BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Algebra Tests are easier than the Social Studies Tests

I'll allow PRO to post the first argument. Clarification would also be helpful. As my opponent is PRO in the resolution 'The Algebra Tests are easier than the Social Studies Tests,' it would seem that he is of the opinion that social studies tests are harder. However, in his opening argument he states: 1. For the algebra test a person would have to be mentally skilled in that area of expertise 2. as for the social studies test a person could have a higher percentage of getting a higher total grade. These two claims seem to support my side of the resolution. I'm finding defending either side of the resolution, so if PRO misworded the resolution and actually plans to defend algebra as harder, I'll make no quarrel of it. Likewise, if he simply phrased his opening arguments in a confusing way and does believe social studies is harder, I'm fine with him switching sides. I'd just like to be sure which side I'm defending before I start.
The Cambrian Explosion: Evidence for Creationism

When searching for information about the earth's past, Perhaps the best place to look would be the geologic column. The geologic column is a column of layers of rocks on top of each other and in them are contained almost all of the species of life we see today. Now from an evolution point of view complex life forms evolved from simple ones. Thus, This is exactly what the geologic column should reflect, And for a while, That's what it looked like. At the bottom, You see simpler life forms such as the triiobites and nautiloids and as you go up they get more and more complex and you see things like horses and dinosaurs. But then something unexpected was found and today it is the biggest problem facing evolutionists today. At the very bottom of the geologic column were found species from every single major phylum in biological classification. This is known as the cambrian explosion and it reveals that at the beginning, There was the sudden emergence of all species at once. From a creation point of view, This makes perfect sense. After all, For Christians, We believe God created the world and all of the species in it in 6 days and if this were true, We should be finding all of these species in the very bottom of the geologic column and it is exactly what we found. From an evolution point of view however, It leaves you scratching your head. You see, Evolution believes that every transition from species to species takes millions of years. However, The geologic column reveals the sudden emergence of all species at once. Not only does this not makes sense transition wise, But is also inconsistent with the idea that life started out extremely simple. Scientists have developed crazy phenomenon's to attempt to explain this theory and there are a few things I would like to point out. One, All of the theories attempted to explain the cambrian explosion are only what could have happened against all odds. However, They have no real evidence to back them up. Second, Whenever you are searching for evidence about anything scientific, You should always see where the evidence leads you, Not where you lead it. If you are trying to develop crazy scenarios to make the evidence consistent with evolution, It is likely that anything you come up with will be wrong. It is a much better practice to just see what makes sense according to the evidence. Creationism is a logical conclusion to make from the evidence, Evolution is not. It only makes sense to see where the evidence leads you, Not where you lead it. The evidence points to an intelligent creator, Not evolution. Sources: 1. Https://www. Usna. Edu/Users/oceano/pguth/md_help/geology_course/geologic_column. Htm
The Cambrian Explosion: Evidence for Creationism

My sole point here is to argue that complexity DID exist before the Cambrian explosion, At least, In the making. Aspidella disks, For instance, Evolved into more complex types. That said, Your argument might have been correct had Aspidella disks not been observed before. The fact is, Your argument will only hold true IF the Cambrian explosion contributed to COMPLETELY NEW ORGANISMS in such a short time. If that had been the case, The evolution theory would not have been able to explain it by a long shot. However as my evidence suggests, The explosion period merely witnessed VARIATIONS and genetic modifications of ALREADY EXISTENT organisms. For the sake of debate, I'd like to quote a line from your Round 4 argument - "That doesn't explain how the complexity arose in such a short time" (I must make the grammatical correction) The complexity never arises, Yet is accumulated, And in this case in a surprisingly short time. Evolution can cover the explosion concept in that nothing arose, Apart from FURTHER VARIATIONS and EVOLUTIONARY FINE-TUNINGS. I'd also to question your use of the statement - "See where the evidence leads you, Not where you lead the evidence. " Let's analyze the evidence. We have evidence of organisms existing before the Cambrian explosion, And that of organisms that lived during the explosion period. Fair enough, These organisms were more evolutionarily developed, But still bore similarities to the previous organisms. Where does the evidence lead us? It tells us that the Cambrian explosion was a rather surprising time in the midst of evolutionary history. Organisms became highly specialized. Invariably, It also assures us that the explosion did not, In any way, Create a highly advanced organism in 20 million years. Evolution lies at the bottom of the evidence. As I have demonstrated, All evidence I presented are free from arbitrary will - I follow where the evidence leads me, For the evidence certainly does not point to creationism. You have the floor.
The Cambrian Explosion: Evidence for Creationism

As I stated before, When analyzing scientific evidence, See where the evidence leads you, Not where you lead it. Before I explain how the cambrian explosion supports creationism, Let me explain how it is evidence against evolution. "The Cambrian explosion, As you quoted, Did not actually indicate the true start of metazoans. You see, We consider the Cambrian explosion as having started 541 million years ago, Itself lasting 20-25 million years. But before that, 610 million years ago, We have evidences of Aspidella disks. " What your showing if you can prove that is that a great amount of complexity still arised in such a short amount of time, Just not at the beginning. That doesn't explain how the complexity arised in such a short amount of time.
Rehabilitation ought to valued over Retribution in the US criminal justice system

Since my case rests upon determinism quite heavily I will start by explaining it further. Firstly, I will state that it is not possible yet to determine it nor might it be by humans in the future. The reason for it that there are too many things you need to take into account. By that there is no way you can know it all to predict the outcome of certain events. A lot or everything is pre-determined because like a computer, life is a summation of routes were this is one of them. Only difference might be that a computer is limited and the possibility within life is not. The fact that you are the person you are now is not because you have chosen to be. This is because even before you were born it was determined that you would be here. Also, with certain settings within your psychological frame work. Would I recreated an environment with pre-determine settings and situations. Knowing you entirely thus having all the information necessary. Your response to it can be exactly predicted. This simulates what happens in every day life and by that proving that the arguments of determinism and culpability you used are incorrect. Don't make the classical mistake in saying that Einstein said it so it must be true. In psychics truth will take form when it cannot be proven wrong and by that making it truth by default. I hereby conclude that everything rests upon this because determinism proves that it is not they individuals fault and by that relinquishing the fact that they don't have free choice. For lack of it means not part in conscious participation and therefore not permissible in punishing them. I might not work within the us system now to rehabilitate all prisoners, but that does not mean it should be denied. Also, I would like to add that just because you are in a minority does not mean the majority should have power to overthrow the wishes of that group. It states that the majority is ALWAYS right. Which includes the fact that by it they automatically are morally speaking justified in exercising that power, which is not the case. For the obvious what if scenario whereas the majority wants to do something morally wrong. This debate wasn"t about how they ought to act, but if rehabilitation should be valued over retribution within the US criminal justice system. By determinism all these prisoners are not free in making choices thus in law and morality not up for retribution.
Rehabilitation ought to valued over Retribution in the US criminal justice system

First I will present my thoughts on the matter. Let there be further debate on this issue in the remaining rounds. I will come from the standpoint of subconsciousness. The reason for these crimes resides in the pre-determine setting of our environment. May it beforehand be created or a result that flows accidentally. The reason for its existence is unknown from birth. Everything after that is taught or subconsciously taken. This information within the brain will be given meaning by the act or the surrounding emotions that labels it. Within that the character will be formed over time and at a certain point firmly positioned within the remaining years hence adulthood. Leading to the fact that I hereby defend the point of a lack in consciousness and choice. The setting of these human beings are set in motion to react in certain environments. For example, the law that has been placed, but still broken under circumstances of hunger. Whereas this individual might not even want to steal, but must provide for his starving family. Within that the force of this constant external influence, present at that moment in time will lead to a pre-determent effect by cause. By it and uncontrollable human responds to it therefore not within control. Unconscious behavior and in reality guilty is not the variable (the individual) but the constant at that point (the environment, human settings). It relinquishes any form of conscious act and proven to be not guilty. Basically they can't help doing it. Just like you have habits you might find hard to break the same goes for these people. The same force that binds your habits binds theirs. Only difference is where that force is applied. By that I state that its not their fault and they should be helped instead of punished for something that is not within their control at that moment. Realise that even if you consciously noticed what you are doing does not mean you have the means to stop it. Fine to use other sources, whatever you find most interesting. I will ask of you to try and use your own words in the matter. I haven't read the entire text, so my apology if somewhere in there you did pose your own opinion.
Businesses should offer parking reserved for pregnant women.

Seeing as my opponent has forfeited the round, I will simply reiterate some of my points. 1. Offering parking spots will not be illegal 2. Denying them spots will force them to exercise (businesses should not be allowed to) 3. Just because pregnant women represent a small percentage of the population makes them no less significant 4. Pregnancy can interfere with mobility 5. If a pregnant women falls, she can injure the baby 6.
Businesses should offer parking reserved for pregnant women.

1. It is not illegal because the business is simply broadening those that qualify for the handicapped spots. Example: There are 10 spots. 3 are handicapped spots. 7 aren't. Businesses allow pregnant women to have handicap permits. Now there are 10 spots. 3 are handicapped. 7 aren't. Same number of spots. 2. The non-pregnant people already are walking. Again, this argument only works toward abolishing all handicapped spots. If my opponent believes that making non-pregnant people walk more is wrong, he will also consider making non-handicapped people walk more is wrong. 3. My opponent misunderstands my attack on his point. He makes the claim that "the vast majority of people are not pregnant so statistically, businesses are not likely to benefit from offering this type of parking". My attack was that the majority of the public are not handicapped either, so their is no impact to his argument. Like the second point, it is used as an argument against ANY reserved spots. 4. "Pregnancy complications can make a woman feel weak or interfere with her mobility." http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:-WWpw61mOkAJ:www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp%3Farticlekey%3D20244+pregnancy+makes+women+weaker&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=7&gl=us&client=firefox-a. Now elderly get handicapped stickers. Blind and deaf people get handicapped stickers. Children can't drive, so why would they have parking spots. And a person is not carrying bags when he or she parks. So yes, pregnant women still deserve reserved spots. 5. "As women approach the later months of pregnancy, their body feels off-balance. The position of the baby, the excess weight of the mother, and the awkwardness of pregnancy" http://findarticles.com... The difference between a pregnant woman and an overweight person is how adapt the person is with the weight. When a person is pregnant, they gain weight faster than an average person. Therefore, they are not as used to the weight and have a higher risk of falling. My opponent also ignores the damage a fall can cause a baby. I understand that babies are well protected in a mother's womb and that a minor fall will not cause any injury. However, slipping on ice and falling face first into the concrete will do damage to a baby. 6. People receive handicap stickers the same way a pregnant women could receive one. If the doctor gives her one, it's because she is pregnant, thus the stores do not need to check for pregnancy. Furthermore, police do not need to do anything more than they do now. If the car has a sticker, they are clear. If they do not, then it's a ticket. I do not see the logistical problem at all. Same routine, just more people with the sticker.
Businesses should offer parking reserved for pregnant women.

1. My opponent believes parking spaces for pregnant women will be integrated with handicap spots rather than adding to them, however this would be illegal. Businesses are required to allow for a certain number of handicap spaces and only people with handicap parking permits would be allow to use them. Thus, available parking spaces are reserved for pregnant women in addition to handicap spaces overall reducing the number of spaces available for everyone else. 2. My opponent believes stores should not decide to make pregnant women walk more. I agree, however by adding spaces for reserved for pregnant women, businesses have essentially decided to make the non-pregnant public walk more. Since there are more people who are not pregnant, businesses have decided the fate of more people by adding parking spaces reserved for pregnant women. 3. To say one is not in favor of reserved parking spaces for pregnant women is by default also not in favor handicap parking equates pregnancy with being handicap. It also suggests that any special status justifies a parking space reservation or else it is anti-handicap. This is not true because pregnant women are not any less disadvantaged for walking unless there are other medical conditions that prevent it, in which case they would be handicap. A distinction must be made between pregnancy and handicap and there is nothing inherent about a normal pregnancy that makes women any less capable of parking and walking as compared to anyone who is not pregnant. 4. Again, a pregnant person is not any more or less safe in a parking spot than anyone else, or any more or less capable of avoiding being hit than say an elderly person, child, blind or deaf person, or person carrying bags. I would argue there are pregnant women who can out-jump many other members of the parking community. 5. Pregnant women are not any more susceptible to falling or sustaining injuries on ice than say an overweight person. Should overweight people be given reserved parking as well? The infinite number of classifications people can be given clearly outnumber the number of parking spots in any given parking lot. 6. Since one cannot prove without documentation that they are pregnant then is even more of a reason why they should not offer reserved handicap parking. And who will monitor this? Certainly not the police who can issue a citation for illegally parking in a handicap space since reserved pregnancy spaces is not a law. Should businesses allocated expensive resources to monitoring this? I would argue they should not thereby making the practice of offering these spots unenforceable and unreasonable. If the pregnant women needs special parking, she should apply for a handicap sticker like everyone else. Thanks for replying and good luck.
Businesses should offer parking reserved for pregnant women.

Now onto the argumentation. My opponent has three key points: 1. Adding more reserved spots is bad My opponent is under the impression that stores will take away normal spots and convert them into pregnant women spots. This would never happen, as businesses could simply convert current handicapped spots into handicapped/pregnant spots. Therefore, no spots would be taken away from the average consumer. 2. It's healthy for pregnant women to walk more This is true. .. to a point. It is healthier to walk than do nothing, but stores shouldn't decide if a pregnant woman should walk more. That's the woman's choice. Following this paradigm, McDonald's should put treadmills at the cashier so people can lose weight before eating a BigMac. 3. The vast majority of people are not pregnant Furthermore, the vast majority of people are not handicapped either. This argument only is important if my opponent is advocating the abolishment of all handicapped spots. Businesses do not benefit from making it easier on those handicapped, and it deters people who aren't. My own arguments 4. Reserved spots are safer According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, 1 in 5 accidents occur in parking lots. . http://www.telemundo51.com... A pregnant woman cannot jump out of the way as easily as others, and a spot close to doors can lower the chance she has of being hit by a car backing up. 5. Reserved spots are safer. .. for another reason An average person can trip and fall without suffering too much injury. A pregnant woman is not so lucky. The added weight increases the chance of broken bones and injury to the baby. During the winter, parking lots can be covered with frozen streets, or rain water can be the ground more slippery. A parking spot closer to the door will lower the amount of ground a women needs to cover without slipping on ice or water. 6. Can be used at discretion Businesses should offer parking reserved for women. Yes. Do they have to ensure all pregnant women are eligible? Nope. If preferred, the business can offer spots but require that the pregnant woman has a sticker/waiver/note from doctor that is in the car that explains why she needs a special spot. Again, thank you for posting this debate, and I hope it is a good one.
Businesses should offer parking reserved for pregnant women.

The reserved parking situation is already out of hand. Unless pregnant women are handicap and have a handicap sticker, businesses should not offer parking reserved for pregnant women. The most convenient parking spots are already reserved for the handicap and there are plenty of them so it's not necessary to add yet another parking privilege. In fact, it's healthy for pregnant women to walk more. The vast majority of people are not pregnant women so statistically, businesses are not likely to benefit from offering this type of parking. In fact, it may deter people if the only available spot is reserved for pregnant women.
Resolved: Violent video games cause increased aggressive behavior

Hello, 16kadams! I will argue for the case that violent video games do not cause increased aggressive behavior. The burden of proof is on pro; pro is arguing for the contention. == 1. The supposed link is unclear == P1. If there is a clear link between violent video games and violence, pro meets his burden of proof. P2. There is no clear link between violent video games and violence. C. Pro does not meet his burden of proof. Justification for Premise 2: While there are some studies which supposedly demonstrate a link between violence and violent video games, some recent studies suggest that this is not the case: real life environments are different than experimental environments in terms of how they influence people. Research has shown that sometimes violent media correlates with more violence; however, during other time periods, the influence inverts. This shows that the relation between the two is most likely correlation, and not causation. (http://www.sciencedaily.com...) == 2. Violence has been going down, despite the rising popularity of video games == P1. If video games cause violence, then increased popularity of violent video games would increase violence. P2. Violence is decreasing, yet the popularity of violent video games is increasing. C. Video games do not cause violence. Justification for premise 2: despite the fact that the popularity of video games increased between 1990 and 2010, the crime rates actually dropped. (https://commons.wikimedia.org...)(http://www.bjs.gov...) This shows that there is a lack of correlation between the popularity of violent video games and crime rates. By the way, for my case to work, the popularity of video games should have increased over the past years; this is indeed demonstrated by the fact that the video game industry grows by around 16.7% annually. (http://www.forbes.com...)
Resolved: Violent video games cause increased aggressive behavior

Hello. I would like to note, before I begin, I love gaming. I am an addict. But I am aware of the deleterious effects which it gives me, and would like to discuss the issue. == Definitions == Violent video games: Using a definition similar to California law, a violent video game is "a video game in which the range of options available to a player includes killing, maiming, dismembering, or sexually assaulting an image of a human being". (http://www.rwjf.org...) Aggressive behavior: Behavior which causes physical or emotional harm to others. It ranges from verbal abuse to physical abuse, and destruction of another's property. == Structure ==In R1, CON can either state his case or merely accept. If he argues in R1, last round will be left blank ("no round as agreed upon") by con. If he/she accepts in R1, R2 will be case--no rebuttals, and R3 and R4 will be rebuttals and defense. == Rules == If you wish to put sources in an outside link (integrate it at the end of your argument) you can do so. Putting it on a link is easier than putting it in the comments if the voters want to check and see what we're citing. Also no semantics. No trolling. This debate is pretty straightforward. Yeah that is it. Have fun. Yay...
Resolved: Violent video games cause increased aggressive behavior

Extend arguments, anecdotal evidence. Vote PRO. haha To counter his anecdote, I will cite myself. When I play violent video games, I tend to become more aggressive for short periods of time after I am done playing. Although it wears off over time, being interrupted, forced to get off, or someone trying to be nice to me can make be a bipolar crazy loon for about 30 minutes after extended play. Only slower paced games--which, luckily, I play the most of--prevent this from occurring.