BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Animals deserve rights in spite of their intelligence compared to humans

Yes, animals are definitely not as smart as we are. They cannot do what we do. However, this does not mean they are not smart enough to live . They have their own way of surviving in this world, just like we have our own ways. If an animal ever commits an evil deed, it does not make them evil. They cannot help being dumb to know any better. And would it really be fun to be the only animals on this planet? No. We cannot all be the same. Animals may not think like us, but they can teach us so much. What have dogs taught us? Or wolves? Or chimpanzees?
The Iraq War was justified

I'd like to begin by thanking my opponent for setting up this very interesting and important debate topic. As per usual I do not believe a "shared burden of proof" makes logical sense, although both myself and my opponent intend to advance positive cases in this debate. Both of my opponent's definition's are good, except that I would like to clarify that while the Iraq War did begin in 2003, it is generally not considered to have ended until 2011 (. http://en.wikipedia.org...). This distinguishes the Iraq War as a whole from just the initial invasion. In a debate of such complexity, I recognize the need to be both mindful of my character counts and the headaches of readers, which is why I intend to advance only a single argument in this debate, which also just so happens to be a particularly strongly held belief of mine: War is never justified The rational behind this point is that even if my opponent's points prove that a response was warranted, it does not prove that war ought to be that response. My case will be that electing to go to war was neither a good nor legitimate response. Note that I do not need to defend that there was a justified alternative (which there was, but that is beyond the scope of this debate) - I merely need to show that war is not a justified option, particularly in this context. In addition to presenting this argument, I intend to refute all four of the arguments my opponent has presented. The rules my opponent has presented are good in the context of the topic.
The Iraq War was justified

DefintionsIraq War--The 2003 invasion of Iraq by the 'Coalition of the Willing'. Justified--Having, done for, or marked by a good or legitimate reasonArgumentsI will be defending the following arguments in this debate in order to prove the Iraq war was justified. The burden of proof is shared. I must prove these arguments to be true, while my opponent must prove they are false, while presenting his own case against the war as well. (1): Saddam Hussein gave support to worldwide terorrist organizations that attacked the United States of America and its allies. Iraq also provided shelter and comfort to terorrists who had attacked the United States before. Furthermore, Iraq had an intent to attack America and American allies too. (2): The Iraq War was nessecary in order to punish the Baathist leaders for their past genocides and war crimes. It was also nessecary to prevent the further deaths of 200,000 to 250,000 Iraqi civilians. The Genocide Convention and the need to prevent another Rwanda justify the legality of the war. (3): Saddam Hussein had to be removed from power because he planned to begin his WMD program after sanctions were lifted. Sadam Hussein still retainted the knowledge to begin a WMD program again, and many of his chemical weapons programs could be started again within two years. Saddam Hussein also had a netowrk of chemical weapons labratories and safehouses that were suitable to restart the chemicakl weapons program. (4): The Iraq War significantly hurt the cause of global terrorism and jihadi.
The Iraq War was justified

My opponent's arguments completely missed the point of my opening statement, asserting strawmen arguments like, 'America must be good', and silly statements like, 'I'm interested in weapons, but people shouldn't invade my country'. He also cites flawed studies such as the Lancet and the OBS to prove Iraqi civlian casulties. The studies themselves say they're flawed. War is never justified? This means that if I can provide one instance where a war is justified, the statement is negated. SO, here is my instance: A dictator has twenty million people hostage. He tells us that if we invade his country with only one soldier, he will not kill them. Therefore, that invasion would obviously be justified, negating Con's assertion.
Gay marriage

So let me get this straight...Gay marriage is a bad idea because other people will attack them? Somehow giving in to the bigots makes this situation better? In the 1950's, interracial marriage was illegal. My fiance is not white, while I am. We do face some situations living in the South that are scary because we're a mixed race couple. Does that mean we shouldn't get married?No. It doesn't.The only way to normalize is to normalize. That means equal rights. Marriage. Having a family. The whole nine yards. I'm a Christian myself, and I fight tooth and nail for LGBT equality in my communities. If people took your approach in the 50's when normalizing mixed race relations, my fiance and I would still be living in the darkness. In time, resistance to this will fade. For now, it's hard. But sometimes fighting for the good is.
Gay marriage

(Side note: My points are actually rebuttals in advance so if you say anything that goes against my points I will have already destroyed them.) My point is based on rights. So despite what most people supporting gay marriage say, the point of a gay person having rights isn't as good as it seems. The fact that gays are already considered an insult to their religion and even their existence cannot be denied as the majority has already demonstrated that by refusing to associate or mix with anyone connected to the gay including the gay himself. If the government gives them more rights the majority will take this as an attack to their religion and they will do the natural thing. Retaliate. There will be more attacks on the streets and the gays will be shamed for a really long time. Maybe forever. The only reason why gays haven't been wiped out from thee face of the earth (that was a joke for the record) is that they have been living in hiding and security and no one has any idea whether they are gay or not. However, marriage is public. The moment you hear that a guy married another guy, bam. He gets attacked. Soon gays will be too scared and once again will go into hiding and the right to marry will soon be useless. You don't need to be a fortune teller to figure out this will happen. So in conclusion, a right requires a platform and this right doesn't have one. Just to clairify my stance, I am not saying I am against gays, I am saying THIS right will do more harm than good to them.
Belief in Christianity is rational

Thanks Pro. I. Preface Due to time limitations/procrastination and Pro's lack of argumentation last round, I will only give a brief on what I will argue. II. Historicity of the Bible I will argue by attacking the historicity of the Bible, especially the New Testement from which most of current Christian tenets are derived. By demonstrating the foundations of these tenets unsound, and most likely false, it will follow that belief in Christianity itself is irrational. Back to Pro for his opening arguments.
Belief in Christianity is rational

In order to correctly interpret Scripture, you must apply the principles of Biblical hermenutics which are as follows (1): 1. Lexical analysis - Steps are taken to discover how words are used and way they are used. The different order of the sentence, punctuation, tenses, language, context, are all key to understanding the Bible 2. Historical/cultural analysis - Studying the surrounding history and culture of the time period. For example, if your studying the Gospels, it's best if you familiarize yourself with Rome, Greek Hellenization, rabbinic Judaism, etc. 3. Contextual analysis - Examining the context of a specific word, phrase, idiom, and so on in it's proper place. 4. Theological analysis - All verses must be taken into consideration on a topic before coming up with sound theology 5. Literary analysis - figuring out whether a book is allegorical, metaphorical, literal, historical, a parable, psalm, so on can help determine the theology Now on to the axioms and beliefs of Christianity: 1. God exists and created the universe 2. God is Father, Son, and Holy Ghost eternally existing 3. Man was created in his image, sinned, but has the free will to be saved 4. We are under a curse of the Law, but freed from the eternal salvation coming through Jesus Christ by his perfect life 5. We receive Jesus Christ on the basis of faith and not of works 6. We mature spiritually through the power of the Holy Spirit Everything else is simply extra, now we won't be delving into the denominations of Christianity as the debate only focuses on the definition of Christianity which i have presented. Sources: 1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Belief in Christianity is rational

Been itching to debate. Terms: Rational - agreeing to reason Belief - conviction of truth through evidence and/or experience The rounds will go as follows: Round 1: Opening argument - i will define the proper methods to correctly interpreting the Bible and listing the logical axioms and beliefs of early Christianity. You will counter-argue that round. Round 2: I will then compare Christianity to other religions and explaining how Christianity is more rational and based on evidence even though the most fundamental principle is on faith. From this round on, we will engage in rebuttals.
On Balance, the British Conquest of Native American Lands was Justified

Thett3 has been wanting to debate me on this, so am happy to say I am challenging her on this topic.This debate encompasses the time period of 1620 and onward of British/American conquest of what is now the mainland United States.DefinitionsOn Balance - All things into consideration; overall.Conquest - Acquirement by force of arms.Lands - Occupied area of ground.Justified - Warranted or well-grounded.Rules1. BOP is on me.2. First round is acceptance only.3. My opponent agrees to all definitions.4. No new arguments in final round.5. No trolling/semantics/kritiks.6. Maintain a civil atmosphere.Looking forward to a great debate.
God created the world 7000 years ago

Okay, I completely get what you're saying in that we are specks on an infinite plain and things can happen in an instant. But you still continue to talk about God like he is the answer to everything and that he exists. Again, give me credible proof that God exists and then maybe, I'll take your argument into consideration. The whole reason that we have a God is because humans had to come up with a way to explain natural occurrences. You talk about how God can do something in an instant and that would be a great argument, if you could prove that God exists. Back then, people had to explain something or why they did something and so they said, hey man, God told me to do that. They used God as an excuse. God can't be proven or disproven but what can definitely be disproven is the notion that God created the world 7000 years ago. There are so many theories that disprove this and you cannot prove it. If you said that, you'd have to tell why we have found dinosaur bones and other ancient creatures that died millions of years ago. We have real proof that people and other animals existed long before you say that God created the world. You also say that we should just put faith in God and not figure things out but how does that make any sense? Why would you put faith into something that you don't know even exists and cease figuring things out? Is it because that you don't want to find anything that'll disprove God? We are here because of evolution. Everything comes from something else. Conservation of mass. We came from primates who came from simpler beings before them. You need to read real scientific articles written by scientists with degrees instead of listening to pastors and priests who read from a book that man wrote with no fact at all. Here are two right here: https://www.scientificamerican.com... http://www.huffingtonpost.com... Unless God comes down from wherever he's at and walks up to me and convinces me otherwise, I will continue to believe what man says and proves.
God created the world 7000 years ago

You cannot use statistics from today to judge the world as it was thousands of years ago. First off, Atheists and agnostics will say everything happened within millions of years. God can do something in an instant. The grand Canyon supposedly took millions of years, but a canyon half the size of the grand canyon was formed in 3 hours by Mt. St. Helen. A river in Tennessee was formed in half an hour after an earthquake. Atheists rely on man's word. Throughout history, Man has believed: Drilling holes in peoples' heads can relive headaches, the Earth was flat, Pluto was a planet, the universe revolved around the earth, and that we all were formed by clay. God's word is strong and shall never be broken. We humans think we are so high and mighty, but we are nothing! We are flecks on the earth, which is a speck to the sun which is a speck to Arcturus which is a speck to Betelgeuse, which is 2,127,774,087,928,000 times bigger than the earth. We are Nothing. WE will solve Nothing. Put your faith in God instead of figuring things out, because there are SO many things smarter and more capable of us.
Adventure Fight 2!

I drill my way out of the dome by going under it, and going up to the land outside of the dome. Because I am filthy rich, I have many bases, so I go to secret base #2. I use the Goldeneye from the James Bond movie of the same name(because there were 2 goldeneyes, and only one was destroyed in the movie), and strike your residency with it, dismantling all of your technological devices, and, depending on where you are, killing you. I then overthrow the United States, and take control of their military. Your move.
Adventure Fight 2!

Oh, but how unfortunately for you, my butler ate the food you bugged, so you've just sent a mercenary force to destroy Tim Curry. My cruise ship remains untouched, unluckily for you. And I'm not married, so my wife couldn't possibly have an affair with James Bond, and especially not marry him, since 007 doesn't believe in marriage. The two guys that you destroyed whom you thought were Jason Bourne and Aaron Cross were actually Will Ferrell and Kanye West (you must need glasses). Seems like it's about time to get that Icarus satellite decommissioned! I rewire an unknown number of terrorist missiles, that were intended for the already destroyed White House, programming them to target the Icarus satellite. While it's occupied, I make a swing over to north Africa, then south Asia, and convince Bane and Ra's al Gul to target you (since, apparently, in this warped and twisted fantasy world in which characters played by Sylvester Stallone can be in multiple places at once, Ra's al Gul doesn't have to be dead either). You now have two separate versions of the League of Shadows, as well as a couple of genetically engineered killing machines hunting you down. Even 007 and Brian from Taken won't be enough to save you. Anyway, as On Her Majesty's Secret Service proves, James Bond is not always the ideal agent. So I can continue my cruise, while you, well, Deshi basara.
Adventure Fight 2!

The White House became a museum after I took office, as the location was too attention-grabbing. I never left Secret Base #2. The public thinks the White House was destroyed by extreme solar flares. I also picked up John Rambo(First Blood, Sylvester Stallone) and Rocky Balboa(Rocky IV, Sylvester Stallone) Shamefully for you, when the CIA and MI6 found your current location, they inserted a bug in your food. You ate the food and the mechanical bug, and now it is permanently attached to the walls of your stomach, as if it is removed from your stomach walls, you will die from internal bleeding. This bug allows me to track your current location, and I now know where your cruise ship is. I use the Icarus Beam to destroy you, your cruise ship, as well as Jason Bourne and Aaron Cross. And if you do survive the Icarus beam, James Bond, Brian, John Rambo, and Rocky Balboa will come and destroy you in all ways. By the way, after your death, it is revealed that your widow was having an affair with James Bond. The wife was happy that you died, and she and Bond got married. And then the widow mysteriously disappears once the new James Bond movie comes out.
Adventure Fight 2!

Ouch for you! I only revealed my past location, the place to which I relocated after infecting myself with a performance-enhancing virus. I healed, and picked up Jason Bourne and Aaron Cross on the way. We can all hide pretty well, I think. Good luck finding us now! And since you've destroyed the White House, the USA will not want your leadership after that, especially since you should be dead (last I checked, the leader of the USA does live in the White House, and shooting the White House with the Icarus satellite would change that rather permanently). I think I'll go take a cruise.
Adventure Fight 2!

Well, since you seem very hell-bent on wiping me off of the face of the planet. That's okay, I've taken you with me. You see, the undisclosed location to which I traveled after visiting Malaysia was the basement of the White House. So, in using the Icarus Array, you are destroying yourself, as well as 007 and Brian. And anyway, the CIA and MI6 had no luck in finding Jason Bourne, why would I be any easier? Regardless, if I'm going down, you're coming with me.
Adventure Fight 2!

My overthrowing of the United States allowed me to take full control of the United States, and therefore I also have the CIA at my disposal. I use them, along with MI6 as an alliance, find your location, and take control of the Icarus satellite from Die Another Day. I use it to obliterate you and your location. The CIA and MI6 are also tracking you and your every location, so the beams from the Icarus satellite follow you. If you happen to get away, or enter the United States or Britain, a team of Brian from Taken (Liam Neeson) and James Bond from Goldeneye (Pierce Brosnan) will hunt you down and kill you.
Adventure Fight 2!

Luckily, I have multiple residences, and the one in Tibet doesn't have any technology, so the Goldeneye destroys nothing but a house. I happened to be inhabiting a secret residence of mine, Location Unknown, so you're out of luck, about killing me. I take a trip to that factory in Malaysia that produces performance-enhancing chemicals, the ones from the Bourne series, and infect myself with the virus. Naturally, I had made travel arrangements to an undisclosed location, so you don't actually know where I am.
The Roman Catholic Church Accepts Evolution

I concede that my earlier quotes were not that powerful in demonstrating the nature of what the Catholic Church views on Evolution, and even though one can recognize that they favor Evolution as the correct theory, when being hyper-critical, you can deny that possibility,as my opponent has done. Because of this, I will provide quotes that cannot be criticized for ambiguity:The Vatican's chief astronomer, Rev. George Coyne, said that Intelligent Design "isn't science, even though it pretends to be." (http://www.theregister.co.uk...).Pope John Paul II's belief was that Darwinian Evolution is true (http://www.christianpost.com...).Pope Benedict XVI wrote: "Currently, I see in Germany, but also in the United States, a somewhat fierce debate raging between so-called "creationism" and evolutionism, presented as though they were mutually exclusive alternatives: those who believe in the Creator would not be able to conceive of evolution, and those who instead support evolution would have to exclude God. This antithesis is absurd because, on the one hand, there are so many scientific proofs in favour of evolution which appears to be a reality we can see and which enriches our knowledge of life and being as such. But on the other, the doctrine of evolution does not answer every query, especially the great philosophical question: where does everything come from? And how did everything start which ultimately led to man? I believe this is of the utmost importance." (http://io9.com...)So, scientific officials of the Catholic church deny Intelligent Design, and two popes have set their beliefs in Evolution. Now, another point I want to get across: Allowing discussion between disagreeing sources is different than allowing discussion within an agreeing source.For example: A Catholic allows the debate between a Catholic and an atheist on the existence of God. However, Catholics do not promote their own members to see atheism as a possible alternative within their set of beliefs.Another exampl: Catholics endorse people's rights to belief in whatever they want to, but they do not endorse fellow Catholics to believe in whatever they want. So, do Catholics require a belief in Evolution? No, but they accept it, and is demonstrated as their top astronomer and previous two popes have accepted it.
The Roman Catholic Church Accepts Evolution

My opponent simply paraphrased his earlier argument, which I already rebuted. It's very simple: “The Catholic Church endors[ing] research and discussion of Evolution” is not endorsement of Evolution, anymore than debate.org endorsing research and discussion of pedophilia is endorsement of pedophilia itself. Besides, Pro is twisting the Church's words to make them sound more favorable to his case. The Church never said it endorses even research and discussion of Evolution; it only said it “does not forbid” it. Medic is a well-known anti-Evolution debater on this site. You probably know of him. Given his thousands of posts where he discusses and researches Evolution, does this mean Medic endorses Evolution? Of course not! If you think Medic endorses Evolution, you don't know Medic. Let's look at Pro's quote again: “[T]he Church does not forbid that( … ) research and discussions( … ) take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution( … )” That's not endorsement of Evolution. The Church is not afraid to allow discussion on Evolution to take place because the Church proclaims that it is the source of all truth. It is confident that it is right and true, so it has no qualms with evolutionary research and discussion. For the Church to forbid it would imply the Church has something to be afraid of, which it does not. “If the Catholic church endorsed research into atomic bombs, it would be consistent to argue that the Catholic Church, though possibly through silent consent, would be also endorsing war.” Using a reductio ad absurdum argument, we can see this is nonsense: by Pro's logic, endorsement of research into car anti-freeze is the same as endorsement of murder, just because some murderers use anti-freeze to kill innocent people. Con quotes a 1996 “Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on Evolution”. Let's take it apart line by line. “[N]ew scientific knowledge has led us to realize that the theory of evolution is no longer a mere hypothesis.” Ok, Evolution is more than a hypothesis. “It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge.” Ok, the general acceptance of Evolution is remarkable. “The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory” Ok, the existence of a scientific consensus in favor of Evolution is a good argument in favor of Evolution. No where in this letter does it state Evolution is true, or even probably true, or that's it's even alright for Catholics to subscribe to it. In the same exact letter which Pro just quoted, Pope John Paul II goes on to say, “[T]o tell the truth, rather than the theory of evolution, we should speak of several theories of evolution.” This means Pro must, per the resolution, show that the Catholic Church endorses the particular “Evolution” which encompasses Universal Common Ancestry. He has not done so. Back to Pro.