying to reach is to be freed from their own desires. Even Atheistic Evolution (Which counts as a religion under the definition, they say there's no God to discover) says survival of the fittest. It's clear with these examples that people are naturally selfish, and in order for us to advance in Society, we need to recognize that, which is why a vote for Pro is warranted. P.S., Just a quick question for the opponent (I'll be happy to answer any questions they may ask). What is your religion/beliefs?
Humans main reason for existence is to be a tool to aid the survival of humanity.

Thanks, Pro, for your rebuttal... But I'm afraid you haven't actually negated any of my points. Let's take a look at your R2 premises: 1. People are tools to perpetuate humanity (example: teachers and political leaders) 2. Weak people died from illness, cold or disease during WWII winters 3. If humans were becoming extinct, they'd try to stay alive 4. Humans exist to help others While these are things that may be true (I'd argue that not all of them are, though we didn't get there yet) - they do nothing to support the resolution. For instance, point 1 just repeats the resolution. Point 2 was actually one of MY contentions (so supports the Con side). As I said in the last round, Pro's argument that only the strong survive is not always true... because there are cases where things like disease and famine prevail, meaning sometimes the stronger or smarter people don't make it. Pro's point 3 claims that humans would try to stay alive if they were becoming extinct and I would tend to agree with this; however, for a much different reason than what Pro's 4th point claims: that humans exist to help other people. On the contrary, I'd argue that humans exist to help themselves. I will take the objectivist metaphysical approach to this debate and say that one's life is of utmost important value, because it is the tool through which they perpetuate the rest of their values. As such, it makes sense that one would want to survive thereby making Pro's resolution seemingly true. However, to LIVE is not the inherent value: to perpetuate the value system is. So, if for instance people decided that human existence was detrimental (for whatever reason), then humans may wish NOT to survive. As I pointed out in the last round, there is no ethical, moral or teleological necessity mandating that humans perpetuate. We only do so because it is n our individual best interest. If it stopped being in our best interest, or if some other value took precedent over furthering our species (which I think is possible but improbable), then the resolution is negated.
Humans main reason for existence is to be a tool to aid the survival of humanity.

Sorry, I have done pretty rubbish so far; I only just started this debating lark, excuses. When one looks back at human history one sees strong leaders, people who changed the world. People who were smart, brilliant, and clever, people like Lenin or Bismarck someone who is clever and smart so that they can keep humanity from dieing out. These people, when they have been selected are tools; tools to keep humanity alive. Take an example like one of your high school teachers. They teach you so that you can later teach others. They are a tool, as am I and as are you. Although you may not have a great role in aiding the survival of humanity you had a role. Maybe one of your friends that you taught an important lesson is now showing this same lesson to a leader who is about to make a life and death choice for someone. Because whoever is out there, there is one person who is responsible for something and it is humanities job to produce such a creature and all the men and women this creature needs to help them. In the Second World War, Europe experienced one of the coldest winters ever. Many, the weaker people, died. On the battle fields the weak died from all sorts of diseases. However, the strong survived, and lived to become important, to aid the survival of humanity. Imagine a scenario, humans are no longer the smartest creatures on the planet, and we as a species are in danger of becoming extinct, we would join together and try with all our might to stay alive. We have seen it in cases within the human race. An example is in the holocaust, where the Jewish population was the species trying to stay alive. They joined together and within many of the camps there were the smart, the ones who didn't attract attention and the ones who were strong; brilliant. These were the ones who survived and were able to bring others back with them. Humans main reason for living is to fulfil that role, the role of helping, and aiding others to live. Humans reason for being alive is to continue on our race and join in the goal for creating a world we can live in. Each human is a tool for aiding this goal and so by I end this. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...
superman sucks

My opponent has really bad spelling. Anyway, Superman is a living solar battery, he has superman strength, is invulnerable, has a healing factor, can fly, has superhuman speed, x-ray vision, superhuman hearing, and he is a master at combat[http://en.wikipedia.org...]. I am sorry, but Superman is dripping in awesomeness. These aren't the signs of someone who "sucks". The resolution is negated.
The U.S. should substantially increase Nuclear energy. No What if arguements please.

In this round, my opponent again misunderstood and misinterpreted my arguments either deliberately or accidentally. He claims that solar technology is unproven, despite the fact it has been proven for years. He claims recent developments in solar technology are unknown, despite the fact they have been proven several times. He claims that we need nuclear energy NOW, and that using alternative forms of energy should come later as they take too much time, despite nuclear reactors taking much longer to set up than solar power plants. He also brings up that nuclear waste is stored in the desert, so it can't reach our water supply, despite the fact most nuclear power plants are on the East coast, where no such desert to seclude the radioactive waste exists. In conclusion, with every point of my opponent's argument refuted, the United States should clearly NOT substantially increase nuclear energy. With your vote obliged to go to CON, I thank you for reading and bid you good day :D
The U.S. should substantially increase Nuclear energy. No What if arguements please.

Okay for my first point to address and kick out of this debate is the one about cancer increasing because the waste reaches our water supply, the area they are burying it is in the desert underneath sandstone, and other hard rocks, basically not dirt. And there is no water underneath the area where they are burying, so this should be gone. Second the 3% is very revelant, because the simple fact is solar is expensive and that is because it is unproven. It is like electric cars, they are cool and neat, but they do not have a way to make large scales of the cars to sell at cheap prices. Same thing with alternatives(Solar,Wind), which were not discounted in this debate, even if you don't go by the Engineer from the Nuclear department at Berekely. The DOE has stated numerous times that alternatives are unproven, as I stated before Nuclear is proven technology. All of the evidence that was given to you about solar on MIT etc. , it said it could, we have invented fushion in Britain, but we don't have the technology to do on a large scale. Things take a while to make and are expensive because of the time that goes into making them. So the item that was shown, showing what is needed to make the plants. Those items take along time to make, especially with solar panels. Largely solar is just unproven and why would you want to invest in unproven technology. I have not skewed anything The U. S. needs power plants now to deal with demand, we need them now, at least 2020 not in 2050 to keep up with demand. If we don't make more plants we will be in trouble, so do we invest in nuclear which is safer than Oil, Coal, and natural gas being burnt for energy. We need power plants fast and we know how to make Nuclear and it is the most reliable plant right now, so we have to go with Nuclear. Solar is probably the future, but it is largely unproven to made in a large scale, sure they probably built or have a blueprint of a plant is the god of power plants, but it is all for not, if you can't builf it on a large scale.
The U.S. should substantially increase Nuclear energy. No What if arguements please.

"1.) Nuclear power is expensive.", Really hum, well according to this Information from Neil Cabreza Nuclear Engineer Berkeley, CA "Research is currently being conducted for the utilization of solar and geothermal power. These types of energy will have very little environmental impact as well as no threat of a nuclear accident, however, these technologies have not been perfected. Solar power has proven to be an expensive power source while geothermal is unreliable as well as expensive. " and the DOE "The most important long-term challenge facing renewable energy remains economic. Renewable energy costs are often barrels. it has fallen by 20 percent since then to 26 barrels greater than those of other energy sources", From the DOE , Basicaly Renewables are a hope, they are clean, but we hope that we can achieve this. Also the evidence you showed discounting the price is lower for nuclear is not in any of the evidence you posted, so that needs to be gone from the round. http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu... "2) Nuclear power is a mature technology and it doesn't work with economies of scale.", you mention infastructure, but your own evidence states it will cost about 14 billion dollars a year for 39 years, for the solar plan to work. On Technology that is experimental. Yes Nuclear is mature, but it is proven to work, rather than what you have said or what your evidence says about solar. "3.) Nuclear plants require constant supervision.", All that means is more jobs for America, also your own evidence from that plan, states"It will shut down 300 coal plants, and 300 natural gas plants. What about there jobs, they are gone, which in turn hurts the economy. 4." Those prices will come but it is a abundant resource that can used over and over again and on point 5, the sdafer plants don't exist, because there has not been a new reactor since the 1970"s, so duh, your telling they haven't found anything to be safer in 30 years of research. on YOur next evidence about wind, or a chunk, renewables only account for about 3% of all our energy at present according to the DOE. Lastly I like other energies, but coal is terrible, however relying on one source of energy, like in my point 3 says, will harm us in the long run. The infastructure on solar is experimental from your evidence and I sorry to say it but we need to increase Nuclear energy. Thank you
Creationism prevails Evolutionism

Thanks for the debate pro.I would first like to start out by saying that Pro has accknowledged that evolution is an all-encompassing theory that is supported by evidence, and reasoning. Pro's only contention so far is solely based on a philosophical analogy, and not any hard sceince.I will now refute Pro's argument in three parts.1. The watchmaker analogy basically states that since watches are complicated and we know that they have a designer, then things such as life, is also complicated, MUST have a designer. This is a weak comparison, as it relies on only one critera. It is a comparison that refuses to accept that not every single complicated thing arises in the same way. It's like saying that because a watch is hard and made of metal, a rock is also made of metal because it is hard.It simply draws a conclusion based on similarities without acknowloding the differences. Literally the only thing that a watch shares with a human is it's perceived complicatedness. Watches can't reproduce, evolve, move, or pass on their genes. Humans can reproduce and pass on their genes, while watches can't.2. This analogy is also false. Watches are made by watchmakers using tools and materials. Intelligent design states that everything was made by God ex nihlo, which we know is completely impossible, because of the Law of Conservation of Mass. Furthermore, watchmaking is a process which we can observe and know how it works, while a creation by god is something involving the supernatural with no evidence or support from modern sceince.3. It's simply outdated. Some of Paley's other arguments concerned eyes and telescopes. He stated that eyes and telescopes have the same purpose, and telescopes are designed, so eyes must be too. Nowadays, we know that eyes work completely different than telescopes. We also know how eyes evolved, and have examples of various stages of eye evolution. Paley argued that the only way a complicated thing could arise is through a designer. Now we know that complicated objects can arise other, natural ways. Another way to put this is by using the fact that people used to believe that the sun was a great ball of fire. They logically reasoned that since the sun was bright yellow and produced light and heat, it must be made of fire, because fire was the only bright yellow thing that they knew of that produced light and heat. Know we know that their are other mechanisms for light to be produced, such as through nuclear fusion as found in the sun. Basically, Paley assumes that design is the only way that something complicated can arise, because they knew of no other mechanism at that time. Now we know that complicated things can arise without design.In conclusion, the watchmaker analogy is a subjective, false and fallacious analogy that doesn't address any hard sceince, and only attempts to fight from a philosophical view.I look forward to my opponents responce, and apologize if my responce seemd a little rushed. I have been very buisy, and will try to expand my refutations next round.
Creationism prevails Evolutionism

Now, to begin with, I am not a religious person. I am an agnostic and therefore do not believe in God. However, when I did a philosophy 2 year course in my secondary school, I started to research more on what seemed to be opposing views of evolutionism and creationism.Now, obviously, modern world is wrapped with science - it can be found in every single thing that surrounds you. Science extremely rarely wrong, and when it is, it updates itself almost immediately. I acknowledge the fact, that evolutionism has tonnes of material evidence, such as fossils, and that the theory fills in almost every single gap of human history on Earth between now and starting point. I also acknowledge, that creationism has no such evidential basis, but rather a big old book, that has been written by countless amount of people, in countless amount of places.However.With all of that knowledge, I am crazy enough to say, that evolutionism does not sound reasonable and rational to me as much as creationism does. For that, I would like to use an argument presented by William Paley. The idea is, when one walks along a seashore and finds a watch on this deserted island, one starts to wonder of the watch's story. One starts to analyse how complex the mechanism inside of the watch is, and that clearly and commonly thinking, this watch ought to have a designer. Watch could not have come to existence on its own.Now, I hope i made this argument clear enough for reader to be able to draw a parallel with a homo sapiens.Human beings are, technically, biological machines. We consist of many organs, nerves and other peices, with each of them designed to carry out a certain function. Therefore, just as with the watch, I tend to think that a mechanism of such a complexity would not come to existence on its own, but would be created by an intelligent being. And this would be my opening argument.
The days in Genesis are literal days

Exactly, a thesis is a *statement*. No where in those definitions is a thesis supposed to mean arguments to support your position, only the position itself. By saying, "No one that is highly intelligent really believes the earth/universe is 6000-8000 years old", are you intending to insult me? There are many highly intelligent people (past and present) who believe in the Creation theory. Take Issac Newton, who said, ""This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being. " This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called "Lord God" ...or "Universal Ruler". " The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect." [1] Not only he, but many others like him have and had done the same. I await the rebuttals to my first argument. [1] https://answersingenesis.org...
The days in Genesis are literal days

That was my Thesis: 1. a statement or theory that is put forward as a premise to be maintained or proved 2. a long essay or dissertation involving personal research My Argument is short and sweet. No one that is highly intelligent really believes the earth/universe is 6000-8000 years old. Thus we understand God can not lie, thus we understand that the word Day means a period of time and/or to be hot. It doesn't mean a 24 hour day. The earth wasn't around for 9.2 billion years, so why would God call the first day a 24 hour day? He wouldn't.
The days in Genesis are literal days

Thank you, Rondonmon, for accepting my challenge to a debate. I look forward to a good Christian discussion of this part of the Faith. However, I would like to point out to the voters an infraction of the rules here. The rules say, "First round is acceptance and thesis". The other rounds were for arguments, not round one. Voters, take note. I differ with my opponent that the universe is 13.77 billion years old. On the contrary, the world and the entire universe are about 7,000-8,000 years old. However, since this debate is not regarding the age of the earth, but on whether the days referenced are literal days, I will try to avoid discussing proofs for the age of the earth. Now, are the day"s literal days? The other uses of this word in the Bible can tell us what the intent was here. The word "Yom" (or Yowm) is used in the Old Testament 2,301 times. The vast majority of these times, it is used to refer to a literal day [1]. Because of this, Occam"s Razor dictates that we accept the more likely explanation. Namely, that it be taken literally. Let"s consider the context in this passage. Notice at the end of each section, where it says, "And there was evening and morning the _th day." These evenings and mornings could only be existent in literal, 24 hour days. It is for these reasons primarily that I believe the creation week is comprised of literal, 24 hour days. [1] https://www.gotquestions.org...