BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Video Debate: According to utilitarianism, speceisism is morally wrong.

I would like to apologize to both my opponent and the readers of this debate. My itouch, with which I make my videos on, is dead and my charger is at my mom's house. I won't be able to get to it until Monday at the earliest. I will ask my opponent to let the time run out of this round and then I will simply challenge him to a second 1 or 2 round debate to finish this up. Again, I apologize to my opponent and any readers of this debate.
The Denver Broncos will win the Super Bowl this year

First off, to clarify I am a GIANTS fan (and Jets fan) as I'm from NY :P Now looking at the Broncos schedule, my opponent predicts that they are going to win ALL of their upcoming games. I disagree. As I said, the Broncos are a great team but we have to keep in mind that their success thus far has been playing bad or just average teams. While I agree that they can probably easily beat Washington, KC and Oakland, the other games are definitely not guaranteed wins. I'm betting that against the Giants, Chargers, Steelers, Eagles and Colts that they will lose 2 of those games (most likely to the Steelers and the Colts, but it could be 2 out of any of those 5 games). That means that they'll probably finish out the season with a record of 13-3, and my opponent for the most part agrees. Similarly, the Colts will have no problem beating their upcoming teams, with the most challenging being the Broncos and the Patriots. I suspect that the Colts will finish with a record of 14-2 at the absolute worst (as they're undefeated right now). It's downright silly to say that Baltimore is going to beat Indy. Not to mention that the Patriots this year, like the Eagles, have been off and on, so it's even reasonable to assume that the Colts might go undefeated or just lose 1 game. The Colts not only have Peyton Manning but also an incredible defense (some say the best in the NFL). So, it's fair to assume that the Colts will finish with a better record than the Broncos. I disagree that the AFC championship is going to come down to the Broncos and the Colts. I suspect it'll be the Colts and the Steelers. Not only do the Steelers have an excellent team, but they've got experience and are the defending champions (so for my opponent to say that they're "overrated" is really amusing, especially after the Bronco's melt down last year). Again, the Steelers also beat the previously undefeated Vikings -- no easy feat. Now supposing that the Broncos somehow make it to the Super Bowl over the Colts, Steelers or Patriots (I personally think it'll be the Colts or the Steelers like I said), the Broncos would have to take on most likely either the Vikings, Saints or Eagles (I'm betting Vikings or Saints). So far my opponent has only given his reasoning on why Broncos would even make it to the Super Bowl (no easy feat) but hasn't touched upon how the Broncos could beat the opposing NFC team. Remember that the resolution is that the Broncos will win the Super Bowl. I doubt it :)
The Denver Broncos will win the Super Bowl this year

Well I do agree with your arguments but I will also like to point out that you are a colts fan and I am a broncos fan so of course we think that our teams are going to do better. Okay so first off let's look at the broncos remaining schedule: Pit @ Den- I believe that they can win this game because the steelers are way overrated Den @ Was- Really if you watch football this should be a no brainer SD @ Den- Denver already beat them once and can do it again because SD is kinda falling NYG @ Den- Giants looked good at the start of the season but are stumbling now Den @ KC- KC sucks Den @ Ind- hmmm...well this is going to stir up arguments between us but I believe I speak for both of us when I say this is going to be a good game and will come down to something in the fourth quarter but in the end I will give this one to Indy Oak @ Den- Oakland sucks Den @ Phi- This is the hardest one to figure out because philly is good but it goes week by week. Like they looked good last week but what happened against oakland so in the end I will give this Denver. KC @ Den- again, KC sucks So after looking at there remaining schedule I see a 14-2 or 13-3 win season and I do believe that Denver will be playing Indy in the AFC champ. game. But if Denver loses to Indy in the regular season everyone will say that they should beat Denver but, and I believe my opponent will agree, that this is the playoffs and anything can happen. The first year that pitt won the Super Bowl a few years ago, everyone thought that it would be NE Pitt in the AFC champ. game but denver beat them and stunned the football world. And also look at the Cowboys in the playoffs i mean wow talk about choke Looking at the Colts remaining schedule i believe they will lose to the Pats, also Baltimore and Denver will give them good game so the number 1 seed in the AFC (home field advantage) will come down to the Denver Indy game Got to go so I will hand it over to my opponent
The Denver Broncos will win the Super Bowl this year

I'll begin by pointing out that other teams in the NFL have a better record than the Broncos; the Saints and the Colts, respectively. Additionally, the Vikings have a better win percentage than the Broncos. What we learn from these statistics is that the Bronco's win ratio is not in favor of them being the best team in the NFL, or even indicative that they are better than other teams. For instance, while it's true that the Broncos have a 7-1 record, let's observe the teams that they have played thus far: The Bengals, The Browns, The Raiders, The Cowboys, The Patriots, The Chargers and the Ravens. Out of the 6 teams they beat, 2 of them are absolutely horrible (The Browns and the Raiders). The other teams are about average. You'll notice that the Broncos haven't faced the best teams in the NFL, which are the ones that hold the highest win percentage that I mentioned, in addition to the Pittsburgh Steelers - the defending champions who beat the formerly undefeated Vikings; a team that so far has a better record than the Broncos. Additionally, the Broncos aren't dominant in limiting the amount of points allowed per game as my opponent so rightfully pointed out. The Colts hold that title for now. Also, keeping other statistics in mind, the Broncos don't come anywhere close to leading the league in rush yards, pass yards (yards in general), tackles, sacks, etc. Moreover, my opponent suspects that the Broncos will win at least 5 out of the next 9 games, putting the Broncos at an 11 win season. I concur that the Broncos will win 5 or 6 out of the next 9 games. Meanwhile, I suspect the Colts will win at least 6 or 7 out of their next 9 games, putting them at least at a 13 or 14 win season: higher than the Broncos. This is important as the two teams compete for the AFC title. In conclusion, I suspect that the Broncos will be battling it out with the Colts to even make it to the Super Bowl, and I predict that the Colts will prevail. Supposing the Broncos somehow beat the Colts (we have no reason to believe they would at this juncture), they would have to battle either the Vikings, Steelers or possibly even the Saints once there - and I highly doubt that they can beat any of those teams. The Steelers are reigning champs with an experienced roster including a superb defense and stellar QB; Brett Favre can conceivably win MVP this year and lead his great team to victory; and the Saints have been nearly perfect all season thus far. That said, I'll send this debate back to my opponent for now for a rebuttal. Oh - and don't you mean the Super Bowl NEXT year (2010)? Just kidding :)
The Denver Broncos will win the Super Bowl this year

I believe that Denver will win this years Super Bowl, even though it may be early in the season, I will provide you with some statistics. They currently allow 13.7 ppg on defense which puts them as the 2nd best defense in the NFL and if you take away the last game against baltimore they average 11 ppg which would put them number1 There turnover differential is +6 (5th in the NFL) On Defense they have only given up 1867 yards which makes them the number 1 ranked defense in the NFL. Looking at there remaining schedule I can guarantee at least 5 more wins which would put them at an 11 win season I will now hand it over to my opponent
The Denver Broncos will win the Super Bowl this year

Very good argument and I'm sorry bout the fave team mix up I was thinking of someone else Now to get going... Okay so personally I'm going to go further in depth on the steelers because this is where we seem to have the biggest clash...I believe the steelers are overrated because they aren't just giving us the wow they did last year. This year they seem to just skate with marginal wins and my opponent says how they beat the Vikings...well the vikings are overrated a little bit as well...notice I say a litttle bit...I do believe that Denver will make to the Super Bowl because there defense has such a great chemistry together and also the offense has a great potential to be great...all the sports analysts say that Kyle Orton isn't a good QB but on the contrary I believe he is a solid starting QB not great like peyton or Brett but good...Knowshon Moreno has the makings of a great RB as well and with Corell Buckhalter in there too I believe that we have a solid running game...Now with the receivers...most teams only have 1 or 2 go to reveivers but the broncos have 3 maybe 4...obviously Brandon Marshall is a HUGE threat as seen in the Dallas game and you have Eddie Royal with breakout speed you never know when he's going to return a punt or kick for a TD you also have Brandon Lloyd, Jabar Gaffney, Brandon Stokley (man i didn't know we had this many Brandons) and Kenny Mckinley all are solid receivers...I would like to also how great defensive players...You have obviusly Champ Bailey...Brian Dawkins also from the Eagles like Correll...D.J. Williams is a great LB... so a few great playmakers mixed in with a bunch of good players makes for a great team. Now for the Super Bowl...personnaly I would rather play the vikings that the saints because I just know that we could shut down AP and make Brett have to throw the ball all over the field which would cause mistakes that we could capitalize on but with the Saints they at this point are just dominating and really all they do is throw the ball and that could be a problem with the saint having 3 go to recievers so they could pull of for huge gains but defensively not the greatest so Denver could do the same My opponent may take the spotlight
We need Government Intervention in the Economy

I accept my opponent’s challenge, and wish him good luck. However, I would like to provide some definitions – I am aware this is a non-semantic debate, though “government intervention” has a little bit of range of meaning to it – and address the burden of proof. Also, are you allowing for 1) rebuttals to the second argument in the 5th round and/or 2) responses to rebuttals to the first argument in the 4th round? Either way, good luck, and I look forward to a productive debate. ===Definitions=== Government intervention: “government actions to influence the way financial markets or particular industries operate” [1]. ===Burden of Proof=== Since varying countries have economic plans ranging from almost laissez-faire policies to socialism, there is really no conformity to either the presence of government intervention or the lack thereof. Thus, I would propose a shared burden of proof where only the merits of each side’s arguments are taken into account, rather than whether pro or con has met the burden of proof. ===References=== [1] http://dictionary.cambridge.org...
We need Government Intervention in the Economy

Welcome to this debate on the economy & economics. The debate is "We need Government Intervention in the economy", in the form of things such as subsidies, bailouts, central banks, deficit spending, wage controls, but overall, just economic planning. I will be argue against this idea. 1st Round. Acceptance 2nd Round. Opening Arguments Round 3. Rebuttal to Opening Arguments. Round 4. 2nd Argument Round 5. Closing Thoughts.
The Theory of Evolution should be taught in Public Schools (in the United States)

I would first like to point out that my opponent has no arguments of his own, only crude attacks against my case. My opponent first points out that I cannot claim evolution as a fact, because it is still a theory. And he agrees that what we teach our students should be based on facts , "definitley true content is all that should be taught," But my opponent later says that "Technically seaking, science can never "prove" anything as a "fact," rather it can only say with some degree of certainty if whatever is being examined is true or not. " Therfore, my opponent is advocating that we do not teach our students science, since the only thing that we can teach is fact. I simply said that students have a right to be taught the "most accurate" explanation possible. Since evolution is by far the explanation with the the most evidence to back it up, it should be taught in schools. My opponent also says that teaching I contradict myself by saying teaching evolution does not indoctrinate students, because we need to teach the other theories. I have no qualms about teaching students other theories regarding the origin of species, and therefore his point is invalid. We are debating whether or not evolution should be taught, and if other theories are taught it has no bearing on our case. In conclusion, my opponents main argument against my case is that since evolution cannot be proven, we cannot teach it to students. This is illogical for two reasons. The first being that he contridicted himself saying that science can never prove anything as a fact, so by my opponents logic we cannot teach our students science. The second reason is that evolution is backed up with more evidence than any other species theory. i await my opponenet rebuttal
The Theory of Evolution should be taught in Public Schools (in the United States)

I accept the rule you proposed and the definitions. I would like to add two definitions. Definitions: - Should: used in auxiliary function to express obligation, propriety, or expediency.[1] Theory: a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.[2] Sources: [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] http://dictionary.reference.com...
The Theory of Evolution should be taught in Public Schools (in the United States)

Standard Format 1) Rules and Acknowledgments 2) Opening Arguments 3) 1st Rebuttal 4) 2nd Rebuttal 5) Closing Arguments Rules 1) My opponent and I both acknowledge that evolution is already taught in American public schools, and that this will have no bearing on our arguments. Definitions 1) Public School: (dictionary.com) A school that is maintained at public expense for the education of children. 2) The theory of evolution: A scientific theory iof the origin of species of plants and animals. 3) Teach: To impart knowledge of or skill in ; give instruction
God does not exist

Here I will address the part of your argument concerning prophesies: People very often make the mistake of 'selective reporting'. I'm sure the prophets made a ton of other predictions that didn't come true, but nobody records those because they aren't exciting. People only record the really amazing prophesies that were lucky and turned out to be true. If you make tons of prophesies and just sweep the ones that went wrong under the rug when no one is looking, of course you will be left with what looks like too many true ones for it to be just probability. Here I will address the part of your argument concerning the fact that people throughout history have believed in a God for a long time: You can't believe something just because other people believed it. End of story. Here I will address the part of your argument concerning that "comprehensibility is immaterial": In round 2, I explained that you can't just make your hypothesis unfalsifiable with add-ons like 'Oh, but God transcends logic'. Here I will address the part of your argument concerning the creation of the universe: I have struggled with this issue for a long time. However, mathematical simulations of the Big Bang show that the laws of physics were very chaotic immediately after the universe's creation, and seeing as simple concepts like time and space were not yet fully formed, it is entirely possible that the universe could have caused it's own existence via time travel. Another possible explanation for the universe's creation without a God is this: it is though by many physicists that if string theory is correct, there may be many universes, and that they might (in however many billion years) join to make fewer universes or split to make more universes. It is thought that our universe might have been created by such a split. Thank you for your time. I would like you to address each issue I have brought up separately in your response.
God does not exist

I think it is simply preposterous to assume that things somebody supposedly did and said thousands of years ago are to be believed. What's to say somebody didn't just make it up or make a mistake. And if your counterargument to this is simply "they didn't" then here is why that isn't a valid counterargument: A) There are miracles recorded in other religions that Islam denies. B) Therefore, Islam accepts that sometimes people recording events lie or make mistakes. C) Islam was recorded by mortal people just as capable of making mistakes (oral recitation is recording). D) Therefore, Islam should accept the possibility that it may contain fabricated or incorrect material. My earlier argument in round 2 was side stepped by way of you saying that Islam does contain a lot of miracles from other religions. However, I have reiterated what I meant in point A, which is that there must be some miracles that Islam doesn't accept, and this proves D by way of B and C.
God does not exist

With all kinds of things in society, once a thing gains popular belief, more and more people jump on the bandwagon simply because other people are, and the idea grows exponentially, regardless of its truthfulness or lack of it. The same thing applies to religions. As soon as one scholar had started writing about the miracles of somebody from a long time ago, all the others follow suit because they want to look like they know what they're doing. Also, if your counter argument to this is that the scholars who recorded the miracles of your religion weren't making things up or making mistakes, how can you claim that the scholars who recorded other religions were lying/making mistakes? Either you claim that the writers of the Torah and Bible were flawed people (which forces you to accept that your religion could have arisen from the same errors/fraud potentially), or you choose to deny that any writers of the time were flawed (forcing you to accept other religions' texts as truthful). I don't see a logical counter argument.
God does not exist

I won't post any argument this round simply because you didn't either. Now here's why I believe in God and why I'm a Muslim. I was born in a non-practicing Muslim family and they did not force anything upon me, my father was even scared that I would become a radical extremist because he thought I was practicing too much when I came to Islam. My mother has nothing to do with Islam, she's a theist, but that's it. Now here's the problem when it comes down to evidence. You're asking for evidence, but what evidence will you accept? We have 100s of prophecies, we historical statements, we have scientific statements, falsification tasks, protection against the Jinn (Ghosts/Djinn) and the most linguistic and literal book in the world to this day. I'm sure you would not believe if God could part the clouds and write Allah in the sky because that already happened and we could probably do it with our technology today anyways. You need to understand that God is part of the unseen and he has sent prophets like Moses and Jesus may peace be upon them. You just can't compare God with leprechauns. It's widely accepted that leprechauns are just a myth. When it comes to God though, the majority of the human population believes in him and practically believes in some kind of divine entity. There's no proof or anything to suggest that leprechauns exist, this is not the case with God.
God does not exist

Why I'm starting this debate:I am an agnostic. I am pretty convinced that god doesn't exist, but I just want to be sure. I am initiating this debate in order to find someone (if this person exists) who has truly compelling evidence for the existence of God.My current position on this topic:If I wanted to believe in leprechauns, somebody would probably say, "How come I've never seen any?". I could respond to this by saying, "They are invisible to the naked eye and all technological sensors". I have just made my hypothesis unfalsifiable, meaning that they cannot disprove it, even if it is in fact wrong.The statement "God exists" is unfalsifiable for the same reasons. I apologise for the use of leprechauns in my analogy, as that is a little demeaning, but I couldn't think of anything else. Anyways, before I choose whether or not to devote my life to a God or not, I would like completely irrefutable proof, not just the possibility that he exists.
Siblings should be Allowed to Marry

I think with the slavery issue people finally realized it was a form of torture. Rape, Murder, and Kidnapping was also happening everyday with slavery yet people turned a blind eye. I do not think people beat you because you want to marry your sibling. The problem with passing your marriage law is it would lead to inbreeding. You can always argue "Well just because we want to marry doesn't mean we would reproduce." It might be true for you, but you can not open up Pandora's box. You can't say YES its ok to marry but NO its not ok to reproduce. The law we have now tells you we do not condone the activity. We all know that children have a higher chance disabilities and bones problems, but I believe you already agreed to that so I won't beat a dead drum. The point I wanted to make is an interesting one. I think it is NOT FAIR to the child to grow up in the household. The studies of having household family issues with children is on the rise and this would just add to it. It's hard enough to grow up in today's crazy world with a normal life, now your asking him to call his uncle DAD. The last statement might be a little dramatic, but that's the box your looking to open.
Siblings should be Allowed to Marry

Okay, so the United States is build upon the old school values of not allowing rape, murder, or kidnapping. However, there is one "old-school" value you neglected to mention. It is an incredibly important value to our nation, and, despite most modern folks viewing it as cruel and inhumane (myself included), one cannot deny that without it, our nation would not exist. I am talking, or course, about slavery. It was an "old-school" value that people in Colonial America considered a necessity. It helped the Southern Colonies make their money and led the South to prosperity. Later, slaves grew the goods that were sold to fund our rebellion against Britain. Nobody in Colonial America thought it was wrong. It was an "old-school" value that helped maintain civilization. To them, free blacks were dangerous. As you can see, "old-school" values are not always what's right. Allowing siblings to marry wouldn't affect you and I in anyway, nor would it affect anyone who doesn't love their sibling in that way. America would wake up the next morning, folks would go to work, and the world would spin on as usual, except for the few people who became a little happier by us allowing them to love one another.