BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Polygamy!!!

Well, hell. I though we were debating changing the legal definition to allow polygamy/polyandry/etc as 'marriage' in the current legal sense. You want to debate the ETHICS? of it? We have a problem, then. I am aware of no reasonable argument to deem such relationships morally reprehensible or unethical. If you intend to argue the same- that there is no logical argument in favor on condemning such relationships on ethical grounds, then it seems we are in agreement. An individual may disagree, but they would have a hard time condemning the practice in a logical manner. My apologies, I misunderstood the subject of this debate and, as I do not disagree with your premise (now that I better understand what you are saying), I am unable to debate against you. Unless you wish to change the subject at hand to the matters I mentioned, there is no debate to be had between us. :/
Polygamy!!!

Thank you for partaking in this debate CON!!! It should be very interesting! Firstly I would like to point out to CON that the legality of polygamy is NOT in question. It is possible that a nation could make a certain activity legal or illegal, but that would not affect the ethical-viability of it. Thus whether or not Governmental bureaucrats could handle the paperwork involved is inconsequential - we are dealing with ethical-theory not praxis. However that is not to say that I don't take note of the concern towards the pragmatics of polygamy: yes situations of multiple-spouses could lead to certain financial and judicial confusions, however, as stated before these concerns still do not concede any WRONGNESS unto polygamy. -At this point it seems justifiable to claim that the burden-of-proof against polygamy is still unfulfilled. In addition, in the COMMENTS it was said that marriage is a religious institution and thus the question of polygamy is up to churches to decide. This view is not only naive in nature, but is also pejorative to any non-religious person and totally erroneous. In traditional Europe the church did indeed hold monopoly upon marriage - but to concede that this means the church should STILL hold monopoly on marriage is absurd. The consequences of such a view would be that all marriages not of Christian origin (ie: secular marriage, gay marriage, marriage in other religions) are not actually marriages but are approximations. This absurd view on marriage is equatable to saying that because we used to stone people to death for blasphemy, all current blasphemers should also be stoned to death. The person who made this ignorant comment was not CON (I imagine CON to be much more respectable than that), however I felt the point needed addressing since it immediately pertained to the argument. Anyways.... I hope to hear some interesting negations of polygamy from CON!
Polygamy!!!

Legally binding marriage contracts are, by definition, a contract between two persons. Therefore, legal recognition of polygamous marriage is impossible. The only option would be for the parties to enter into a legal contract closely resembling marriage in its terms and conditions, and offering similar protections. Many of the legal benefits of marriage- such power of attorney- are inherently a two-party deal. If person X marries both Y and Z, and is then severely injured, does Y or Z have power of attorney, should they disagree? The narrow conditions of standard marital contracts simply do not work if there are more than two parties involved. There are two possibilities: -Make severe changes to the nature of the standard marital contract. This would result in a much more complicated process and contract, making it more difficult for individuals to achieve the same ends currently achieved through a marital contract. -Allow the parties to simply enter a contract offering very similar protections. This better allows the contracts to be tailor-made to suite the needs of the parties in question, without complicating the legal process for those who choose the 'standard' model. Not only is the latter more logical, is it also far more pragmatic
The story of Noah's Ark is factual.

As rudimentary as my understanding of evolution may be, I at least understand that it is far too slow a process for Pro's position to be true. The Cambrian Explosion is not uncharacteristic of evolution, and, as is clearly stated in my source, "was not the beginning of multicellular animal life; the latter has a fossil record that extends back at least 30 million years earlier." 17,000 species of trilobites are known to have developed within a period of 35 million years. On average that's one new species every 2,058 years. Even if all 17,000 species had developed within 500,000 years (and they didn't), that'd still only be one new species every 29 years. Pro's case requires a rate of one new bird species every two years for the last 10,000 years. It simply posits an impossibly fast rate of speciation; ergo, his position is false. Thanks for the debate. Sources: http://biologos.org...
The story of Noah's Ark is factual.

"If Pro cannot refute this, rather than speculate that it's possible I'm wrong, then my burden of proof has been met." Really? Well ain't that interestin' ? In reality, we are discussing a historical event. Everything we have discussed this entire time has been taking evidence we see today and speculating about how that applies. You cannot use the scientific method to test and event. You have been speculating. I have been speculating.Just throwing that out there because it snapped my proverbial shorts. Moving on..." Birds do evolve relatively fast, though, and the rate of speciation has even increased - to one new species every 700 years. So, looks like Pro has less than fourteen new birds he can account for - I wish him luck with the remaining 5,000." Really now... and my opponent tells me not to speculate... First off, we have not been studying bird evolution for 700 years, so we really have never seen a bird evolve (into another bird by the way.). So everything my opponent has said is speculation.This is the mistake of assuming that the rate of micro-evolution is the same now as it has been since the beginning of time.Next up... my opponent has switched around his beliefs on evolution quite a bit. From "The time scale for evolutionary or genetic change is very long. A characteristic period for the emergence of one advanced species from another is perhaps a hundred thousand years; and very often the difference in behavior between closely related species -- say, lions and tigers -- does not seem very great." to suddenly "Body plans took billions of years to form, but once they did they proliferated due to evolutionary advantage." So basically: "I can speculate on theories and hypothesis, but you cannot." My opponent changed his views on evolution from one theory to another.OK, that is now out of the way...Back to my contentions:1. My opponent made no effort to find any internal problems with the Genesis text. Instead, he decided to surf the web and find something that did have internal contradictions and compare it to Genesis. I found more than a dozen contradictions in that site. Mostly about the era of some of the paintings, names, and dates. My opponent would have to find internal contradictions in Genesis... but it would be poor sport to do so now because I would have no chance to rebuttal even though this contention was here since round 2.2. "It's more probable that the Grand Canyon formed from a variety of natural processes." OK... why? Actually, I showed the Mt. St. Helens link and example... and it is literally a mini- Grand Canyon. Layers and all.3. Four words: "We are both speculating."My opponent fails to realize that we are both speculating, one of us just less than the other. Sources:All of the above.I pretty much just drew off all my previous sources and used logic this round.
The story of Noah's Ark is factual.

http://www.youtube.com... The Cambrian Explosion is an expected outcome of evolution. Body plans took billions of years to form, but once they did they proliferated due to evolutionary advantage. The video provided demonstrates this concept well. When it comes to birds, there has been no evolutionary advantage significant enough in the last 10,000 years to cause such a burst of speciation. Birds do evolve relatively fast, though, and the rate of speciation has even increased - to one new species every 700 years. So, looks like Pro has less than fourteen new birds he can account for - I wish him luck with the remaining 5,000. If Pro cannot refute this, rather than speculate that it's possible I'm wrong, then my burden of proof has been met. Just to be a sport, I'll address Pro's opening arguments now. 1. Yes, the Bible is evidence that Noah's Ark is factual, the same way that this website is evidence that the sun is a cube, Earth is hollow, and reptilian shape-shifters rule the world: http://www.truthism.com... 2. It's more probable that the Grand Canyon formed from a variety of natural processes. That a global flood would cause water erosion is very likely, but since it's possible that the Grand Canyon formed from much less miraculous processes, there's nothing about it that actually indicates a global flood. 3. Marine fossils are indeed found on mountains, but they did not get there from a flood. These mountains were once shallow seas, and formed by the gradual uplifting of land. A global flood would deposit any sediments in valleys, not on mountains. Sources: http://www.talkorigins.org... http://www.bitsofscience.org... http://www.truthism.com... http://www.bobspixels.com... http://longevity.about.com...
The story of Noah's Ark is factual.

I'm going to state this right here: I do not accept the current view of the evolutionary process. While some evolutionist say that evolution can happen really fast, others say it happened very slowly. However, the evolution of creatures cannot be observed today from one species to another because we have obviously not been around long enough to observe.In the "Cambrian Explosion," theoretically, life forms changed from bacteria, algae, and the like into extremely complex vertebrates in "only" 40 million years. If evolution can supposedly change bacteria into complex vertebrates that quickly, I'm sure it can change a lion-like creature into a tiger rather quickly, seeing as the genetic differences are a lot less.So, back to what I was saying...1. Species?If Noah took every species, it would be impossible for the ark to hold all of the animals and provisions. That is why Biblical literalists go for genera.2. Genera!Because micro-evolution can act quickly, it is no surprise that perhaps a lion-like creature can change into a tiger quickly, especially if Noah was to, say, take a pair of creatures from a single genera of different species that could still mate. That would add a lot of information to the genetic code, therefore, micro-evolution would work faster.Also, the evolution Sagan speaks of is when a lesser creature becomes more complex, where as a lion-like creature of more complex DNA could become a lesser canine (such as a house cat) quite quickly by the loss of DNA.Moving on...My contentions have not been touched and are still viable. I extend them here.So far, my opponent has taken the BoP upon himself, given a single contention, and when that one contention was rebuttaled, did not abandon the ship. Yet my contentions still stand.Thank you and good night!Sources: http://animals.about.com...
The story of Noah's Ark is factual.

"In his own source, birdola.com, it quite obviously says that there are 9,300 species of birds. There are also less than 300 known extinct birds. Making my opponent's number inaccurate." In the case of how many known species of bird there are, different sources say different things; but the number always ranges from 8,500 to 18,000, depending on the way they were counted. This is as per my opponent's own source. My figures were actually on the low end of the scale in terms of weight, food consumption, and number of species. Even if you used 8,616 (as from Pro's source) and took into account the arbitrary 25% decrease in the amount of food, there would still be an unmanageable percentage of the ark's weight capacity taken up just by the birds' food. "Notice that it says kinds. Kinds could mean several things, but it seems to talk about genera. Creatures within genus can mate within each other, and there are only 2,810 genera." Just as I expected, my opponent has backed himself into a corner. He claims that Noah would have brought closer to 2,810 different kinds of birds onto the ark. That means there were also only 2,810 species of birds on the ark. Currently there are upwards of 8,500 species of birds. Being that the story of Noah's Ark takes place between 10,000 years ago and the present (correct?), it is impossible that 2,810 species of birds evolved into over 8,500. Evolution is a slow process: "The time scale for evolutionary or genetic change is very long. A characteristic period for the emergence of one advanced species from another is perhaps a hundred thousand years; and very often the difference in behavior between closely related species -- say, lions and tigers -- does not seem very great." ~ Carl Sagan In conclusion, if by "kinds" the story means "genera", it is impossible for the story to be true due to the slow nature of evolution. If by "kinds" the story means "species", it would be physically impossible for the boat to remain surfaced, due to the immense weight. Since by "kinds" story must mean either "genera" or "species" or something similar, and neither can be true, the story itself can not be true. Sources: http://science.howstuffworks.com... http://people.wku.edu...
The story of Noah's Ark is factual.

I am fairly disappointed that my opponent did not offer a rebuttal to my contentions. However I would like to point out, for the sake of my future arguments, that my opponent virtually took the burden of proof upon himself. And I quote: " I will go so far as to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the story of Noah's Ark is not factual. I'm dropping your arguments for now because they are inconsequential." Just pointing that out. And, at the moment, all of my contentions stand.Moving on to my opponent's ill-conceived contention:My opponent wrongly claims that:1. There are 9,600 species of birds.My opponent also wrongly makes the assumption that: All the birds were full-grown adults. That Noah took every species into the ark. Let's get started.1. Number of bird speciesIn his own source, birdola.com, it quite obviously says that there are 9,300 species of birds. There are also less than 300 known extinct birds. Making my opponent's number inaccurate.2. Noah took species into the arkGenesis 7:3"and also seven pairs of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth."Notice that it says kinds. Kinds could mean several things, but it seems to talk about genera. Creatures within genus can mate within each other, and there are only 2,810 genera.3. Noah took full grown birds onto the ark.Noah could have taken small, yet independent, birds onto the ark. That would cut down on the needed amount of food.So, let's take a look at that number again:Original: 134,000 x .325 x 150 = 6,552,000New Number: 39,340 (Genera) x .24375 (75% of original number to account for smaller birds) x 150= 1,438,368.75That is ~21% of my opponent's original number.Case closed.I extend my arguments.Thank you and good night!Sources:http://www.birdola.com...http://www.birdlife.org...http://www.biblegateway.com...http://people.wku.edu...
The story of Noah's Ark is factual.

"My specific BoP for this debate is that Con can supply no evidence against the narrative of Noah's Ark." As easy as it would be to simply provide nominal evidence and win this debate playing by your rules, I will go so far as to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the story of Noah's Ark is not factual. I'm dropping your arguments for now because they are inconsequential. Noah's ark was 450 feet in length, 75 feet in width, and 45 feet in depth. An ark of these dimensions could support roughly 3200 tons, or 6,400,000 pounds. Noah brought fourteen of each kind of bird onto the ark, of which there are roughly 9,600. Birds on average consume 25-50% of their weight in food daily, and a small bird (such as a crow) weighs about 1.3 pounds. This means that on the low end of the scale, each bird can be counted as consuming 0.325 pounds of food per day. The total number of birds on the ark would be roughly 134,400, which would consume 43,680 pounds of food each day. The ark was at sea for 150 days. This means that the total amount of food required just for the birds would weigh in at 6,552,000 pounds. As I'm sure you've noticed, this exceeds the ark's maximum weight capacity. This means that the ark as described in the Bible cannot exist; thus, the story of Noah's Ark is pure fiction. Sources: The Bible http://www.birdola.com... http://www.talkorigins.org... http://www.skepdic.com...
George W. Bush was a bad president.

Vote for Roy Latham. Clearly George W. Bush was a good president. Wars, torture, kidnapping, stealing, murdering, prevaricating, usurping liberty, disregarding principle, and mispronouncing words are all tokens of a defender of the American dream. I reject my framework of peace, prosperity, and freedom; I accept Roy's of government intervention, violence, and oppression. VOTE ROY LATHAM!VOTE ROY LATHAM!VOTE ROY LATHAM!FULL CONCEDE!EVEN GIVE HIM THE AGREED WITH NON-POINTS!DISREGARD BASIC ECONOMICS AND ETHICS. OBEY THE STATE. VOTE FOR ROY!ROY HAS CLEARLY WON THIS DEBATE. LOOK A SPELLING ERROR: I am a hunam.A GRAMMAR ERROR: ITS A GREAT DAY TODAY!CONDUCT: FVCK YOU ROY!ARGUMENTS: PEACE, PROPERITY, AND FREEDOM ARE GOOD.HOW STUPID^^^ LOLOLOLOLOLOLSOURCES: DISREGARD ALL OF MY PREVIOUS SOURCES, USE THIS INSTEAD: tinyurl.com/ydyvoyzVOTE CON FOR THE PRESTIGIOUS AND BRILLIANT ROY LATHAM!!!!
Resolved: In the United States, misdemeanor jail time ought to be replaced with significant rehabi

Ok, I'll go through major clashes which will ultimately be the voters (Keeping it short to be close to LD) 1. Framework --> I clearly win the framework on the fact that you need to reinterpret this resolution so it makes consistent sense. Since the resolution is in a US framework, we need to look at the status quo system and then the future system that I am proposing. On the affirmative, to be consistent with US standards, I only need to prove a prioritization of the rehabilitation system, not a total abolition of the jail system. 2. Jail more effective then rehabilitation A. Jail more effective --> She keeps on saying how good her stats on jail effectiveness are, yet she never provides one. B. Rehabilitation has failed in the past --> She uses a stat that criminals that have been rehabilitated have committed recidivism. This stat fails on the following premises: 1. The US status quo does not prioritize rehabilitation, thus it does not have the resources to be effective. 2. Extend my Europe example, Europe prioritizes rehabilitation and yet they have a lower crime rate then the US. 3. Extend my stat from the AC which explains that recidivism would decrease 10% - 14% if the US prioritized rehabilitation 3. Values Debate --> The affirmative clearly links better into both values on the basis of my VC. This is a clear aff. win on the fact that rehabilitation will lessen recidivism, thus justice and societal welfare. I urge an affirmative ballot, thank you.
time for The Nickoledeon to show homosexual/lesbian heroes/heroins in cartoon movies

thanks for participating in this motion, I'd like to clarify my sentence that support this topic, when the children learn at their school and know a lot of things, they know what's normal they know which one is abnormal, as i know when i saw a lot of children around my life when they see something abnormal, they expressed them self to negative things and and imagine that's a bad thing and they avoid, so that's why i said e.g "see someone who have a disability(blind man) as a bad guy" i don't wanna our children avoid them, the abnormal/the different one just like a bad guy, so that's why, i can use that homosex/lesbian hero or heroins on cartoon movies as an analogy to implement the value to see the abnormal/different thing, even their favorite hero is abnormal/different but it doesn't mean our children dislike and avoid them, because hero also has good side in their life.
time for The Nickoledeon to show homosexual/lesbian heroes/heroins in cartoon movies

Thank you for the debate. I am interested to see your points to support your argument. I am taking the stance that the homosexual lifestyle should not be praised or accepted by society. Therefore, it should not be aired or promoted period especially to our children. My points will mostly include why homosexuality is bad and negative for society and its members. I do want to clarify that the homosexual lifestyle is a choice, they are not born that way (If you like I can support this fact in the arguments next round). Also, homosexuality is abnormal I am glad we agree on this but there is a reason that it is and it should stay that way. Ultimately, the homosexual lifestyle in no way should be praised or viewed positively by society because of the substantial negative effects. There is point I need clarification on, you state that "for e.g when they see someone who have a disability (blindman) they musn't to see blindman as bad guy." Now why would people someone see a blind man as a bad guy? I am not sure where this came from but I feel it has no merit of standing or support.
time for The Nickoledeon to show homosexual/lesbian heroes/heroins in cartoon movies

nickledeon as we know is a famous television channel that showing entertainment for kids or children, it shows many kind of cartoon that consists of heroes, and i believe that it's the time for do it because by showing that, our kids can learn, what's lesbian or homosexual, of course when they watch the program the parents should be accompany their kids lead them to learn this things: first, as we know that homosex/lesbian is abnormal sexual habit, of course we want them be the normal one, so by showing on the homosexual or lesbian hero we can educate them not being on of them, even though it legal in your country. and the others side the program can be an analogy for parents, to put on their mind how to see the abnormal thing, abnormal things is not always the bad thing, for e.g when they see someone who have a disability (blindman) they musn't to see blindman as bad guy, so that the value that we can teach to our children by the cartoon movies that showing the lesbian and the homosexual hero/heroins. so that's why I think it's the time for the NIckleodeon to show the homosexual hero/heroins.
Modern conveyences create mor pollution under the guise of greenness.

Lets start with the construction of the vehicle because that is where the majority of the pollution is released. The vehicles are made of metal. This metal has to be refined and strengthened. Every step through the refining process releases mass amounts of toxins. Once the vehicle is on the road, if it has the original exhaust, the old steed will be pumping out exponentially more green house gases. Newer refining methods and the EPA being born, have eliminated a lot of the pollution from refining. All newer vehicles, not just Audi, which happens to be owned by Ford Motor Company, will have newer exhaust systems designed and engineered to remove more pollutants. Cars technology is more advanced today, they are built by robots that are more accurate, faster, and contribute less pollution. Vehicles are so much lighter than before, this allows them to be made with less metal. This means less fuel to propel the vehicle and of course less harmful exhaust. All together less polluting.