BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
NASA should focus more on unmanned space exploration than manned space exploration

= Greetings / Acceptance = Yes, yes. It is I, the man of many names; BangBang-Coconut, Hello-Orange, DHDebate, Blueberry, Strawberry Dakota...; accept this debate with eagerness. It's good to get a new start, and even better to have my first round on this account against an opponent whom I know is competent to have a good round with. I won't make any statements about the eventual debate in this round (that would be trashy), but I will take a moment to make a few statements about the topic in general. For the most part, Policy debaters do an agonizing amount of research; as such whatever we say in this debate, and whatever arguments we make will more likely than not be something that every policy debater (whom didn't start policy yesterday) already has tucked away in one of their myriad of evidence tubs (this is the 2011-2012 Policy debate resolution guys). All the same, it is my hope that some-one, some-where, anywhere will benefit from this debate. Be they a policy debater or not, I really hope the debate between F-16 and I which is about to ensue is a substantiation and meaningful one. Also it seems important for me to note that this debate will not be done in a Policy debate style, but in a general/traditional debate style. So I also welcome any-one and every-one who wishes to vote on this debate. All in all I'm excited about this round, and can't wait to get into the real meat of it. So without further ado, Back to my gracious opponent.
NASA should focus more on unmanned space exploration than manned space exploration

I thank DH debate aka Bang-Bang Cocont aka Hello Orange aka Boom Boom banana (just kidding) for agreeing to debate this topic with me. Resolution: NASA should focus more on unmanned space exploration than manned space explorationDefinitions:Unmanned space exploration: No humans go into space. Manned space exploration: Humans go into space. Focus: Spend more money, time, and resources on, at the expense of the other. Time Frame: Currently and in the near future roughly the next 20 years. I agree that in the far future, it might be desirable to send humans to Mars and beyond.
The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection conforms with Christianity.

I am new to this website, so my format might by a little crude. Feel free in the first round to ask to change one of the rules, and I will confirm in the comment section. Round 1) Acceptance Only - NO Statements or Rebuttals Round 2) Opening Statements & Arguments - NO REBUTTALS Round 3) First Rebuttals - Further Arguments Round 4) Second Rebuttals - Final Arguments Round 5) Final Rebuttals and Closing Statements - NO New Arguments Rules: No profanity, respect opposite opinions. Try to cite as much information as possible.
The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection conforms with Christianity.

Sorry about the late reply! I was having a chat to some Jehovah's Witnesses who knocked on my door, funnily enough!Right, now I can rebut. Let's play.Round 2 RebuttalsYou said, "there must be have someone at the beginning to start it, subsequently that person is GOD."Um, what? You went from a) there must be a cause, to b) it's a person and c) that person is God, with absolutely 0% of a reason. How do you get there? Total non-sequitur.None of your other Round 1 statements are consistent with scripture.You then say that Primates appeared "suddenly and fast". Very incorrect. The first Primates appeared about sixty-five million five-hundred thousand years ago(1). The first hominis species only arrived somewhere around five-and-a-bit million years ago(2), with modern humans being around one-hundred to two-hundred thousand years ago. Even by evolutionary standards, this is by no means abrupt.Round 3 Rebuttals1. You have no way of knowing that 'dust' is those elements. In fact, 'dust' indicates particulate matter and not gases.2. The Earth was initially anoxic, so no, there wouldn't have been oxygen . We know that Oxygen arose from early life, not the other way around(3).3. You have no way of demonstrating that God created the laws of the universe. You cannot assert this as factual.4. In what way does considering an old wives' tale a myth weaken my argument? That makes absolutely no sense. Your myth happens to be incompatible with evolution.New ArgumentationSo far, you have failed to actually address my contention. You have spoken about some elements, which are completely irrelevant, and then said that my disbelief weakens my point. I beg to differ. You are saying that Man was created last. Although there are actually two accounts in the bible, Genesis 2 says that this is not the case, as demonstrated. Further, breathing dust into the nostrils of a person is not the same thing as a humans evolving as a species over time from a common ancestor of apes. This just doesn't make sense.So far, you have provided no canonical justification for your assertion that Evolution and Christianity are mutually agreeable frameworks. I have provided the clear textual reason why they are not. You have not sufficiently refuted this. I remind my opponent that they retain the burden of proof for demonstrating this affirmative proposition.Back to you.[As a side note, on more than one occasion you have used the word "subsequently" erroneously. I don't mind too much, just for your information](1) [http://anthro.palomar.edu...](2) ibid.(3) [http://www.nature.com...]
The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection conforms with Christianity.

I apologize for not explaining myself, I was merely using Christmas as an analogy, since it is the season, sometimes it is hard for me to communicate my thoughts. More to the point. I am glad you choose the verse at Genesis 2:7 (NKJV), it is the first one you have, it illustrates how GOD used the dust of the earth, and it doesn't specify a location, in that case, we have to assume that the components of the dust would be the populated by the most abundant elements in the universe and subsequently earth-H hydrogen, C carbon, O oxygen, N nitrogen- which is proved by science today to be the most abundant elements in a human body. This only strengthens my position that when the first organism was created, which the theory of evolution doesn't discuss, contained mostly the most abundant elements in the universe. Of course it was with the allowance and order of GOD, and not just nature acting on its own instincts, the laws of the universe didn't just create themselves, GOD is the one who created them to govern us. Also mentioning that the creation story in the bible is a myth implies that you are not sure if it is true, which only weakens your argument.
The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection conforms with Christianity.

Thanks for initiating, Pro. Unfortunately, you have stipulated that there is to be no rebuttal in this round. This strikes me as odd, given that this debate rides around a clearly positive affirmation. However, I am happy to demonstrate why, perhaps unpalatably, the theory of evolution and Christianity are mutually exclusive and incompatible. "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." - (AKJV) Genesis 2:4-3:24 From the same paragraph, "[I]n the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, and every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground." Of course, this is exactly the opposite order that evolution suggests. The Bible is explicit in its creation myth. Over to you.
The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection conforms with Christianity.

First of all, in order for the theory of evolution to function and start, there must be have someone at the beginning to start it, subsequently that person is GOD. Believing that evolution makes the idea of GOD is unnecessary, is similar to saying that because planets revolve around the sun due to gravity the idea of GOD is unnecessary. Both arguments are wrong. Evolution is exactly like improving your Christmas tree over and over trying to reach perfection, to show it to your loved ones and celebrate with them. In my opinion GOD has been preparing the universe for our arrival, his loved ones, and then when we arrive we share it with him. GOD doesn't just make things happen with no scientific explanation, though he can, he allows nature to take its course. According to the theory of evolution, humans were one of the last species to be created, which correlates with the bible, Adam being the last kind of animal created. If you look closely, you will notice that the primates appeared suddenly and fast, in evolutionary terms of course, unlike any other animal or plant.
THW kill Justin Bieber.

Another FF. Despite the lack of argument I shall present my case. Justin Bieber may never return to the music industry: My opponent stresses that JB may at some point come out of retirement, although this may happen there is an equal chance that he may stay in retirement. JB has made an estimated 58 million fortune, with this amount of money there is less of a chance that he will resurface as he already has more than enough money spend the rest of his life in retirement. Music constantly evolves: If JB did make a comeback in the future then he would probably struggle to sell his current genre of music, with music constantly evolving children of future generations would probably dislike his current style, I would also like to stress that killing someone over their terrible music is not right and if it was I could give number of examples that would overcome Bieber in terms of terrible music, such as One Direction and. .. . Rebecca Black. .. . If JB ever made a future comeback he would be older: Biebers musical success revolves around the fact that he is a teenager, if he was older then he would no longer be a teenager and would lose the majority of his fan base (teenage girls) who would have grown up and realised the terrible mistake they made listening to his music. No one has to listen to him: Although Bieber's music is terrible no one has to listen to or acknowledge it, giving nobody a reason to kill him over it. In conclusion Justin Bieber creates terrible music but that is in no way a reason to kill him, he has now retired and will probably stay retired (we hope) Sources: . http://www.forbes.com...
African Americans and Hispanics should get their rights in America

I am agreeing with you that it should be gone. But i am arguing that it is gone in the legal aspect, as in government. Their will always be peoples own opinions and actions. However, they have all their rights under the law as any other man. Segregation is illegal, but it still happens. Just like any other crime. If segregation occurs they have the right to sue, but they do have the same rights as every american. They have equal rights
Australia's laws on Embryonic Research are outdated.

The fact of the matter is, the role of the State is to maintain a monopoly on the use of force, or in otherwords, prevent actors from imposing their wills upon nonconsenting parties. There is no principle, no dividing line that is empirically justified as establishing "humanity", other than having Homo Sapiens DNA. Does having an autonomous heartbeat make one human? No, because otherwise killing people on pacemakers would be acceptable. Does having a fully-functional brain make one human? No, because killing the handicapped would be acceptable.Does being sapient make one human? Hardly, otherwise people would cease to be sapient as they slept, or fell in comas. Does the fact that the fetus is a burden on the woman make it acceptable to kill? Hardly, because women aren`t allowed to kill their born children because they are burdens, nor withhold their support from them on this basis. Repeat this exercise ad infinitum. There is nothing that you could make an objective case for being definitive of humanity in the first place, and even if you could the principle would apply to adults who find themselves in similar circumstances and you would thus be guilty of special pleading.
Australia's laws on Embryonic Research are outdated.

As research is conducted in other countries, they have identified genes in zygotes with could prevent miscarriages from occurring. However, if this research was conducted in Australia, the scientist behind this groundbreaking research would be put in jail for 15 years. Does Australia need to re-think its policies/laws about this research? Does it prevent us from moving forward in this field of research? what about the future of our country? how could this research benefit/harm Australia? This is an example debate used for a lesson plan for a year 12 biology class. However, feel free to comment your ideas.
Death Penalty

I saw you say that it matters little if a criminal dies. Well I would like to counter your statement. Isn't killing one person because they killed someone else rather barbaric? In that sense all criminals should die if they have ever been charge with any sort of offense right? Oh, you were put in jail for stealing food to feed your kids! You're a criminal so yea no one will think twice if you die, you don't matter right? Their life doesn't matter. That's what you're saying? Well what if it was in self defense that they killed said person but the court found them guilty of murder and they were put to death, then later found that it really was self defense and they had no intention of hurting anyone. Does their life matter anymore? You've already killed them it's not as simple as letting them out of a cell like you could have. 1/7 people on Death Row will later be found not guilty by study. Now... in the past of lets say 35 years that number has indeed gotten smaller but think of all of those innocent, oh well wait "non-important" lives that have been ended on the idiocy of our barbaric government that still argues "if you kill someone you should die." We no longer live in Ancient Greece or Hellenistic times. Our society no longer abides by the "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" way of thought. If you really are for the Death Penalty I'm going to need a better thought than that.
The Electoral College harms the democratic nature of the U.S. Government.

The electoral college does indeed suppress voter turnout because: Voters disapprove of it. Votes are much higher in "swing states. " (1) (2) My opponent claims the elections mentioned to be controversial but provides no proof to indicate this. He goes on to say that the founding fathers intended to ensure a majority opinion of the populous in voting but this is totally contradicted by the fact that 4 presidents were not elected when more people voted for an opponent. If an opponent had the popular vote he would simply have received the most votes from the people. The electoral college does not insure any kind of wide margin of victory in any election. If the electoral college was disbanded, indeed the focus of campaigning would be any area with high population. This includes way more states than just a few swing states. Almost every single state in America has some kind of metropolitan area where campaigning would be ideal, thus increasing the spread of spending. Although I appreciate my opponents effort, his contentions are clearly here refuted by my contentions. 1. . http://dcann.myweb.uga.edu... 2. . http://uselectionatlas.org...
The Electoral College harms the democratic nature of the U.S. Government.

Thank you for your response. Some counter contentions If the voters do not like the electoral college this is not reason for how the electoral college suppresses voter turnout. History can't be argued with. In the dates you mention, these are instances where the electoral college prevented the popular leader from being elected. There have been 44 presidents thus far and only 4 have been nominated that were not of the popular vote. Each of these elections were rather close and have some controversy behind them. If one needed only the popular vote to win, it would not be required to have a majority. This is what the founders feared. They wanted to ensure that it was required a majority in order to win the election. This is one of the reasons in why we have the electoral college today(1). If the electoral college was disbanded, this would shift the focus from swing states, to the areas which are most populous, at a disadvantage to those that are least populous. Presidential candidates may also decide to focus on those areas where they have a great deal more supporters and focus less on those areas which are more divided. The electoral college does not detract from the democracy of this nation, but enhances it. Thank you, I anticipate the response. (1)http://www.lewrockwell.com...
The Electoral College harms the democratic nature of the U.S. Government.

I would also like to apologize for my delayed response. I would like to start by defining my argument with three contentions. First, the electoral college suppresses voter turnout. Second, the electoral college allows presidents to win without the popular vote. Finally, the electoral college puts too much importance in campaigning in swing states. Many voters don't like the electoral college. Gallup polls show that over the years the desire for a popular vote over the electoral college in America have gone up and up. Currently, 62% of Americans are in favor of the popular vote as opposed to using the electoral college in the presidential election, while only 35% of Americans prefer the electoral college (1). There are four primary instances in history where a candidate won the people's hearts but lost the election. "Andrew Jackson won the popular vote but lost the election to John Quincy Adams (1824); Samuel J. Tilden won the popular vote but lost the election to Rutherford B. Hayes (1876); Grover Cleveland won the popular vote but lost the election to Benjamin Harrison (1888); Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the election to George W. Bush (2000). " (2). Four is four too many if you ask me. Being in a state that always votes against your party means that come election time your vote doesn't even matter, because the electoral vote will go to the other candidate either way. Finally, I contend that too much focus is put on swing states during presidential elections. This is of course because usually the way many state's electoral votes will go is obvious. Texas has voted republican consistently for years and California is an assured win for the democrats. This means that campaigning in these states is useless because the votes are guaranteed. It is for this reason that the campaign spending in Ohio was massive for both candidates, whilst spending in states like Alabama was almost non existent. My point is clear. The electoral college detracts from democracy. Vote Affirmative. I await my opponents response eagerly. 1. . http://www.gallup.com... 2. . http://www.infoplease.com...
should we follow the Bible

Peace be on you guys, hello, I am a muslim and i read the Quran and the Bible, and i find that a lot of verses are similar and both books order people to worship allmighty GOD and follow the teaching of prophets . but in the Bible there are a lot of clear fabrications of men, even the christian scholars admit that . and through time many verses were removed from the bible by the christians scholars as fabrication and not true saith of GOD . while the Quran remains the same for more than 1400 year. the true Bible of JESUS -peace be upon him- is not the same bible of today , and that why we should not follow it.
should we follow the Bible

Hello! I've never actually debated on Muslim on this! So I'm super excited about this debate! I look forward to a productive discussion, I'm sure!!! Just for clarification, when you say the "Bible of Jesus", what exactly are you referring to? Secondly, it is vital to note that we have no evidence that the texts that make up the Bible are significantly different from the originals. The oldest manuscripts of the texts that make up the Bible (for instance, the Dead Sea scrolls) bear no significant difference from the modern Bible. If the oldest manuscripts of the texts that make up the Bible bear no significant difference from the modern Bible, And the oldest manuscripts of the texts are the closest we have to the original manuscripts, Then it is most reasonable to conclude that the modern Bible bears no significant difference from the original manuscripts of the texts that make up the Bible. If the oldest manuscripts that we have bear no significant difference to the manuscripts we have today, (which is often a span of about 2,000 years,) what led you to conclude that the Bible today is different than the originals? Similarly, what led you to believe that certain verses were fabricated, and which specific verses are we referring to? Additionally, we know that the Bible is definitely from God. It records numerous prophecies, or more often decrees about the future, that came to pass; such as Ezekiel 26 which predicts the fall of Tyre in explicate detail, Jeremiah 23: 8 which predicts that the Jews will be gathered from the "land of the north" and reform the nation of Israel, the explicate prophecies about Jesus (Isaiah being one book to look at), Isaiah 44:28 which predicts that a king named Cyrus will rebuild Jerusalem, to name only a few prophecies that were fulfilled. I can get into why this is significant latter, but just as a preliminary argument, what evidence does the Quran provide to demonstrate that it is from God? Let's start there. I'm excited to hear your opinion on this matter!
Miniclip's White Water Rafting is the best free WWR game on the net.

Reasons why I beleive Miniclip's White Water Rafting is the best free rafting game online:1. Every level is different. Although every level has the same aim, they each have different scenery including plants, water colour, rocks and backgrounds. We can see which river each level is set in. having different sceneries makes each level individual, thus making it less boring.2. You can interact with your scenery. Although many people may see the rocks in the rivers as part of the scenery, it can be quite a lot of fun to build up your speed and then use them as ramps. You can also use the river banks as bumpers (ie, you can use them to slow you down if you're going too fast)3. You have more control over your raft than in many other games. In many games, controlling the raft is as simple as up-down-right-left control, but with miniclip's game you can carefully control the speed of your raft by alternating right and left, and you can back-paddle.
Miniclip's White Water Rafting is the best free WWR game on the net.

The word "best" is relating to gameplay and entertainment. The con must present a white water rafting game which is superior to the one I mentioned, therefore proving it is not the best game on the internet. Simply stating the problems with miniclip's game is not sufficient. The game I am talking about is this one and this one only:. http://www.miniclip.com...Thankyou, please accept!
Rape/Sexual Harassment does not exist!

Rape/Sexual Harassment does not exist! Having failed at attempting this debate earlier on ,due to an innocent misinterpretation of a specific rule by my opponent, I"ve decided to rerun it to be a little more clearer. This debate is intended to convince my opponent that rape/sexual harassment does not exist,while he is ordained with the duty to convince me otherwise.There shall be no acceptance round . Rape : A situation where two people has consensual sex but later the girl alleges that she was sexually harassed . Is it rape if she moaned with pleasure? Is it rape if she climaxed? Debate....