BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion should be abolished.

Woah Woah! Why are you getting worked up for no reason ? I am not fighting. Calm down. I think you misunderstood the concept abortion. Abortion, at it's simplest term, is done when a mother does NOT want to have a child. My opponent said "Well why hide as I don't. look I can impregnate myself should I abort a child that I impregnate with my own sperm?" Exactly! Why would you abort a child that you impregnate with your own sperm? If you want to impregnate your self means you WANT to have a child. WHY WOULD SOMEONE IMPREGNATE THEMSELVES AND THEN DO ABORTION?Therefore abortion should not be done. Contradiction? Why don't you use protection? Why don't you educate yourself about the consequences after having sex? OR How about your mother run for her life and stand at the sea side waiting for the lava to swallow you all and drop you to save herself? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- My second reason why abortion should be abolished is because it damages women both physically and mentally. Some physical damages include Abdominal pain and cramp, nausea, vomiting, bleeding etc. Ever heard of Post Abortion Syndrome (PAS)? Well that is one of the mental damages most women suffer after abortion. Common symptoms of PAS include guilt, anxiety, depression, suicidal thoughts, eating disorders and even drug or alcohol abuse. Thanks to my opponent for continuing this debate. I must say i am having fun.
Abortion should be abolished.

Gender Prefer not to say is now a female. Well why hide as I don't. look I can impregnate myself should I abort a child that I impregnate with my own sperm? Maybe the child would be alright but hey it just might not? What would you do if you had fully functional testicles a penis a vagina ovaries and a womb and an anus and you impregnated your self every menstrual cycle. How about I take the pill no different then an abortion is it? how about I get my ovaries removed 1000's of abortions all at once? or how about my testicles removed with millions of abortions all at once? How about I run for my life in with a child under each arm and stand at the sea side waiting for the lava to swallow us all and drop the children to save myself? Come on b#tch your the woman of women, you have all the right to be the judge jury and executioner. Play with events that you have no account or experience with all you like but empathy is what and sympathy is what and humility is what. I bet your a man hating lesbian.
Abortion should be abolished.

Are you a woman? If not then stay out of women affairs as woman says out of mans affairs. GOT IT. Now please consider the understandings of past, present and future tense before answering Mkay and at least tell us all if you are a man of men or a woman of women. If you can not do that then pea off and stay out of an adults world until you at least know how to be as one. If you don't have your sh#it together by the age of 35 then you most likely ain't without a lot of village idiots to show you the way to become a well balanced individual.
Abortion should be abolished.

Abortion according to the encyclopedic definition is the removal or expulsion of an embryo or fetus resulting in the termination of pregnancy. I think abortion should be illegal and must be stopped. My first point why abortion should stop is because it is an act of murder. Murder is the unlawful killing of another person without a reason of self defense. The correct time for abortion is when the fetus is 10 - 12 weeks old. According to Dr Smith the fetus starts developing and the heart starts to beat which means when abortion is taken place the fetus is alive. So no excuse can be made about killing an under developed fetus. Mother Theresa once said "The greatest destroyer of peace is abortion, because if a mother can kill her own child what is left for me to kill you and you to kill me?"
The Beast of Yucca Flats is the worst movie of all time.

I will be arguing that the movie "The Beast of Yucca Flats" is the single worst movie ever made. My opponent must be able to watch this movie, hopefully with the aid of mystery science theater for the good of his own sanity, and have the recourse to find it. If you are unable to watch the movie, do not accept! First round is for acceptance and issue of the rebuttal film title that is considered worse and to give time for my opponent to watch the film. Comment section will be used to ensure that the rebuttal film is findable and can be watched by Pro. Second round is for summing up the plot for the voters and explaining why it is the worst movie ever made. Third round is for rebuttal. I look forward to watching your nomination for worst movie of all time
The Second Law of Thermodynamics Does Not Prohibit Evolution

Self-replicating organisms do exist. Bacteria reproduce through mitosis, which is essentially the mother cell replicating all its DNA, and transmitted equally to two daughter cells identical to themselves and their mother. DNA could have also easily been created in the conditions of the primordial Earth. In addition to amino acids, discussed in the last round, nucleotides could also form. Nucleotides make up RNA. "John Sutherland and his colleagues from the University of Manchester, UK, created a ribonucleotide, a building block of RNA, from simple chemicals under conditions that might have existed on the early Earth. ""The study by the group of John Sutherland shows how nature could have spontaneously assembled pyrimidine ribonucleotide monomers from prebiotically plausible molecules through intermediates that contribute atoms to both the sugar and base portions of the ribonucleotides, thus avoiding a condensation step of sugar and base altogether. " From here, going from RNA to DNA was as simple as changing a few of the components and you'd have DNA. [1][2]The universe, for all we know, is an isolated system, implying that, by the Second Law, the entropy of the universe is always increasing. This is supported by the fact that the universe is not only expanding, but doing so at an accelerated rate. Thus, the volume of the universe is increasing, implying the number of potential microstates for atoms in the universe increases, implying the entropy of the universe is increasing. While it certainly is probable that the Earth's atmosphere contained a small amount of free oxygen, it is unlikely that the concentration of free oxygen would have made any appreciable difference on the outcome. "Banded iron formations are layers of hematite (Fe2O3) and other iron oxides deposited in the ocean 2.5 to 1.8 billion years ago. The conventional interpretation is that oxygen was introduced into the atmosphere for the first time in significant quantities beginning about 2.5 billion years ago when photosynthesis evolved. This caused the free iron dissolved in the ocean water to oxidize and precipitate. Thus, the banded iron formations mark the transition from an early earth with little free oxygen and much dissolved iron in water to present conditions with lots of free oxygen and little dissolved iron. .. [Among other pieces of evidence] The dominant scientific view is that the early atmosphere had 0.1 percent oxygen or less. "[3]Examples of complex organic molecules forming on the primordial Earth can be found in the Miller-Urey experiment, which I have already described, among many other experiments. But the information for life already existed before life appeared on the Earth. For example, one molecule of water contains information about how the molecule behaves, where it is, et cetera. Information can easily exist without life. Sources[1]: . http://www.talkorigins.org...[2]: . http://www.nature.com...[3]: . http://www.talkorigins.org...
The Second Law of Thermodynamics Does Not Prohibit Evolution

In a category oversaturated in evolution/creation debates I feel that talking specifically about the 2nd law and its relevance to evolution adds a bit of freshness to the subject. I have no problems with the first half of my opponent"s arguments as it provides a good definition of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. However, the arguments that natural selection and mutations are driving forces to create more complex organisms to further increase entropy in their surroundings relies on the fact that a self-replicating organism exists. Now I"ll deal with the points of your rebuttal: The universe is technically an isolated system since it is a term to describe the entire space-time continuum and doesn"t have any other systems to exchange mass or energy with unless the theory that multiple universes exist but I"d rather not dive into theoretical astrophysics in this debate. So the universe still tends towards maximum disorder. The issue with the Miller-Urey experiment is the fact that it has yielded trace amounts of amino acids such as glycine. In addition, a set of 20 different amino acids are required to produce most functional proteins. Since the experiment, it is now more believed that Earth"s early atmosphere contained oxygen since there was water vapor, the sun"s energy would have caused photodissociation separating them into hydrogen gas and oxygen. In the last paragraph of your rebuttal, you discuss how complex organic molecules can form spontaneously however you do not bring up examples and neither does your source for this. "Similarly, it does not prohibit the creation of new information from the redistribution of already existing information. " This is the main point of my argument. Information must have already existed to guide processes that decrease entropy. Sources: 34. Flowers, C. , A Science Odyssey: 100 Years of Discovery, William Morrow and Company, New York, p. 173, 1998. 24. Miller, S. L. , A production of amino acids under possible primitive earth conditions, Science 117:528"529; p. 528, 1953. . https://www.bluffton.edu...
The Second Law of Thermodynamics Does Not Prohibit Evolution

Full ResolutionThe second law of thermodynamics does not prohibit evolution. BoP is shared. DefinitionsSecond Law of Thermodynamics: ". .. if the physical process is irreversible, the combined entropy of the system and the environment must increase. "[1]Prohibit: "To prevent; preclude. "[2]Evolution: "The process by which species of organisms arise from earlier life forms and undergo change over time through natural selection. "[3]Rules1. The first round is for acceptance.2. A forfeit or concession is not allowed.3. No semantics or trolling.4. All arguments must be visible inside this debate. Sources may be posted in an outside link. 5. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed in the middle of the debate. Voters, in the case of the breaking of any of these rules by either debater, all seven points in voting should be given to the other person. Debate StructureRound 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Presenting all arguments (no rebuttals by con)Round 3: Refutation of opponent's arguments (no new arguments)Round 4: Defending your original arguments and conclusion (no new arguments)Sources [1]: . https://www.grc.nasa.gov...[2]: . http://www.thefreedictionary.com...[3]: . http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Weed Legalization

Marijuana or weed can give a medical, economical, and social boost to the population of a state/country. Starting with the medical aspect research shoes that marijuana is has had positive effect on all sorts of incurable diseases not just insomnia and back pain but hundreds of actual problems. Moving on to economical Colorado has gone 20% past it's expected tax income of 100 million dollars from weed. It is a cash cow all around and this money can be used for schools, roads, and tons of other things. Socially is fairly obvious weed is proven to create a positive atmosphere, which in turn creates happier people of the state and someone who is happy works harder and is more productive. Moving on to current attacks against weed. Addiction- coffee is more addictive than weed. Gate way drug- The main tie between weed and bigger drugs is that the rumor goes you star with weed then move on. this is simply not the case as Sonja Gupta presented in is documentary it is no connection but correlation. So it is not the weed that moved them on to harder drugs just their personal choice.
Weed Legalization

The references to Sanjay Gupta merely support my argument of - "While decriminalization may be applicable in some instances (such as medicinal applications), the well being, safety, and health of the public is best served and supported by Marijuana not being legalized". Sanjay's opinion is about the use of marijuana for medicinal treatment and research. He offers no insight as to the financial implications nor any rebuttal of substance regarding the more recent and valid studies on marijuana. In fact he merely refutes some science from the 1940s and a blanket statement from the 1970s. Sanjay is a pop-media doctor whose opinions are not qualified as valid science on any conclusions. So, again... While decriminalization may be applicable in some instances (such as medicinal applications), the well being, safety, and health of the public is best served and supported by Marijuana not being legalized
English should be the only language in the world

Refutation- - There are plenty of ways to celebrate culture that aren't dependent on language, including; eating a traditional dinner, attending a museum or even visiting the country whose culture you're interested in. - Texas and England have different cultures despite having the same language; language and culture aren't dependent on one another. - Language evolves, so any culture based solely on it would be phased out eventually. Constructive- - Having a single common language would connect people and tear down cultural walls; it's easier to form a relationship when you know what some-one is actually saying. - It would make innovation in science and medicine easier, as Doctors and scientists could communicate more easily. - people could live anywhere they wanted to and know that they could understand the people around them In conclusion: while multiple languages are nice, they aren't necessary. One language would unite us and help us progress medicine and science.
English should be the only language in the world

Thanks, DoctorDeku ;) Back to my point, 'English should be the only language in the world'; I stand as a con, because:it is such disgrace to other cultures and heritages.- If English becomes the world's 'unique' language, a loss, or even an extinction in a bigger extent, will be inevitable for some cultures. Cultures act as foundations of certain ethnic groups and their moral values. Hence, the point is: it will destroy ethnic roots of a big proportion (87%) of people around the world. [According to http://en.wikipedia.org..., there are 360 million people who speak English as a first language and 375-750 million people who speak English as a second language. By adding those figures, we can tell they're still 13% of the world population (7.06 million, http://en.wikipedia.org...).]Goshh I've taken so much characters!! :o hate this... anyways this is my intro =)
God (a creator) is just as probable as evolution

I must admit I am hesitant to put too much effort into this debate given my opponent's forfeit, but as I too have a BoP, I will provide some basic arguments. The reason that God and evolution are not equally probable can be boiled down to the amount of evidence we have for each. The amount of evidence evolution is tremendous. The amount of evidence for God is pretty small. And indeed, absence of evidence when evidence is to be expected is evidence for absence. The evidence for evolution is all around us. Our own bodies contain numerous examples of vestigial organs [1], no-longer useful remnants of our evolutionary past, not to mention the vast amount of vestigial organs found in other species. We can also look at homologous structures between species, such as similarities between the human arm and the bat wing [2]: In fact, the similarities between species goes down to the level of DNA. One example is the shared DNA between humans and our chimpanzee cousins: Over 90% of our DNA is shared. [3] The fossil record also provides a significant amount of evidence for evolution, as through it, we can see how life evolved [4]. Finally, evolution has been observed in multiple occasions [5]. Just one example is the evolution of the AIDs virus which has adapted to become more resistant to medicines attempting to get rid of it [6]. Although these observed changes are only small changes from one species to another, that is all one would expect to be able to observe, as larger changes take a much longer period of time. It is easy to see, however, how these simple changes can build up over a long period of time to make larger changes by means of the smaller changes. Sources: [1]- . http://en.wikipedia.org... [2]- . http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [3]- . http://www.sciencedaily.com... [4]- . http://www.talkorigins.org... [5]- . http://www.talkorigins.org... [6]- . http://www.pbs.org...
God (a creator) is just as probable as evolution

God= Creator of all things/higher entity (not necessarily the christian God) Evolution= The idea that things developed on their own based on justifications Ex. Natural Selection I am pretty lenient to how my debates are run but the only things I ask is that BOP is shared and no new arguments are presented in round 5 1st round=acceptance only Voters: Please vote logically and not emotionally, regardless of who's side you air on. Thank You. :) I'm looking forward to debating with whomever will accept!
The earth was created by Old Earth Creationism

I have never debated on this site before and greatly look forward to arguing with a person who does not share my worldview. I will be arguing for the Young Earth Theory that states that the Earth is only thousands of years old. Before I begin this debate, I would like to lay a few rules down. 1) No profanity 2) No Insults 3) Nothing inappropriate Of course, MagicalPurple, you have to agree to these rules when you begin your argument in round 2. Now, let me set forth a few definitions so that everything is cleared up. Old Earth Theory: The theory that states that the Earth is Billions of years old, and life was created by evolution. Young Earth Theory: The theory that states that the Earth is only thousands of years old, and was created by God in six days. Earth: The planet we live on. If all of this is okay with you, MagicalPurple, now we can move on to our arguments.
The earth was created by Old Earth Creationism

Since this is the final round of this debate, I would like to say why I should win this debate. First of all, my opponent forfeited her round 3 + 4 arguments. By forfeiting those rounds, she gives me the opportunity to rebut her arguments with out any counter arguments. Also, there is no rebuttal of my round 2 argument, thus leaving it unchallenged. This alone should give me the victory. As you, the voters, can see, I have already won this debate. You may disagree with me, and that is okay. I just believe that if a person debating forfeits a round, then they lose that round. With that in mind, I have won half of the rounds in this debate. That combined with my arguments, should win me the debate. Thank you, for debating with me, and continue with your votes. Thank you and good day.
The earth was created by Old Earth Creationism

First of all, I would like to ask my opponent why she has not posted her rebuttal of my arguments in this round. Now, I would like to address one more thing. My opponent said in her round 2 argument, "The reason the earth can't only be a thousand years old is because..." I will not go on because that is what I want to press upon. I am not arguing that the earth is only a thousand years old, but about 6,000. Now, on to my rebuttal of my opponents arguments. "The Grand Canyon could have not been constructed by nature in such a short time...The stars that are reflecting their light to earth, some took millions and even billions in light years just to get back to earth." (Almost exact wording. Grammar and Spelling mistakes are not mine.) One more thing, it seems that my opponent thinks that I am arguing for evolution in 6,000 years. This is not the case, I am arguing that God created the Earth 6,000 years ago. Now on to my rebuttal. These two points I would like to rebut at once. First of all, when God created the Garden of Eden, he did not plant seeds and let them grow, what God did was he made a garden in full bloom. This is what he did with the Universe. God made the stars so that they could be seen from Earth at the time of creation. He did the same with The Grand Canyon. One question about the Grand Canyon, if the Grand Canyon has been around for so long, then why would it be so steep? "Fossil fuels in the earth has many fossils dated back to the phestoric ages and it took all those billions of years just for them to be decomposed down to a fuel." My opponent again thinks that I am arguing for evolution in 6,000 years! I am not! God could have put the fossil fuels there, that is a possibility. Also according to a cite, fossil fuels only take thousands to millions of years to form. I look forward to our closing statements. [1] http://www.ask.com...
The earth was created by Old Earth Creationism

I will save my rebuttal of my opponent for a later time. For now I will state the holes of the perspective of which my opponent is arguing. 1) If evolution existed millions and billions of years ago, then why don't we see the evolving forms that my opponents states existed millions and billions of years ago? Because they never existed in the first place. You may say that we have found the missing link, or "Lucy," but those bones were collected over at least a square mile. Maybe there was a town in ancient times 5,000 years ago and they were killed in an attack and over the years became fossils. Also, if Lucy was one being, then why were her bones spread out over a wide area? I ask you, WHY? 2) If the universe has existed for millions and billions of years, then there would be many things that are different than they are now. For example, there is not enough written history to account for at least a million years of mankind. The civilizations drew on cave walls, constructed buildings, and so much other things, but no written history. Another example is that comets degenerate too quickly for them to survive billions of years. I am looking forward to my opponents rebuttal of my arguments. http://www.icr.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...(Australopithecus) http://answers.yahoo.com...
The earth was created by Old Earth Creationism

The reason why the earth can't be only a thousand years old is because of the overwhelming evidence that's all around us:The grand canyon could have not been constructed by nature in such a short timeThe stars that are reflecting their light to earth, some took millions and even billions in light years just to get back to EarthFossil fuels in the earth has many fossils dated back to the phestoric ages and it took all those billions of years just for them to be decomposed down to a fuelI'm using old earth creationism because God used the concept of the 7 days in very long amount of time. before he created Adam and Eve he used the evolution process of the animals back in phestoric ages to become what they are today.