BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Viruses are Living organisms

Thank you, and good luck to as well. So my opening argument is a basic Biology class- All living organisms must undergo all the life procceses! (movement, reproduction, stimulous-response/sensitivity, nutrition, excretion, respiration and growth)So let's go down the list-Movement- A virus cannot move itselfReproduction- It cannot reproduce by its own means, only by taking over host cells (which does not count!)Stimulous-response/sensitivity- Cannot respond to environmentNutrition- It does not obtain or use energyExcretion- Does not produce wastesRespiration- Does not undergo respirationGrowth- Does not grow or developSources- http://www.oum.ox.ac.uk......http://www.cliffsnotes.com......;
Sarah Palin is more loyal to conservative values than Mitt Romney.

Could you please tell me how that was disrespectful? Your last rebuttal was a waste of an argument because it was simply your opinion or speaking out for simply people YOU know. You do not share your opinion. You share your opinions on, you know, the OPINIONS section. Or maybe the forums. Sure, you may have had friends who were unhappy about "having" to vote for Romney, but that doesn't compare so well for reasoning of the conservatives in the full COUNTRY.
Sarah Palin is more loyal to conservative values than Mitt Romney.

I must say that was a waste of an argument. And actually, Mitt and Paul got more electoral votes than John and Sarah did. Romney/Ryan got 206 electoral votes and 60,933,500 popular votes. McCain/Palin got 173 electoral votes and 59,948,323 popular votes. So, with a 33 point difference in electoral votes, and a 985,177 difference in popular votes, I think it's safe to say that people felt safer voting for Romney than they did for McCain and Palin.
Sarah Palin is more loyal to conservative values than Mitt Romney.

The stance on abortion amongst conservatives (republicans) as according to: http://www.diffen.com... is that most Republicans are against abortion but some may disagree and be pro for that. So, even if one is pro-choice, they can still lean more conservatively. Also, you bring up Romney being pro-choice as governor. Mitt Romney quit being a governor back in 2007. Thus, it has been six years since he was a governor. http://en.wikipedia.org.... Six years is a long time, and during that time, people can change their political beliefs, and Mitt Romney has. From http://en.wikipedia.org..., Mitt Romney told the Boston Globe, "I am pro-life. I believe that abortion is the wrong choice except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother. I wish the people of America agreed, and that the laws of our nation could reflect that view. But while the nation remains so divided over abortion, I believe that the states, through the democratic process, should determine their own abortion laws and not have them dictated by judicial mandate." This is the same view on abortion as most conservatives. Conservatives support and promote free trade, and Mitt Romney has said, "I love free trade". Conservatives want to move welfare recipients off the welfare rolls, and Romney has agreed with that and still does. From a previously mentioned source, Mitt Romney wants welfare recipients to move more towards work. About Romneycare and Obamacare, neither of them inspired the other. It was just a political coincidence, or a party agreement.
Sarah Palin is more loyal to conservative values than Mitt Romney.

http://www.ontheissues.org... From a first glance, Sarah Palin seems much stricter on abortion and emergency contraception than Mitt Romney, making her more conservative in that respect. Let's see, Mitt Romney: Personally against abortion, but pro-choice as governor. (Mar 2002). Free trade: http://www.ontheissues.org..., welfare and poverty: http://www.ontheissues.org..., and let's not forget that Romneycare inspired Obamacare. Sarah Palin would not go for that.
The war on libya was no means of protcting civilians!

Well if you believe the bbc you will believe anything! My point is that why didnt they intervene in Tunisia or Egypt? Because they are run by supporters of the Weteren world. Gaddaffi was very much against it. He mensioned in his green book " True democracy exists only through the direct participation of the people." Which is totally correct. Did we, the people of the brutal and wealth seeking nations, choose to go into libya? NO! People agreed with the rebels because they were portrayed as good, law abiding, peaceful protesters even though they had guns from the start! You say Rebels were been executed, what are the rebels doing now? Even big news co-oprations who supported the rebels are having to say they are torturing and executing Gaddaffi supporters and Gaddafi rebels which is true! The things that they dont tell you is that rebels were torturing kids and women fighting for gaddaffi and the regime by whipping and sticking poles up their back-sides! there is graphic content on the internet showing this but it would not be appropriate to show and it is to horrific for the human eye to see. Here is an article published by RT (Russia Today) who were very good in the sense that they did not take sides. http://rt.com... You aid that there was no evidence explaining that al-quida were representing rebels, well there was a fine video showing that which I will put up again so you can double check it. http://youtu.be... TAKE A LOOK AT THIS!! MICHEAL PARENTI HAS GOT IT SPOT ON! http://www.youtube.com... There is clear evidence on hear that Colonal Gaddaffi had the majority of support in libya! 2 million (1/3 of the nation) rallied in his support clearly showing there fight against the imperialist nations and there little rats! Ths is raw footage of the event! http://www.youtube.com... Ethnic clensing is happenng right now in libya! When these little rebel protests were happening i though there wasnt any black people around! This is because the rebels are racists, abit like there team mates NATO! http://www.youtube.com... There is also evidence that western agents stired up and worked extreamly closely with the rebels! http://www.youtube.com... As Gill Scott Herron said, the revolution will not be televised! The Libyan rebels were not revolutionaries, they were paid rats by the imperialists! The real reason why NATO went into libya was for the wealth and oil libya gained under Gaddafi's regime which gaddaffi gave to his people!
The war on libya was no means of protcting civilians!

Libyan Conflict! As a person living in a nation which has strong imput in the war organistation called NATO, an organisation that was set up to put an end to the USSR, i realised the lies they were producing. There is lots of reliable evidence on libya sos wesite, which i think maybe a little bit inapropriate,such as videos, journals and diagrams of the lies produced by nato nations. Also another peice of evidence is an article published by the communist party of Great britain, marxist lennenist. HERES THE LINK! http://www.cpgb-ml.org... On the night of the attack, NATO fired 112 tmohawk missiles from ships and submarines which killed 64 people and leaving hundreds injured on the first deadly night! In August 2011, a statisitc was produced showing the mass and brutal killings of civillians, the ones NATO were protecting from the so called 'dictator' colonal Gaddaffi! It was that 6,121 civilians were killed by NATO air strikes in the first 100 days. 141 of which were children and 260 were women. The rebals are mainly made up of Islamic extremist linking to Al quida, the same oganisation whch NATO are meant to be fighting terror on. This sums up the ridicualaty of wars today, commited by the brutal NATO and its nations! Heres a link to a video produced on youtube showing al-quida flags swiftly flying over one of Libyans court houses. http://youtu.be.... This debate is very important and your votes will give a great understanding of what people believe and think today, a year on after the first invasion,and if this differs from any other reports produced on the BBC or other news cooperations who took an immidiate stance supporting the brutal, dis-honest and crimial war on a succesful country called Libya!
Is the intelligents of scientist found to be valid information on the facts on the real world

The way I have understood this debate, the Pro is arguing that scientific avidence should always be assumed to be fact, while the Con argues that scientificly-derived conclusions can be incorrect.Point 1: The difinition of the scientific methodA true scientist never thinks of anything to be 100% fact. Even the thought of the world existing is not nesseccarily true. It is in fact a concievable idea that nothing "exists" (Sources 1 & 2).Basically, the scientific method is to always question and never to assume. Thinking that such a thing as "absolute fact" exists is beyond foolish in the eyes of science.Point 2: It is not possible for scientists to "know everything"Scientists, as far as we know, are all humans. Humans are inherently limmited creatures. It is impossible for any person or group of people to have an infitine knowledge capable of "knowing everything". In order for anyone, not even just scientists, to know everything, they would have to ascend to the level of an omniscient god. Such an occurance is just too unlikely.Point 3: Science is made by humansHumans are imperfect and make mistakes. Scientists are no exception. Although scientists strive to continuosly uncover truths and discover new things, they are not always correct and may come to false conclusions even for reasons of accidentally innacurate measurements. This is why they constantly check each other's work and try to reproduce experiments as much as possible before determining it to be right. And even after all this checking, some scientific theories have been proven wrong at a much later date due to advances in technology.For these reasons, vote CONSources:1: http://www.telegraph.co.uk...2: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk...
Cannabis Legalization

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au... These are but a few of the harms attributed to the use of marijuana I have listed. I am confused when Pro argues that Con has failed to demonstrate why marijuana is a potentially harmful substance. Con will not restate the harms already mentioned and argued extensively in previous rounds as this would be repetitive At no point did Con acknowledge that there Is no evidence of a causal link. Con merely stated that "although the use of marijuana is not explicitly mentioned as a causative factor" The operative word being explicitly, Pro has misquoted Con's argument. The statistics provided aide in Con's argument "Other factors"- "ignorant and wasteful"- Pro throws big words, which other factors is Con referring to. HIV does not it itself kill people, no one dies from HIV, people die from diseases associated with HIV , diseases which come as a result of one having HIV, the point is when something tends to be associated with negativity reason tells us to assume that that "something" is infact the source How many allergic reactions have you heard of that result in psychosis? don't mistaken side effect with allergic reaction f) Everything is subjective, which is why even our evidences contradict, does that mean we should disregard them? The alcohol example sufficiently answers your question. We should be more conservative in our approach in such matters and take a more preventive role, especially where no clear evidence points towards the direction that regulation would actually work 2a) A court of law epitomizes justice, only credible expert evidence especially in such complex matters is permitted as it is closer to the truth. In this day and age anyone can write a blog without any expert knowledge, it is important therefore to note the writers credibility before considering the source to be valid and credible "The government and other anti-weed groups have prevented the truth" Now that sounds like a fallacy, a conspiracy based fallacy, suddenly everyone who is against the legalization of marijuana is "hiding the truth" very strong statements. It is beginning to sound more like an emotional argument, which is something we should not be doing (arguing with our emotions) Someone smoking marijuana after a long day's work isn't likely to be arrested in the first place, At most it would be a fine and be considered a misdemeanor, I fail to see how this aides Pro's argument "Con fails to connect marijuana to crime" Marijuana is a drug and is included along with all other illegal drugs in the studies, Furthermore marijuana is the most commonly used drug is it not logical to assume that a spike in crime can be attributed to the use of the most commonly used drug where research shows that drug use= higher crime rates? Pro fails to point why the gambling argument is invalid and merely seeks to impute his opinion. "what evidence do you have that taxes would be raised"? the source provided is sufficient enough to deal with that question
Vegetarianism is better than omnivores

Listen here. Obviously, you are a cow, and obviously, you wouldn't care if I kicked you, You have no emotion. Any living person besides you would state that eating both plants and animals is better than eating just plants. Giraffes eat just plants. Do you want to be a giraffe? Obviously not. We are debating solely the food choices themselves, we are not debating where the food came from. Because meat is a necessary thing in the food pyramid, it is needed to function in a society. Also, here is my source for the previous information: Source: http://www.downloadbible.us...
Vegetarianism is better than omnivores

You have good points, but when you see a dog, it can tell you basically how it is feeling. Don't you think cows and chickens have the same level of emotion? If you kick a cow, it's not just going to sit there and let you kick it some more. It's going to either get angry or scared. Those are feelings in my opinion. By the way, I'm catholic and I've heard all of that bible stuff. I am pretty sure that is not sourced very well, nor is it directly stated in the bible.
Vegetarianism is better than omnivores

Do you even Jesus? Obviously God put animals on the Earth for human consumption. It's the the Bible. Based on this knowledge, it is contended that we as humans are intended to eat animals, as well as plants. Your argument about animals having feelings is also a fallacy. If animals have feelings, then so do plants. Again to this, do animals like worms go to Heaven? Then how do animals like worms have souls! GOML. GET. ON. MY. LEVEL.
Vegetarianism is better than omnivores

Hello to whoever is reading this. I apologize if I am offending any omnivores. Also, please do not accept this debate if you don't know what an omnivore is. I think vegetarians are better than omnivores because animals do have feelings. They have souls, thoughts, and emotions. Would you like it if you were raised for the sake of feeding someone? That certainly isn't nature, to be cramped into a tiny space and killed for human consumption.
Movie critics are usually biased

hey there, this is quite an interesting topic, if we are to look at your examples, looking at rotten tomatoes as the source: https://www.rottentomatoes.com... 92% https://www.rottentomatoes.com... 89% https://www.rottentomatoes.com... 75% https://www.rottentomatoes.com... 90% so yes, while they all have review scores that are fairly grouped together, it can be argued that what your saying is your opinion. That you believe that those movies are on far different levels to each other for one reason or another. But when it comes down to it, thats what it is, your opinion, as a "critic" that these movies are not that great for one reason or another. Its basically you dis-agreeing with the other critics, and proceeding to call them out for being biased based on nothing but your opinion on those movies.
Absolute Truth Exists

On Subjectivity: Con makes the assertion that reality is reality, but reality is not truth. If humans disappeared from the earth tomorrow, truth would not disappear with them. For example, humans disappearing would be a truth. Even though there would be no humans around to appreciate the nature of this truth, the truth would be that it happened. It happened in reality (being a theoretical analogy, notwithstanding), therefore it is also a truth that it happened. I really don’t see much of a distinction between truth and reality. Truth is defined as “conformity with truth or reality. ” [1] Reality is defined as “the state or quality of being real. ” [2] Truth and reality go hand-in-hand. Whether we can label truth the same way or not, and whether anyone is actually around to appreciate it, what happens in reality doesn’t change, and neither does the state of it being true. Con argues that “since truths can only be born of language, and language is essentially nothing but labels, Pro can only claim objective truth if there is such a thing as objective labeling. ” I do not believe objective labeling is essential to objective truth. If a star goes supernova, whether there is anyone around to witness the star going supernova, or whether we can agree on what to call the “star” or the process of going “supernova,” the reality (the truth) is that a huge ball of gas has just exploded. The star didn’t explode because we said the star went supernova, it exploded whether anyone cared or not that it happened. Language is what we use to understand truth, and even label it, but reality is not subject to language. The reverse is true. Language is subject to reality. On Fallibilism: I do concede that I misunderstood Con’s math example, and I thank him for making it clearer. I would still argue that even though there may be some “outrageously unlikely far-fetched possibility,” context is key here. For example, in situations where the outcome matters, 2+2 would always equal four. For example, if using math in order to prove a scientific hypothesis or some other matter of important, 2+2 would always equal four, and universal math conventions would be used. It would be important that the findings are clear and that every member of their particular field would be able to understand it. -Conclusion- Language is a powerful tool. It helps us understand the universe, the reality, around us. But it does not create or manipulate truth, for truth exists regardless of what we call them or whether we can appreciate them or not. Reality is the state of things being real, and truth is anything that exists in reality that cannot be wrong. I freely admit that humans are prone to making errors, but even if we could never know truth for ourselves, truth would still exist. And if we didn’t believe it did, there would be no reason to continue seeking it through religion, philosophy, and science. Again, I would like to thank Con for accepting my challenge and providing a rigorous debate. [1] . http://dictionary.reference.com...[2] . http://dictionary.reference.com...
Absolute Truth Exists

I would like to open a debate to anyone who wishes to accept. I will make my argument here so we can get right underway. My argument for the existence of absolute truth is really three-fold. Argument one: The statement "there is no truth" is a self-defeating statement. In order for it to be true, it must be false. Therefore, there must be truth. And to add an addendum to it that the only truth is, in fact, that there is no truth is a cop-out. First of all, if the "only" truth is that there is no truth, then who's to say there aren't other truths? If you can have one truth, then there must be others. Secondly, if you're going to use a definitive statement that there is no truth, there must be true reasons to back that up. You must have arguments to support your premise. If these statements are also false (as the premise, itself, states), then the original statement must be incorrect. Argument two: There are definite absolute truths that we can observe. Everyone dies, it's just a natural process of living beings. Everyone requires food, water, and oxygen to live. There's no getting around it. There are absolute truths that occur in front of our very eyes. Argument three: There are subjective truths, and objective truths. A subjective statement is one in which there can be many truths. For example, if I say mint chocolate chip is the best ice cream, that's a subjective statement. It's only the best because it's my favorite flavor. Someone else may enjoy a different brand of ice cream, so to them another flavor may be the best. An objective statement is one that is true regardless of who believes it. Water is made up of two hydrogen molecules and one oxygen molecule. If I walk up to you and say, water is not H2O, water is actually C2HOAU, you're going to look at me as if I'm a crazy person. Water is H2O regardless of who believes it. This is an objective truth. It will not change, no matter who believes it. -Conclusion- While "there is no truth" seems to be a fairly common belief, under close scrutiny I don't believe it can be proven correct. I look forward to my opponent's response.
Fake rape case is a lethal weapon for women

Well, I believe that we both are agreeing to the same thing. I can sum up the argument that false rape accusations can be a lethal weapon in the less developed and fairly developing countries since these countries mainly rely on opinion of people and not facts, are less educated and technically backwards but "CERTAINLY NOT" in developed countries. Though we have cases in U.S.A. also about people who have been wrongly sentenced to prison for committing rape but these numbers are low and generally, if a man is innocent in such allegations. he is definitely not punished( proved innocent), due to technology , educated and skilled jury. So, Fake rape accusation "IS A" lethal weapon for women in less and fairly developed countries and, Fake rape accusation "IS DEFINITELY NOT" a lethal weapon for women in the developed countries. But do you agree(according to my data above) that laws in India should be gender neutral and not female centered, because everyone should have the basic right to live a safe life protected by law and not just women should have access to this right but men also? And we should be a feminist but definitely not modern day feminist which is not feminism but feminazism .
Fake rape case is a lethal weapon for women

Counter-Arguments: "Women are not at all being punished for these fake rape accusations, is the thing to which i am against. I again say that they should be severely punished as much as the particular man has suffered in every case" Women should be punished equally on that matter, however again Fake rape allegations CAN be a lethal weapon for women, like how any trial can be. You entirely ignore the fact I laid out that in MDCs and NDCs fake rape allegations are very few. "But for now, since it is not punishable, these women are not afraid of the law" I hate to stress my point further, but women will be more afraid of the law in more developed countries where there are greater penalties for false rape allegations. "Since you said the biased rules are necessary for protection of women, I say then why not make gender neutral laws" Never did I say these "Biased rules" were necessary for the protection of women, I only said that society will form itself based on what the people make of it, these "Biased Rules" were created to discourage men from raping women, sexual harassment, stalking, etc. Arguments: Like I've said before, these biased rules are made to fit the paths society is taking. If a country faces inflation, effort will be put forth to stop inflation, if a country faces massive crime, effort will be put forth to stop inflation, so on and so forth. False rape allegations are much more "Lethal" and likely to succeed in countries that have recently developed or less developed, you continuously ignore this. False rape allegations CAN be a lethal weapon for women.