BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
We should abolish the death penalty in the US

I believe that even though people say that nobody has the right to kill someone else, that there has to be personal justice and peace of mind. There is an extent on how someone can receiving capital punishment though, and the worst the crime, the better chances are that that specific person should be put to death. I just believe a personal peace of mind, and how that could lead to justice in some form to the person that that human has corrupted. This depends on seriousness of the crime that person has committed. If a person lied and was put to jail, this is not that serious. So, he would not deserve the death penalty. The death penalty should only be for serial murderers and people who commit very serious crimes.
should kids be able to twerk in school

First of all saying deal with it doesn't mean any thing. If I said fighting at school is allowed and told the kids who get beat up to deal with it, but that obviously doesn't justify the fighting. if you really think the "Deal with it" argument holds any weight then I could just tell you to deal with a twerking band and it would hold the same credibility. There are lots of ways to express your self that are justify banned from school. You can show up to school naked as a way to express your personality as a nudist but that's not allowed for obvious reasons. twerking has no positive affect on anyone's school life, it only brings a negative influence. twerking is commonly seen as a sexual act. which could possibly provoke people to make inappropriate sexual advances. some would even consider twerking as a inappropriate sexual advance. There's no reason hat you shouldn't be able to resist twerking at school so there's no reason to feel obligated to. whether or not your arrested for twerking has nothing to do with debate. A school band dose not mean that act is legally outlawed.
Beer, in moderation, is healthier for you than milk.

It seems my opponent has not read my arguement. In R1 I clearly laid out my full resolution: "For the average, healthy person, beer, in moderation, is healthier for you than milk. Of course it there are exceptions. Pregnant women should obviously not drink any alcohol, nor should diabetics or people taking prescription medicine. People also driving or working machinery shouldn't drink as well. " I would have liked to fit this resolution into the field given when starting a debate, but space was limited, so I resorted to fully explaining my resolution in R1. In my resolution I stated that beer was beneficial to an "average, healthy person. " Average is defined as "typical; common; ordinary" (. http://dictionary.reference.com...). Since the ordinary person is not allergic to beer, Kleptin, then you are not the "average person" that I was referring to. Also the word "you" can be defined as "one; anyone; people in general" (. http://dictionary.reference.com...). Earlier I specified "you" to be the average person, the general public, which would exclude my opponent. I assume that my opponent accepts the definition of milk to be: "liquid as secreted by cows, goats, or certain other animals and used by humans for food or as a source of butter, cheeses, yogurt, etc" because in R1 he says "I am perfectly fine with milk, and do not have lactose intolerance. " Cow and goat's milk have lactose in them, which leads me to believe he agrees with this term. Dairy milk also contains casein, which breaks down into beta-Casomorphine-7, an opiate. Other examples of opiates are morphine, codeine and fentanyl. Opioid is defined as a "drug, hormone, or other chemical substance having sedative or narcotic effects similar to those containing opium or its derivatives" (. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...). Some reactions that people have to opiates are: nausea and vomiting, drowsiness, itching, dry mouth, and constipation (Oxford Textbook of Palliative Medicine, 3rd ed. ). There has also been studies showing that casein can aggravate, if not cause autism. It has also been linked to cancer, schizophrenia, heart disease and diabetes. Since casein is a drug, it is addictive (especially cheese, because of the high concentration of it) and can even affect a person's personality, causing depression and overeating (. http://danmahony.com...). Beer however, has a positive effect on blood vessels, decreasing the risk of clotting or rupturing. People who drink beer in moderation also have less of a risk of dementia and can even increase cognitive functions (. http://www.forbes.com...). It can also increase metabolism, lower calories and reduce stress (. http://www.menshealth.com...). Kleptin, sorry to hear about your unfortunate condition, but in my resolution, you are classified as an exception. I said in R1 that, for the average person, beer is healthier than milk and you have yet to prove otherwise.
Beer, in moderation, is healthier for you than milk.

The resolution for this debate is "Beer, in moderation, is healthier for you than milk". Thus, my opponent's burden is to prove that Beer, in moderation, is healthier for me than milk is. I personally, am highly allergic to alcohol and cannot break it down. It gives me gastro-intestinal upset and at one point, hideous diarrhea. However, I am perfectly fine with milk, and do not have lactose intolerance. Beer is, by definition, "an alcoholic beverage made by brewing and fermentation from cereals, usually malted barley, and flavored with hops and the like for a slightly bitter taste. " . http://dictionary.reference.com... The presence of alcohol in anything I consume will have great negative impact on my health and thus, I must assert that Beer, in any amount, is less healthy for me than milk. I look forward to my opponent's response. Thank you.
Beer, in moderation, is healthier for you than milk.

I thank whoever accepts this debate. *Note: I would like to say that I am not encouraging excessive use of alcohol. It is important to recognize that beer can also have a significant impact on your health if abused. I will clarify that "moderation" is one or two drinks a day, and half that for women (because of their ability to break down alcohol), not consumed one directly after the other (. http://www.allaboutbeer.com...). Resolution: For the average, healthy person, beer, in moderation, is healthier for you than milk. Of course it there are exceptions. Pregnant women should obviously not drink any alcohol, nor should diabetics or people taking prescription medicine. People also driving or working machinery shouldn't drink as well. I will start by attempting to reproduce a nutritional table showing beer and milk: United States Department of Agriculture Nutritional Data for Milk and Beer ------------------------| MILK (I cup, 2% milk)----- | BEER (1 cup) ----------- Fat (g) ----------------|------------ 5---------------- | --------- 0 ---------------- Fiber (g) --------------| ----------- 0 ---------------- | --------- .5 -------------- Sodium (mg) -------- | ---------- 122 -------------- | ---------- 12 ------------ Cholesterol (mg) ---- | ---------- 20 --------------- | ----------- 0 ------------- Calories -------------- | ---------- 122 -------------- | ---------- 97 ------------ Calories from fat (%)-| ---------- 37 --------------- | ----------- 0 ------------- I don't think this posted properly so here's the link as well. (. http://www.milksucks.com...) Beer has no fat or cholesterol but does contain less calories and ten times less sodium than milk. Milk is found to actually cause osteoporosis because dairy products have high levels protein. When protein levels in the body are doubled, but no other nutrient levels are changed, the levels of calcium in the urine increase by about fifty percent (Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 1993). Milk is also loaded with pesticides and antibiotics, because cows are producing ten times the amount of milk they would normally produce, their udders get swollen and drag on the ground. Pus and blood have been foound in milk as a result. Antibiotics are used to treat the inflammation and trace amounts have been found in milk, pesticides are also found in the dairy product. These chemicals can build up and negatively effect the immune system, reproductive system and central nervous system. These pesticides have been linked to cancer as well (. http://www.pcrm.org...). In the book Eat, Drink, and Be Healthy: The Harvard Medical School's Guide to Healthy Eating, consuming alcohol in moderate levels "protects against heart disease and ischemic strokes, and mounting evidence [shows] that it protects against diabetes and gallstones" (Eat, Drink, and Be Healthy: The Harvard Medical School's Guide to Healthy Eating, 2001). Alcohol reduces the risk of strokes and heart attacks and increases brain function as well. (. http://www.allaboutbeer.com...) Also, if you have time, read this : . http://www.guardian.co.uk... OK, that's all for now.
Evolution is the best and only explanation for the diversity of life we see on our planet today.

Given the three day period to post an argument, and pro having logged in one day ago [11]; this debate is likely over.Extend all arguments.Final New Arguments:As an extension/alternative of my "Human Beings Killed Off Too Many Other Species" theory, I propose Chuck Norris.Chuck Norris may not at first seem like an explanation for the variety of life we see today, but he is a simple explanation for it; as "If you want a list of Chuck Norris’ enemies, just check the extinct species list" [12]. We have skeletons from so many dead species, and Chuck Norris killed them all is certainly one answer.Can evolution even explain Chuck Norris' roundhouse kick? Heck the history channel claims all but claims aliens did it [too stupid to cite]. There's plenty of explanations, even if some are lacking (I believe in previous rounds I proved all to be lacking, in one way or another).Sources:[11] http://www.debate.org...[12] http://www.thechucknorrisfacts.com...
Evolution is the best and only explanation for the diversity of life we see on our planet today.

And the answer is... Human Beings Killed Off Too Many Other Species:The resolution deals not with how life originated, but merely "Evolution is the best and only explanation for the diversity of life we see on our planet today."Fossil records clearly reveal that there used to be a greater number of species, there's currently fear that we're driving things toward a sixth great extinction event "...naturalists now think that extinction rates are at least 100 times greater than the natural 'background' rate because of pollution, habitat destruction, hunting, agriculture, global warming and population growth" [1]. Evolution does not explain this:According to the theory of evolution, what life was once singular, slowly became more. Thus why every species of mammal has the same bones; even whales and dolphins have hips.Creatures evolving would actually expand the number of species on the planet. Yet the WWF estimates run somewhere between 2,000 and 10,000 species are wiped out every year [2].The problem is so vast, that there's at least one movement in favor of voluntary human extinction to save the planet [3]!The United Nations supports this: "Almost a quarter of the world's mammals face extinction within 30 years, according to a United Nations report on the state of the global environment" [4]. The dinosaurs:We all agree they existed, yet evolution does not adequately explain them dying out. It's almost as if something fell from the sky; thus from outside their evolution, to kill them. Had they continued uninterrupted, the diversity of life today would be different than what we see. Sources:[1] http://www.theguardian.com... [2] http://wwf.panda.org...[3] http://www.vhemt.org...[4] http://news.bbc.co.uk...
Evolution is the best and only explanation for the diversity of life we see on our planet today.

Evolution is the best and only explanation for the diversity of life we see on our planet today. Creationism and ID don't qualify as explanations because they don't offer any explanatory or predictive capability and are unfalsifiable. They are instead solely concerned with trying to poke holes in evolution mostly by criticizing old outdated science i.e. instead of examining the current evidence for evolution they try to poke holes in Darwins 150 year old first formulation. I predict that anyone who takes me up on this debate will not offer any alternate thorough explanation for the diversity and development of life on this planet thus proving my point.
Democracy is the Most Successful, Yet Still a Failure

Pro says,"Which is better? An F- or an F+? "but then later pro goes on to say, "I rest my case on that issue. "But. .. the pro never gave an answer? Voters, look deep down into your hearts! Can you stand for this? The pro has been posting many debates in a row, and he can not even answer a simple question? What kind of madness is this? Pro, how do you plea? Your Honor, I would like to say one thing, there is no beetle juice in this bag of cabbage, rather there is INJUSTICE! I ask that you the people look in your hearts to understand who the REAL criminal is! I suggest that you point to the pro! DEmOcrACY! !! !!
Democracy is the Most Successful, Yet Still a Failure

Hello, I will be debating "The Pro" on "Democracy is the Most Successful, Yet Still a Failure"I'm actually honored. Where does a bird stand on ground that the ground is orange?"I'm curious" I said" I said.So meta.What is democracy? ...I don't know!"'I rather look at it through the postmodern aspects of things', I thought curiously to myself", I thought.I say to myself, "Then, I started to write:'Firstly I would like to point out that "Democracy is the Most Successful, Yet Still a Failure" is a completely contradictory statement and therefore not true.'"Failure:1. an act or instance of failing or proving unsuccessful; lack of success: His effort ended in failure. The campaign was a failure. http://dictionary.reference.com...;Democracy therefore can not be at the greatest degree successful and at the same time a failure."The Yuiru: That is, until the pro proves otherwise", is what I typed on my computer after the incident."For every educated logical person there are a boatload of dim religious wastes.How is a democracy perfect?"I would like the pro to please cite a source that for every single logical person, there is literally a BOATLOAD of dim religious wastes. I would also like to inform the pro that he should not ask me "how" democracy is perfect, but rather "why" it is. Butts, I rest my case.
The Problem of Evil Does Not Disprove God

Now I will present mine. IntroductionEssentially, my opponet argues that evil in the world is compatible with the existence of a morally perfect and omnipotent God, because of human free will. And while it may be true that human beings do evil things with their free will, it's still preferably to have creatures that are able to choose freely, than creatures who are not able to choose freely. However, as I hope to show later, this does not get us around the problem of evil. Animal SufferingFor billions of years animals have been reproducing and dying through the process of natural selection. In their effort to survive, many animals suffered and died due to the existence of carnivores, disease, heat exhaustion, freezing temperatures, starvation, serious injuries, birth defects, deformities, and so on. None of this suffering was the cause of human free will, but rather just the way nature is set up. Natural DisastersThings like hurricanes, tsunamis, earthquakes, droughts, volcanoes, mudslides, and avalanches are all phenomenon that cause human and nonhuman suffering, but is again not caused by human free will. Child Suffering Children all over the world suffer from serious illnesses such as cancer, polio, smallpox, malaria and a variety of other diseases. Moreover, there are also children in poor countries that will suffer and die from starvation and dehydration. Again, this is suffering not caused by human free will. Human Free Will Can Exist Without EvilThe problem with my opponent's free will defense is that it thinks in order for there to be free will, there must also be evil. But this is false, because God could have given us both free will and moral perfection, thus resulting in us choosing the good in every situation. [1]. Conclusion Human free will doesn't get us around the problem of evil, since there are evils that are not caused by free will. Furthermore, God could have given human beings free will and made them morally perfect beings, that way they never did evil. Source:The Miracle of Theism by John Mackie: Chapter 9.
The Problem of Evil Does Not Disprove God

As my opponent only presented one argument, and only one premise of that argument is flimsy, it is all that I will attack.Premise 1:"If a being is perfectly good, he prevents evil as much as he is able."This premise is false, because a perfectly good being is not allowed to violate a person's free will. It is not good to force someone to do something, because at that point, only the omnipotent being is making any choices, and all of the other beings would just be puppets. This would be wrong. A perfectly good being cannot control another; that prevents people from making their own decisions.Because people are making their own decisions, bad things will happen. But a world with free will is better than a world with only puppets, and one puppet master.The argument of free will completley refutes the logical problem of evil, and if my opponent wishes to win this debate at all, he would use arguments for the evidential problem of evil, but he is free to do as he chooses, because it is better that way :)
The Problem of Evil Does Not Disprove God

Resolution: The evidential problem of evil does not disprove the concept of an all-loving, all-powerful, and all-knowing God. Shared burden of proof. Make your thesis and support it with well-crafted arguments. Round 1: Acceptance Round 2: Thesis and supporting arguments. Round 3: Rebuttals. Round 4: Rebuttals and closing arguments. I'm looking for an ardent atheist that justifies their atheism because of this problem. I'm looking for an intellectual debate with long and thought out arguments. I look forward to an engaging and thought-provoking discussion. Cheers!
Evolution is better than creationism

Biological evolution is the best model we have to explain how life became diverse. It is not a religion. If you think it is, stop listening to Hovind or Comfort or Ham. A theory is the greatest point to be used in science, and is on the level of gravity, electromagnetism, and everything in science that is universally accepted. Creationism on the other hand is a position taken by religious fundamentalists who have blind faith in what they believe is the word of god. It is not even a theory. It is a mere hypothesis. Creation "scientists" do not use the scientific method to confirm their religious dogma, but will constantly try as hard as they can to find holes in the theory of evolution and/or most contemporary science by looking at the concepts with a confirmational bias and the holes only exist when looked at with scientific ignorance.
Atheism is irrational

Positive atheism cannot be rationalised. There is no such thing as "atheism by default", and "atheist agnostic", is an embarrassing effort to cling to what amounts to no more than intellectual 'go faster' stripes. I am for the motion.Round 1 is acceptence. Round 4 is final rebuttal and summary.Any forfeiting will be automatic lossI welcome my opponent...
A complete gun ban in the US

RebuttalThis part of the rebuttals will address the instigator's counterarguments 2 and 3. The instigator states that people will resort to black markets. I would like to point out that I have already stated that through higher security, and the death penalty for gun homicide, and selling guns that can be made so that it is hard or even impossible to obtain the firearms. "criminals will still have the guns after the bans and the citizens wont"This can easily be prevented through a monthly check on citizens by local authorities, starting immediately after the law is passed. I will now address the magazine limit regulation suggestion by the instigator. The instigator pointed out the black market effect previously. I would like to point out with magazine limit regulations, through the black market people can also acquired high capacity magazines. What is to stop the black market from selling high capacity magazines. I would like that point out that while the instigator said that crimes drastically increased immediately after the ban, that was not case, I have looked over the webpage the instigator provide, and would like to show this:[i]n 1991 there were 629 firearm related deaths in Australia compared to 333 in 2001. This represents a 47 per cent decrease in firearms deaths between 1991 and 2001. The incidence of both firearms suicides and firearms homicides almost halved over the 11 year period. While the number of firearms homicides has continued to decline, with 2001 recording the lowest number of firearms homicides during this period. There was a 47 percent decrease at 2001 in firearm deaths according to the website he provided. So from his own source we know that instead of a drastic increase the firearm deaths have drastically decreased.