BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The theory of Evolution is incorrect

Con drops genetic evidence. In debate that is considered a concession. Con brings up God's existence. Red herring, this is about evolution, not God. Watching the videos, they claim the animals are they same because of a common designer... Uh ok. This is not a scientific response, as God is supernatural and cannot be tested. Therefore, this is not scientific, and has NO place in a scientific debate, and CAN NOT influence whether or not evolution is true or not. Further, his references offer NO proof of a God, rather merely assert it. Again, deducing logical answers from the fossil record are more convincing than Hovinid (who is currently in jail) making a statement. My opponment drops almost every claim I have made... http://i.imgur.com... http://jefferly.com...(in response to the videos)So, who do we trust: 99.9% of the scientific community, or a few dissenters who make claims with no evidence.
The theory of Evolution is incorrect

Even if you had all the fossils you want. In the end rather a Fossil looks like another is up to interpretation. Also, it has been shown that animals with similar forelimb bone structures don't even share the same genes in the chromosome. Some animals look alike even tho they are unrelated as shown by creation scientists such as Kent Hovind and others.Also, This does not debunk that the explanation could be a common designer not a common ansester .http://youtu.be... http://youtu.be...
The theory of Evolution is incorrect

CON does not offer a single citation for his claims, and cannot be verified. He simply argues the fossil record is incorrect. Even if it was, evolution would still have genetic evidence. Our genome is only 1.2% different to that of a chimpanzee and the bonobo. We differ from apes about 1.6%--importantly, all of those monkey's differ 1.6% from the ape, indicating a common ancestor. http://bit.ly...To refute my opponent's contention: although the fossil record may have been inadequate 100 years ago, there is little doubt that the modern fossil record "provides a true and meaningful picture of the history of life". http://bit.ly...on does not cite an example of finding the missing link, and then claiming it was a recently deceased monkey. However, when we look at human ancestory we see a long line of animals similar to humans, but are neither fully human nor ape. Further, with other species, we HAVE identified the transitional fossilshttp://bit.ly...http://bit.ly...
Protect Our Manufacturers NOW!!! Implement Tort Reform.

Alright...I'll tell you what's wrong with that. In recent years, perhaps decades, people like you have been pushing for tort reform claiming that "frivolous" lawsuits are causing a halt in economic development. However, the court cases in which you speak of are rarely frivolous and hardly lucrative. Look at the following: "Bush and other proponents of so-called "tort reform," (the limitation of Americans' legal rights), have based their assertion that consumers pay a $200+ billion cost for our legal system on a study by the insurance industry-consulting firm, Tillinghast-Towers Perrin. Yet, data from the Congressional Budget Office, Business Week, and now the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) all discredit this report. EPI concludes that TTP's cost estimates are one-sided, inflate the impact of the tort system and ignore its benefits, and that corroboration supporting their numbers is weak or nonexistent. [Economic Policy Institute, 5/17/05]" -American Association for Justice "According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics from 2005, the number of tort cases resolved in U.S. district courts experienced a 79 percent decrease between 1985 and 2003. On the state level, the number of tort cases dropped by nearly 32 percent between 1992 and 2001." This is also from the AAJ. Basically what I am saying is that there is NO reason whatsoever to change the most basic laws in our system just because you think it is a problem. ONCE AGAIN, the current system already provides for all of the problems that you are speaking of. Frivolous lawsuits are in nobody's interest. Nobody gets paid unless they win. It's called Rule 11. http://www.lectlaw.com... Take a look at it...pretty simple really. Don't underestimate Tort law. The protections really ARE there. Everyone look to this when voting: Although C-mach points out that frivolous lawsuits can be damaging...they don't really exist in the status quo and our laws actually prevent them. It is that simple.
Protect Our Manufacturers NOW!!! Implement Tort Reform.

You're right, people should be held accountable, and that includes manufacturers. But seriously, this is a major drag on our economy! I mean, come on. We could have had this YEARS AGO. YEARS AGO!!! But no, Bill Clinton didn't sign the bill that would make this happen, and, even though we've had the greatest economy in the history of the world, especially now, this would make it take off LIKE A ROCKET!!! Manufacturers would no longer be threatened by frivolous lawsuits. I'm not saying that they would be absolutely impervious to lawsuits, but the likelihood of that type of lawsuit (frivolous lawsuit with sole intent of financial gain, not compensation for damages inflicted) occurring would be reduced dramatically, and people who wanted actual compensation could still sue.
Protect Our Manufacturers NOW!!! Implement Tort Reform.

Haha...wow. This is pretty funny actually. Tort reform? Let me begin by noting that this would be changing the most basic laws that our system was built upon. And while I'm not exactly conservative on this issue, tort law is something that doesn't really need to be messed with seeing as it has been the same forever. I might agree that some lawsuits are frivolous...but I think if they are taken to court, a just decision will be made. If a company did something wrong...tort law holds them accountable on the most simple level. I'd really like to talk a lot more about this, I just didn't have a lot to refute. Could you please expand on your alternative to the current system?
cause+effect=logic

I do not quite understand your Round 2 argument, so I am restricted from turning back on it until it is clarified. If you do not clarify it voters might take points off for conduct. Now suppose you are in a kitchen. You see that the water your eggs are in is boiling, and that the eggs should be ready. You take the eggs and water away from the stove, and when they are cooled, you drain the water. You burn yourself on the draining water and supply ice. The ice does not help. My opponent, pick one cause and one effect and see if you can make a logic solution to them. If you can't but think it's possible, make your own scenario and I will still be able to prove you wrong.
cause+effect=logic

After doing research, I think it's safe for me to accept you're challenge. First, let's look at the definitions. These definitions are from google. Logic: reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity. cause and effect: the principle of causation and causation: the action of causing something, So cause and effect is the principle of the action of causing something "if all apples became poisonous today, and we were all aware of it, would it be right to give kids apples if we wanted them to be healthy? " is your argument. "Would it be right," is the reasoning (in this case a question), your cause is "apples become poisonous," and you're effect is. .. That is not cause and effect. That is cause and logic make logic, which is well known to humans, but does not state an effect. All you say is we are aware of it additionally. If we eat pizza, then we become happy, we could eat pizza to become happy, is an example you could give in what you are thinking. However this is again a fail to prove a false idea. If we look back at the definitions, we will find that logic is reasoning conducted. That is a pre-given fact, not reasoning.
In a melee between Superman and Alex Mercer/Zeus, Superman would triumph

A melee is a close combat battle involving a group of fighters, where tactics are disregarded in favour of individual combat [1] [2] [3]. However since Pro's resolution pitches only two fighters against one another, the resolution is invalid since it uses the term 'melee' incorrectly. The resolution is therefore negated by virtue of it being incoherent. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://dictionary.reference.com... [3] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
abortion..

Picture this image for me…a fetus or baby, whatever word you would like to use, with fingers, toes, fingernails, toenails, limbs, etcf, eatures me and you have- and then … The D&X abortion procedure itself is rather gruesome. The abortion practitioner instrumentally reaches into the uterus, grasps the fetus' feet, and pulls the feet down into the cervix. Often, especially in younger fetuses, limbs are ripped off bodies during the procedure. Once the fetus has been delivered except for the head, surgical scissors are forced into the base of the fetal skull and the its brains are sucked out. The baby is then delivered dead. The entire procedure is almost always performed on the fetus without the use of anesthesia. Both the women and the pre-born are affected by abortion. The baby has no choice, voice, anything in the decision made on the abortion. Biologically, human life begins at the single cell stage (fertilization) when sperm and egg join. There is no question that the fetus is fully human and a member of the human family. Intentionally killing any human at any stage is wrong. Because the pre-born baby is a human, abortion is a human rights issue. Human life- from fertilization to natural death- holds intrinsic and inestimable worth apart from how old you are and where you live. -Heart before 19 days…- •The heart is formed before nineteen days. There are heart cells before activity •www.acog.org ( more credible than your wikipedia sources) You go on saying that my points are irrelevant, although they defend my case and go against your points. These points are very relevant to the argument of abortion. •Protecting human life- It is the core of the argument. Abortion is the taking away of human life. •Having another baby- This is an irrelevant argument. Who cares if you can have another baby, that does not take away for killing a baby before. •Feeling pain- yes ohttp://www.abortionfacts.com... oA recent study examined the question of fetal pain through the direct measurement of cortical brain responses in premature infants.Using real-time near-infrared spectroscopy, blood flow in the contralateral somatosensory cortex of the brain was measured during routine blood draws. The results showed that cortical blood flow was significantly elevated in infants as young as 25 weeks gestational age during needle puncture to draw blood. It was also noted that cortical brain response was higher in awake infants than those who were asleep. These results showed that the fetal brain can detect pain at least at 25 weeks of age. Since no premature infants were younger than 25 weeks, it did not determine the earliest age at which the fetus would feel pain. oThe Journal of Neuroscience 26: 3662-3666. ohttp://www.godandscience.org... www.focusonthefamily.com
abortion..

The baby inside the mother's womb is a genetically different human being than the mother, so the question is: how is killing a baby inside the womb or one minute out of the womb any different? A baby has brain activity at 19 days and the hearts begins to beat at 31 days. The definition of death is when the brain and heart stop. Abortion stops both, resulting in death, which is murder. A key question to any pro-choice is: when does life begin? Can a baby take care of himself/herself immediately after he/she is born? Abortionists use this as a very common reason in support of abortion is rape, but less than one percent of abortion is because of rape. Rape itself is a brutal act of stealing innocence, why compound that by taking more innocence? The world, people, and government are here to protect the innocent. There are so many groups to protect dolphins, endangered species, fur, etc- but when is the world not responsible to protect the innocent? The most innocence of life is the baby in a womb. Lastly, the word ‘fetus' comes from Latin roots, meaning a child up to the age of eighteen. 1.Health: "If having the baby would result in the death of the mother and the child, then abortion is justified in that the inevitable death of the mother is saved. It idealogical to have the mother go through with labour should it kill her" a.Abortion in no way is ever justified. First of all, you can always deliver the baby after 23 weeks, giving the mother and the baby a chance to live. Under 23 weeks- I ask you, wouldn't a parent always sacrifice their life for their child? How old does the baby have to be, for the parent to sacrifice their life for him/her? 2.Under-Age Sex: "If someone under the legal age of sex conceives, it should then be legal. Why? If penetration of the vagina is indeed illegal if the legal age is not reached, why then should it be legal for vaginal penetration to occur the other way before that age?" a.Sex under the age of 18 is statutory rape, so the rapist is the guilty one. The baby is always the innocent one. The average age of intercourse is 14.7, many years under the age of 18. b.Also, under-age sex is defended and promoted by pro-choice groups, like Planned-Parenthood. Instead of saying not to have sex because you are a minor, they give out condemns and birth control. 3.Before it can feel pain: a.So you are saying, if one cannot feel pain, than it is okay to kill him/her? What if an adult is in a coma? Besides that point, a baby does feel pain. During amniocentesis, the baby moves. Also, during partial birth abortion the baby moves. The new protocol for partial birth abortions is giving a spinal epidural, so that the baby won't feel the pain and move.
abortion..

As per the title, I'm presuming my opponent is defending the notion abortion should always be illegal. I will present (INSERT NUMBER) points on why, under certain circumstance, it should be legal. == 1) HEALTH == If having the baby would result in the death of the mother and the child, then abortion is justified in that the inevitable death of the mother is saved. It idealogical to have the mother go through with labour should it kill her. == 2) UNDER-AGE SEX == If someone under the legal age of sex conceives, it should then be legal. Why? If penetration of the vagina is indeed illegal if the legal age is not reached, why then should it be legal for vaginal penetration to occur the other way before that age? == 3) BEFORE IT CAN FEEL PAIN == The following article [. http://jama.ama-assn.org...] states that: "Consequently, the capacity for conscious perception of pain can arise only after thalamocortical pathways begin to function, which may occur in the third trimester around 29 to 30 weeks' gestational age" [Paragraph 1, Conclusions] and "pain perception probably does not function before the third trimester" [ Paragraph 5, Conclusions] This implies that up to the development of " thalamocortical pathways", a Foetus cannot feel pain. This means in the case of abortion the foetus does not feel pain. Furthermore, the characteristics of living things re: - Feeding - Movement - Respiration - Excretion - Growth - Sensitivity - Reproduction (. http://www.saburchill.com...) As per this article, sensitivity is "Living things react to changes around them. We react to touch, light, heat, cold and sound, as do other living things. " Foetus', as per the study, cannot react to "touch, light, heat, cold and sound". Ergo, Foetus' cannot be classed as a living thing. I wish my opponent good luck and good debate. Panda
I Will Not Contradict Myself

Contradictions2. A barber cuts the hair of all men that live in a fictional town that do not cut their own hair. The barber lives in that fictional town. Does he cut his own hair?"Neither yes nor no would be an adequate answer as both yes and no cause a contradiction."11. Are all boys men?"No."My opponent claims that the scenario described in #2 is impossible. This is only true if one assumes that the male barber must be a man. However, not all boys are men; therefore, the barber need not be a man, and need only cut the hair of men who do not cut their own hair. Therefore, my opponent's answers are contradictory."As per the rules in this following debate http://www.debate.org... "9. Does the following link refer to a debate?"The link gives me a service error"16. Are service errors debates?"No."My opponent claims that the link is to a debate, but then says that it goes to a service error, which is not a debate. Contradiction.14. Is it appropriate for the government to mandate a minimum wage that must be paid in full by the employer to the employee?"Yes."18. Is it ever appropriate for the government to declare any voluntary contracts between two consenting adults illegal?"No."If the government mandates a minimum wage, then it must declare that a man may not pay another man a wage less than the minimum wage, which is a voluntary contract between two consenting adults. Contradiction.Questions21. Can the existence of a concept be affected by how a third party refers to it?22. Is it wrong to answer a question differently because its wording has been changed?23. Is it wrong to choose not to accept a debate because it is impossible for you to win the debate?24. When answering Question 19, did you, in the English language, describe a positive right that does exist?25. Had you not described the positive right, would it not exist?26. Is it wrong to acknowledge the right to life of an adult human but not a human fetus?27. Do people have the right to discriminate in choosing who they will or will not hire?28. Is it wrong for a man to choose not to marry a woman because she killed his brother and feels no remorse?29. Is it wrong for the government to make prostitution illegal?30. Is it wrong for the government to make murder illegal?
I Will Not Contradict Myself

I will accept your answer to Question #2 as adequate for this debate according to Rule #2. However, I will rephrase Question #4.4. According to the Law of Identity, an object is identical to itself; however, would it be appropriate to call an object a copy of itself?According to the definition of copy, a copy is an imitation, reproduction, or transcript of an original. Therefore, it is impossible to be a reproduction of yourself so the answer is no.Additionally, Question #9 was not answered adequately, so a follow-up is needed:9b. Is the service error a debate?As I stated in the previous round, I do not know what you are linking to so I cannot answer the question. 11. Are all boys men?No.12. Is it right for the United States government to ban trade with those who employ child labor?If you mean a child=one under 18, then no. 13. Is discrimination (the process by which two stimuli differing in some aspect are responded to differently) wrong?By your definition, no.14. Is it appropriate for the government to mandate a minimum wage that must be paid in full by the employer to the employee?Yes.15. Is it possible in the English language to describe a positive right that does exist?I do not understand your questions.16. Are service errors debates?No.17. Is it wrong for a man to choose not to marry a woman because of her hygiene?Yes.18. Is it ever appropriate for the government to declare any voluntary contracts between two consenting adults illegal?No.19. Is the right to be treated fairly a positive right?http://en.wikipedia.org......It can be, depending how you word it. For example, "You must treat others fairly" is a positive right; however, if you were to say, "You cannot treat each other unfairly" that is a negative right.20. Do all humans (members of the species Homo sapiens) have a right to life?No.
I Will Not Contradict Myself

I will accept your answer to Question #2 as adequate for this debate according to Rule #2. However, I will rephrase Question #4.4. According to the Law of Identity, an object is identical to itself; however, would it be appropriate to call an object a copy of itself?Additionally, Question #9 was not answered adequately, so a follow-up is needed:9b. Is the service error a debate?11. Are all boys men?12. Is it right for the United States government to ban trade with those who employ child labor?13. Is discrimination (the process by which two stimuli differing in some aspect are responded to differently) wrong?14. Is it appropriate for the government to mandate a minimum wage that must be paid in full by the employer to the employee?15. Is it possible in the English language to describe a positive right that does exist?16. Are service errors debates?17. Is it wrong for a man to choose not to marry a woman because of her hygiene?18. Is it ever appropriate for the government to declare any voluntary contracts between two consenting adults illegal?19. Is the right to be treated fairly a positive right?http://en.wikipedia.org...20. Do all humans (members of the species Homo sapiens) have a right to life?
I Will Not Contradict Myself

1. Do you agree with the current information present on your DDO profile? Yes, although they are subject to change. 2. A barber cuts the hair of all men that live in a fictional town that do not cut their own hair. The barber lives in that fictional town. Does he cut his own hair? (The definitions for any word in that question is consistent for all instances of that word.) Neither yes nor no would be an adequate answer as both yes and no cause a contradiction. This is known as the Barber's (or Russell's) paradox. +1 question in the next round. 3. Is Barack Obama always Right? No. 4. Can something be an exact copy of itself? I don't understand the question. +1 or explain. 5. Is Barack Obama usually Right when making political decisions? No. 6. Do people have the right to use their own property however they see fit, as long as they do not violate the rights of others? Yes 7. Do people have a right to be treated fairly? Yes 8. Do positive rights exist? http://en.wikipedia.org...... Depends on how the right is worded. 9. Does the following link refer to a debate? http://www.debate.org...... The link gives me a service error 10. Is this current debate challenge an exact copy of this debate? http://www.debate.org...... Yes. As given in round 1. This debate IS an exact copy of this debate.
I Will Not Contradict Myself

1. Do you agree with the current information present on your DDO profile? 2. A barber cuts the hair of all men that live in a fictional town that do not cut their own hair. The barber lives in that fictional town. Does he cut his own hair? (The definitions for any word in that question is consistent for all instances of that word.) 3. Is Barack Obama always Right? 4. Can something be an exact copy of itself? 5. Is Barack Obama usually Right when making political decisions? 6. Do people have the right to use their own property however they see fit, as long as they do not violate the rights of others? 7. Do people have a right to be treated fairly? 8. Do positive rights exist? http://en.wikipedia.org... 9. Does the following link refer to a debate? http://www.debate.org... 10. Is this current debate challenge an exact copy of this debate? http://www.debate.org...