BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Italian food is better than Indian Food

oh no its you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! well i must say i love Italian food! but i love Indian food too it has sweet and spice both at the same time! my favourite is chicken tika masala! i like the brillant it is my favorite restrant! I would love to go to india one day! once i went to a place called the raj and at the back it had a picture of the tar Mahavira it was so cool! sorry about spelling mistakes!!
Italian food is better than Indian Food

Italian Food Tastes and Looks amazing. From Spaghetti Bolognaise to Ham calzones. Italian food is delicious and so flavoursome. All Italian food is lovely and italian restuarants serve great food. I love italian food. Pizz is lovely and that is one of the best italian dishes in the world. Pizza and Pasta are the specialities. So please vote for me if you love pizza and pasta !!!
The (U.S.) Constitutionality of Legalized Abortions on Demand

Thank you, chuz-life, for such a great debate! Throughout this debate, I have been arguing that abortion is constitutional. I first wish to acknowledge a few people.Freeman: You have been an excellent resource for information and a debate coach throughout this debate. I could not thank you enough.Chuz-Life: You are a worthy opponent, stuck to the resolution, and shown superb conduct.You: I wish to thank you, the reader, for taking time to read this debate.SUMMARYThis is what I have been arguing:P1: Only a person has a right to life.P2: An entity is a person if it has (1) consciousness, (2) the capacity to reason, (3) self-motivated activity, (4) the capacity to communicate messages, and (5) the presence of self-concepts.P3: A human fetus does not have properties (1-5).P4: Therefore, a human fetus is not a person. (from 2 and 3)C: Therefore, a human fetus does not have a right to life. (from 1 and 4)Remember my definition is from the legal definition and shall re-present that case:A fetus is a human in a biological sense (i.e., belonging to Homo sapiens), but it is not a person. In the book, On The Moral and Legal Status of Abortion, philosopher Mary Anne Warren detailed five psychological crieterai for personhood. According to her, these qualities include consciousness and in a particulary sentience, the capacity to reason, self-motivate activity, the capacity to communicate messages, and lastly, the presence of self-concepts [2]. Since a fetus does not have any of the qualities, it cannot be considered a person under the law. My arguments can be summed up as followed:(from round 1). Please do not vote based upon your pre-assertion, but rather vote to see who has made better arguments. If I have fulfilled my burden to show that abortion is constitutional, please vote PRO. If I have not, and my opponent has shown that abortion is unconstitutional, please vote CON. My opponent has admited that there were some cases that abortion should be legalized...therefore, fetuses do not have a full right to life.Thank you once again. ~Kohai
The (U.S.) Constitutionality of Legalized Abortions on Demand

Thank you for your reply. I am very sorry for the long wait and will try to be quicker in the next round.Firstly, as far as the definitional arguments, my opponent argues that it only needs to meet one of the definitions. I say that this is not true. In order to be qualified as a human that is protected under the law, that person should meet ALL of the definitions. Based upon my opponent's logic, a duck-billed platypus should be qualified as a duck because it has a bill and lays eggs (like a duck). Obviously that is not true.As far as my opponent's defense on the Unborn Violence Act, I'm afraid my opponent misinterprets it. `Sec. 1841. Protection of unborn children `(a)(1) Whoever engages in conduct that violates any of the provisions of law listed in subsection (b) and thereby causes the death of, or bodily injury (as defined in section 1365) to, a child, who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place, is guilty of a separate offense under this section. `(2)(A) Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, the punishment for that separate offense is the same as the punishment provided under Federal law for that conduct had that injury or death occurred to the unborn child's mother. `(B) An offense under this section does not require proof that-- `(i) the person engaging in the conduct had knowledge or should have had knowledge that the victim of the underlying offense was pregnant; or `(ii) the defendant intended to cause the death of, or bodily injury to, the unborn child. `(C) If the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, that person shall instead of being punished under subparagraph (A), be punished as provided under sections 1111, 1112, and 1113 of this title for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being. `(D) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the death penalty shall not be imposed for an offense under this section. `(b) The provisions referred to in subsection (a) are the following: `(1) Sections 36, 37, 43, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 229, 242, 245, 247, 248, 351, 831, 844(d), (f), (h)(1), and (i), 924(j), 930, 1111, 1112, 1113, 1114, 1116, 1118, 1119, 1120, 1121, 1153(a), 1201(a), 1203, 1365(a), 1501, 1503, 1505, 1512, 1513, 1751, 1864, 1951, 1952 (a)(1)(B), (a)(2)(B), and (a)(3)(B), 1958, 1959, 1992, 2113, 2114, 2116, 2118, 2119, 2191, 2231, 2241(a), 2245, 2261, 2261A, 2280, 2281, 2332, 2332a, 2332b, 2340A, and 2441 of this title. `(2) Section 408(e) of the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 848(e)). `(3) Section 202 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2283). `(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution-- `(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law; `(2) of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or `(3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child.
The (U.S.) Constitutionality of Legalized Abortions on Demand

NOTE: You must be over the age of 27 to accept my challenge for this debate! Having read some of the previous debates on the abortion issues (found in archives of this site), I am somewhat reluctant to issue the following challenge. However, it is my opinion that the issue of 'human rights' is an issue that actually WARRANTS repeated examinations, the searches for and the proving of facts, and even the seemingly endless debates that will likely go on long after this exchange has ended. As elective abortions are presently legal in the United States and the Roe v Wade decision is considered to be the 'Law of the Land' I have taken the 'CON' side of the debate. I am challenging the Constitutionality of a law that essentially says that a human being is NOT a person nor worthy of the protection of our laws, unless or until they live too long and develop past an arbitrarily decided point (spec. viability); After which, we (society) can not or will not justify the denial anymore. My opponent will be expected to rebut my Constitutional arguments and to DEFEND the Constitutionality of elective induced abortions remaining legal. The following links are provided for future reference and your consideration. Please take the time to visit them before accepting my challenge. (1) http://www.law.cornell.edu... (2) http://www.law.cornell.edu... (3) http://dictionary.lp.findlaw.com... (4) http://en.wikipedia.org... (5) http://www.southtexascollege.edu... (6) http://snl.depaul.edu... (7) http://dictionary.lp.findlaw.com... I look forward to a worthy, civil and productive exchange with my opponent and will now yield the floor in anticipation of his/her opening remarks.
Mankind Is the Main Cause of Global Warming

Okay pro ... Soon to be ameture ... So you believe humans caused global warming. I disagree entirely because you are wrong. There is no real evidence supoorting global warming existence and causes of that. 1. Define (Global) Warming: You have provided any defintion of the word "Global" ... Or "warming" On this basis i will prove why global warming is not even real... Because in some countries its colder this year than last year or previous years. Therefore, the entire globe is not warming. Certain parts are actually colder now than before. Based on this your entire argument is flawed. 2. The Idea of a God God created us, created the sun, humans could not have anything to do with this because God is omnibenevolent and omniscient. The bible speaks of a divine plan and global warming is obviously a factor. Isaiah 25:1 O LORD, You are my God; I will exalt You, I will give thanks to Your name; For You have worked wonders, Plans formed long ago, with perfect faithfulness. Exodus 26:30 Then you shall erect the tabernacle according to its plan which you have been shown in the mountain. 3.Global warming is not proven Questions are not decided by "consensus." In fact, many scientific theories that were once widely believed to be true were made irrelevant by new evidence. Just to name one of many, many examples, in the early seventies, scientists believed global cooling was occurring. However, once the planet started to warm up, they changed their minds. Yet, the primary "scientific" argument for global warming is that there is a "scientific consensus" that it's occurring. Setting aside the fact that's not a scientific argument, even if that ever was true (and it really wasn't), it's certainly not true anymore. Over 31,000 scientists have signed on to a petition saying humans aren't causing global warming. More than 1000 scientists signed on to another report saying there is no global warming at all. There are tens of thousands of well-educated, mainstream scientists who do not agree that global warming is occurring at all and people who share their opinion are taking a position grounded in science. - http://m.townhall.com...
Mankind Is the Main Cause of Global Warming

PrefaceI am and have been a rather staunch supporter of the position that global warming is primarily anthropogenic. The question of the existence of man-made global warming is particularly serious in today's time, and is a highly controversial topic that I have, unfortunately, only debated once. Since I'm relatively free, with no debates going on, I think I shall go on with this debate. You must have completed 1 debate or more in order to accept. There is a minimum required Elo score of 1,500 to vote on this debate. Full TopicMankind is probably the main cause of global warming in current times.TermsThese are the resolutional definitions, all influenced from the Oxford Dictionary of English, the American Heritage Dictionary, and Wikipedia. Mankind - the human race; human beings collectively without reference to sex; humankind.Probably - is likely to take place or be true.Main - chief in size, extent, or importance.Cause - the producer of an effect; a person or thing that acts, happens, or exists in such a way that some specific thing happens as a result. Global Warming - the rise in the average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans since the late 19th century, and its projected continuation.Below are the abbreviations that will likely be used in this debate, and are relevant to this discussion. AGW - anthropogenic global warmingCR - cosmic ray(s) TSI - total solar irradiationMWP - Medieval Warm PeriodRWP - Roman Warm PeriodSSN - sun-spot numberPDO - pacific decadal oscillationLIA - little ice ageRules1. No forfeits.2. All arguments must be visible inside this debate. Sources can be within the debate or in an external link. 3. No new arguments in the final round (including new positive arguments, new rebuttals not presented before, and new defenses).4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere.5. No trolling.6. No "kritiks" of the topic (i.e. arguments that challenge an assumption in the resolution).7. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add resolutional definitions.8. No deconstructional semantics (e.g. "cause" means origin, so the beginning of Earth's warming millions of years ago, etc.) 9. The BOP is shared. 10. The first round is for acceptance only. 11. The second round is for arguments only, with no rebuttals; the third round is only for rebuttals, without defending one's own case; the final round is only for defense, with no rebuttals. 12. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a loss.StructureR1. AcceptanceR2. Pro's case, Con's caseR3. Pro rebuts Con's case, Con rebuts Pro's caseR4. Pro defends Pro's case, Con defends Con's case, both crystallizeThanks......again to whomever accepts, and to voters and readers.
User Mikal is still cheating: I will present logical and circumstantial evidence

Thanks for the opportunity, Pro. I will accept this debate, reasoning that if I win I will have defended the honor of 4 fellow debaters who are also active voters, which may serve in my prejudicial favor in future debates. If I am proven wrong, then at least I have taken up cause with an active vote bomber, which might also prove useful in future debates. Let us concede that Pro has offered a large amount of "highly circumstantial" (pro's words) documentation. The burden on Pro is to prove that there is no other possible explanation for users to consistently vote for Mikal. I can think of a few possible scenarios- 1). User Mikal is an excellent debater. I have only reviewed a handful of Mikal's debates, but I am satisfied that Mikal is a fine debater. He uses a positive, declarative prose style and is careful about clarity of diction. He is clearly very familiar with the principles of informal logic and argue against fallacies to good effect. His use of bold type and white space demonstrate the outline of his argument to improve reader reference. 2) Mikal is socially active and is enjoying the prejudicial benefits of being friendly In fact, Mikal has already noted that inductivelogic is a personal friend in the comments section of the debate you cite and advises that he is active on multiple debate sites. Although friendship is a bad reason to take sides in a debate, social bias is inevitable and a site like this is in no position to prevent bias. 3) Mikal is an active voter, and active voters tend to vote in favor of other active voters, reasoning it favors their chances in future debates. Any combination of these factors might account for the patterns you document and disprove actual account fraud. Additionally, there is a process for reporting suspected vote fraud. Either Pro has not reported these suspicions (which would argue against Pro's own confidence in the argument) or Pro has reported and his appeals have been dismissed. Either way, Pro's appeal to the masses distorts the process and smacks of sour grapes. I won't try to match Pro's fortitude with cut & paste, but a cursory review of debates by all four of the accused shows evidence of appreciable differences in prose style, although all of the users in question are able debaters. In short, Pro has merely documented a circumstance without offering any tangible evidence that Mikal enjoys the advantage of multiple accounts. Since there are many possible explanations, including a legal degree of favoritism, that might account for this circumstance without fraud, Pro's argument has been shown to be unproven.
User Mikal is still cheating: I will present logical and circumstantial evidence

You might recall my last debate on Mikal: http://www.debate.org... I won that debate 10 - 3 showing that a user account "inductivelogic" always voted for him. The 3 points in Mikals favor were given by a vote from Mikal himself. Now that I exposed one of his alt or "friends" accounts as inductivelogic claims, Mikal has begun to create new ones. Two that I have identified with highly circumstantial evidence: Chapule and mrsatan. First, let me present the evidence of his last alt or "friends" account: inductivelogic always votes for Mikal in his debates. Mrsatan has also always voted in favor of Mikal in his debates user Chapule always votes in favor of Mikal in his debates: None of these users accept comments: (mikal, inductive, mrsatan, chapule) Very quick involvement from "Chapule" with Mikals debates: Account info: Notice the time when each account joined is very similar. Mrsatan joined 2 months ago (not far from the 1 month when Mikal joined - but this could be his first account he chose not to use). User inductivelogic, Chapule, and Mikal have all joined 1 month ago. Also notice Inductivelogic has ceased all account activity as of 3 weeks ago. Given these similarities, and the fact that inductivelogic, mrsatan, and chapule vote in Mikals favor 100% of the time, I have shown significant circumstantial evidence that Mikal is cheating by creating alternate voting accounts. Also note that in my last debate, when Inductivelogic was always voting for Mikal, the only votes that the account voted on were Mikals. He has since changed that pattern and Inductivelogic began voting in different debates to not make this pattern of voting for Mikal as obvious. His other alts have followed suit and their votes make up about 50% debates from Mikal. It is interesting that none of these accounts accept comments. I understand why. I believe I have given reasonable circumstantial evidence to prove that Mikal has alternate voting accounts. NOTE* All of this information is correct as of Wednesday, August 21 at 12:03AM
No race is smarter than any other race

Con has sources that do not back up his claims, his first source has nothing about intelligence. Because of this he has nothing to support an "intelligence" gene. His other two sources do nothing but explain evolution, which is irrelevant. Nobody is arguing about whether or not evolution exists, but if evolution has impacted human intelligence. Con's argument about evolution has one major flaw, India. People of Indian origin are sorted into the "Asian" ethnicity, which scores the highest. India is a hot place, with the equator going through it. Because of this the "hot" and 'cold" part of his argument fails. Also according to his argument Eskimos should be the smartest race. Con failed to refute my point about racial bias, and therefore goes conceded. Con also failed to explain how intelligence is heritable, or if there was a gene correlating to intelligence.
No race is smarter than any other race

You claim these have been debunked, but these links have proved nothing of the sort. Rather, the people who wrote these articles demonstrated a clear lack of understanding on how things work. Take "https://africacheck.org...; It claims that "intelligence is not genetic because there is no intelligence gene." As you and the author clearly do not know, although there are certain genes for some attributes, e.g. hair color, for other attributes, e.g. intelligence, there are MULTIPLE genes which influence them. http://education.seattlepi.com... Some races are smarter than others due to a concept called evolution. It's obvious to anyone who understands evolution, but creatures are shaped greatly by their environment. Humans, of course, are no exception. Here are some links that may help you understand it further: https://www.sciencedaily.com... https://prezi.com... If you would like even more sources, just do a quick google search; there are plenty because it's a rather obvious concept. Therefore, it makes perfect sense that some races are smarter than others. Races evoloved in different areas. African americans evolved in africa, a hotter climate, where athletism was a favored trait. Asians evolved in asia, a colder and harsher climate, where intelligence is a favored trait. To survive in Africa, one needed speed and strength to be stronger and faster than the predators. However, in colder and harsher climates, intelligence is FAR more useful; to survive in the cold takes intelligence. This explains why there are so many more black people in sports related careers. There are more whites in soccer but this is because soccer is mainly a "rich people's sport." All races are not the same, and differences in sports doesn't disprove that.
No race is smarter than any other race

The genetic studies have been largely disproved, they are biased and make some dangerous assumptions(2). The evolution theories have also been disproved.African Americans dominate sports in baseball and football, whereas whites dominate in soccer and baseball(1). The end of his argument is nothing more than a inherent bias, which lead to my next point.While researching this topic I was flooded with cites like this(3). These cites show that there is an inherent bias within our society, this is probably why African American so often end up on the bottom. Most of us suffer from this, whether we know it or not.Citations1.http://harvardsportsanalysis.org... 2.https://africacheck.org... 3.http://religionnews.com...
No race is smarter than any other race

You are correct; there is no direct test of a person's mental ability. However, just because there is no direct test for it does not mean it does not exists. It certainly does exists, humans simply can't measure it with 100% accuracy. Moreover, although IQ doesn't measure intelligence, it has a strong correlation with it. It wouldn't be possible to use an IQ score to compare one person's intelligence to another person's; however, when comparing a large group of people, e.g. a race vs another race, anyone with a basic understanding will know that a test with a high correlation does accurately compare large numbers of people. The problem is, although IQ certainly does have some component involving socioeconomics, the problem is you are ignoring the fact that being wealthy also correlates with higher intelligence as well. In other words, parents from higher socioeconomic classes are much more likely to be smarter than parents from lower classes. However, even when you adjust for socioeconomics, blacks still come out on the bottom.http://thealternativehypothesis.org... Again, intelligence is NOT only hereditary; it has MANY factors. However, it certainly is partially determined by genetics. Moreover, it makes perfect sense that some races are smarter than others. After all, races evoloved in different areas. African americans evolved in africa, a hotter climate, where athletism was a favored trait. Whites evolved in europe, a colder climate, where intelligence is a favored trait. To survive in Africa, one needed speed and strength to be stronger and faster than the predators. However, in colder climates, intelligence is FAR more useful; to survive in the cold takes intelligence. This explains why there are so many more black people in sports related careers. It's not because they got "lucky;" it's because they evolved in different environments and are therefore different than other races.
No race is smarter than any other race

There is no direct test of a person's mental ability. An IQ test will measure things such as size of vocabulary or reading comprehension. In the end though, there is no such thing as an innate mental ability. The studies of twins are flawed in a major way, the studies assume that the environment of twins is the same as the normal siblings. A study shows that the heredity of IQ varies greatly between socioeconomic class(1). This proves that IQ tests measure various combinations of native ability and opportunity. Kids living with families with high income score higher in the IQ test. IQ tests test abstract knowledge, but throughout most of human history practical knowledge dominated. IQ cannot originate in genes. The IQ in the US is increasing by an average of 3 points a decade, much too fast to be hereditary. I am going to argue that the level of someone’s “smartness” has nothing to do with race, just with class. People of asian descent have the highest median income, and people of african descent have the lowest(2). No race is smarter than the other, the only factor is class. 1. https://www.psychologytoday.com... 2. http://www.businessinsider.com...