BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Charlie Sheen is more socially undesirable than Lindsey Lohan.

I was sitting back listening to my favorite Songify song, Winning, by Charlie Sheen (http://www.youtube.com...) when it occurred to me... this man is truly a societal pariah. While one interview with Katie Couric usually isn't enough to forever poison one's image, it would seem that in Mr. Sheen's case this has certainly been the effect. While, true enough the incident has lead to a variety of hilarious sketches, spoofs, and the etc. (like SNL's seen here: http://www.tmz.com... or college humor's seen here: http://www.collegehumor.com...) one has to consider the impact that this has on society as a whole. Charlie Sheen balls seven gram rocks, because that's how he roles; as if merely possessing "tiger blood" gives him license to unapologetically flaunt his epic "run" that made "Sinatra, Flynn, Jagger, Richards all of 'em just look like droopy-eyed armless children" before the world. There comes a point where enough is enough. For some time I had taken solace in the fact that, at least kids can see Charlie Sheen for the buffoon that he is, but my heart sank when I learned that Justin Bieber had dubbed Charlie Sheen the "most influential person in the world." (http://www.charliesheen.com...-/) According to the less-than-worldly tween singing sensation, the most influential person in the world... "has got to be Charlie Sheen. He's got a million followers in one day on Twitter. And… I've never seen that happen before. Plus, he's got tiger blood, and he's always winning." If Justin Bieber weren't the idol of, say, the overwhelming majority of teenage girls, fans of Glee, and etc. (http://new.music.yahoo.com...) and accomplished enough to, at 16, publish an account of his life's story I might not be so concerned... but this is an endorsement that has catastrophic impacts to the most impressionable of age demographics (11-16 year old girls). Lindsey Lohan at least apologized for her... well... debauchery (or tried to fake it) which is more than can be said for Charlie Sheen. She pleaded guilty to possession charges and attempted to face the consequences of her actions -more than Charlie Sheen. (http://thestarceleb.com...) Even more to her credit, She at least is attending rehab (http://abcnews.go.com...) in attempt to get clean. She didn't try to perpetuate the lie that she just blinked and cured her brain. Now, Lohan is out (http://www.radaronline.com...). Presumably she is clean... which is more than we can say for Sheen, who is now occupying his time on a psychotic comedy tour that is apparently immeasurably bad (http://insidetv.ew.com...). How's that for a torpedo of truth?
Police are there to serve and protect

My opponent has made good points. The police force in the United States is known for being in charge of enforcing our laws and keeping criminals off the streets and prevent them from breaking the law. Let's be realistic: the police force has a corrupt side of it. And it also does have an agenda for giving a certain number of tickets and making what are unconstitutional drinking and driving checkpoints. I will even argue in my opponent's favor for a moment and say that certain police officers like the high and mighty feeling that they get and abuse that power. You may see this as me just finding a loop hole in the debate title, but the police were originally designed to protect and serve the community it is in. Maybe there is more to it now, and it's used for money reasons these days, but they are still for protecting and serving it's community. Yes, they do a lot more, but the bottom line is, they do what they were designated to do.
Is Nintendo better than both Sony and Microsoft.

So you judge a product based on how many sales it gets. Quality over quantity! Oh and by the way Nintendo has way more variety than both sony and Microsoft in terms of genres. Nintendo has platformers,rpg's,adventure games,sports,etc. what does Sony and Microsoft have? Here I'll give you a hint, pew pew boom! Also I know a lot of people who are not kids who play Nintendo so your argument is invalid. oh and by the way, if it wasn't for Nintendo your precious Playstation and xbox wouldn't exist! Who saved the video games from dying back in the 80's? Nintendo! Who revolutionized the video game industry more than any other company? Nintendo! Who made the most iconic franchises that are still relevant even today!? Nintendo! True I'll be the first to admit that lately their consoles have been lacking but I think a lot of gamers need to appreciate what Nintendo has done for the industry.
Is Nintendo better than both Sony and Microsoft.

True Nintendo is a really good one but Sony and Microsoft just have something else that sparks my mind and several other people and more teens and adults and kids buy more sony and microsoft products than most in the world and I havea nintendo but do I play it often NO, Nintendo products are getting boring for other people but not the kids mostly, Teens and adults buy things like yeah sony and microsoft computers I spend more time on the computer than i do anything else. So yeah counter any of that.
Christian Science is unbiblical

In this debate I will highlight a few beliefs of Christian Scientists. I will attempt to refute all of them as unbiblical. After that, Con will hopefully attempt to counter my arguments against the points which I have listed. 1. REALITY IS AN ILLUSION One of the most famous beliefs of the Christian Scientists is that Reality is completely illusion; there is no evil, illness, or death. These three things, according to Christian Scientists, simply seem to exist because the human thinks they exist. If a human realizes that they do not exist, according to Christian Science, said malady will go away. 1.1 REFUTATION In Genesis 3:24, it is seen that Man lost the chance of living eternally due to his sin. In other words, death has been introduced to Man. "After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life. " In Genesis 3:16 - 17, it states: To the woman he said, "I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you. " 17 To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, "You must not eat from it," "Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat food from it all the days of your life. In Genesis 3:22 it states: "And the Lord God said, 'The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever. '" The above verses show death, suffering, and evil befall mankind. They are not illusions or unreal concepts brought forth from the human mind. They are either mandated by God or brought forth by the ACTIONS, not thoughts of humans. 2. JESUS' DEATH WAS NOT A SACRIFICE FOR HUMAN SIN This is easily refuted by Romans 4:25: "He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification. " These are my two major arguments. I await my opponents rebuttal. SOURCES: All info on Christian Science is from: . http://en.wikipedia.org...
Evolution is Defensible.

Giants have been found here in America. 18 remains have been found in Wisconsin. Others have been found in Ohio. Giant have been found all over America. http://guardianlv.com... https://overmanwarrior.wordpress.com... http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net... Lucy is false as a transitional creature. http://www.forerunner.com... a few of each animal or mammal will have different deformations. A women in Norway had a baby that looks like an elephant. Will scientist in the future say elephants came from humans just because of the baby that looks like an elephant. Lucy could have been a deformed animal. http://huzlers.com... Snopes.com is also an unreliable website. That website is run by a married couple who have no background or experience in investigation. All they do is give their opinion on the topic. http://accuracyinpolitics.blogspot.com... http://www.wnd.com... The museum did in fact destroy the bones because scientist cannot prove evolution when giant remains have been found. Giants don't fit in the timeline of evolution. It doesn't matter how you use wikipedia it is still unreliable. Bayesian reasoning isn't good to help when it's assigning probabilities on current evidence. There is a 50% chance that the quarter will land on heads. The information is that there are two sides of one quarter and it will land on either heads or tails. If we use Bayesian reasoning assigning probabilities on the current evidence we should be able to figure out what side it will land on, right? We could say it will land on heads but then it ends up landing on tails. That was a guess based on evidence but it's wrong. This was just an educated guess, this is what scientist do to "prove" evolution, they just guess.
Evolution is Defensible.

Isn't Bayesian reasoning assigning probabilities based on the current evidence, not on experience or guessing like your link says. 100% certainly is impossible as I explained in round 2. This makes your definition of fact useless since there is nothing I could be 100% sure about. http://bayesian.org... I was using Wikipedia to explain Bayesian reasoning, not to refute your arguments. The claim that giant fossils has been destroyed has been completely made up as this link will explain. http://www.snopes.com... Also AIAA probably not exist because of the lack of references that is not about the giants. "Isn't it obvious that fish will be at the deepest layer because it is below sea level?" I see my opponent ignored my point I made on round 3 about layers. As for how the fossils got there. after the trilobite got and covered and fossilized, are moved by the movement of the continents caused by plate tectonics. Here's a link below. http://www.livescience.com... a nitpick, but humans did not evolve from monkeys. Your argument about half evolved animals seems to be the about the lack of Transitions. Here's the "half evolved animals" from apes to Homo sapiens in the link below. http://www.proof-of-evolution.com...
Evolution is Defensible.

Bayesian reasoning is guessing. http://i.word.com... When will scientist start using facts and stop guessing? The best evidence for evolution to be true is still a guess. We need facts please and stop guessing if you can. Also wikipedia is an unreliable source of information. There can be half-evolved animals even though it supposedly never stops. Time never stops but we still can measure it. With time we get one number and another number after that and we can measure the time within those two numbers. Why can't scientist get a monkey and a human and find the half-evolved animals? Scientist can do that with any animal. We can find many sedimentary layers all over the world with hundreds of feet down. Where did all the r Isn't it obvious that fish will be at the deepest layer because it is below sea level? Arizona is not near the ocean but trilobites have been found there. Trilobites live at the bottom of the ocean so how did it end up in Arizona? http://www.t-rat.com... Arizona had to be covered with water to find trilobite. How does evolution explain giant skeletons? In this link it explains that the Smithsonian destroyed tens of thousands of giant skeletons to prove that evolution is real. http://worldnewsdailyreport.com... One of the biggest museums had to destroy evidence to prove evolution is correct. please explain how evolution can prove these giants. No big monkey has been found as big as these giants. This couldn't have been a random mutation when there have been ten of thousands of giant skeletons found. Scientist don't talk about these giants. The giants have been found in America too. http://www.sott.net... Please don't guess for your rebuttal and use facts please, I think we will all appreciate that.
Evolution is Defensible.

To be honest, I not expecting my opponent to jump on my first nitpick. I am using Bayesian reasoning and it uses probability to determine how likely something is true based on the current evidence. under this philosophy you say that "X has a 95% chance to be true", not "X is true". Since Evolution has a lot of supporting evidence and a lack of conflicting evidence, it is safe to say that evolution is at least 99% likely to be true. Links. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://lesswrong.com... Actually fossils are not even close to being the strongest evidence. Speciation is the strongest evidence since it directly tests the predictions of evolution And there is a lot of cases of Speciation too. Therefore I deduce that the case for evolution would still stand without any fossils. Also worth typing is that every fossils is an transitional fossil. a good analogy for this is to point out that you are an transition between your parents and your children, and that your parents are the transition between you and your grandparents. By saying their is half-evolved animals, you are implying there is fully animals (Which is false since evolution is an continuous process). But that does matter anyway, since this claim is the same as the claim I refuted above. Radiometric dating is used to determine the age of the rocks. With some rare but possible exceptions, the oldest rocks will be at the bottom and the youngest be on top. here's a link. http://www.nhm.ac.uk...
Evolution is Defensible.

Evolution is not defendible as my opponent clearly said "nothing in science is 100% Proved". This means that evolution can't be real. How can you same something is a fact if it can't be proven 100%? Even if there is more evidence besides fossils it still wont be enough. Fossils are the biggest evidence need to prove evolution. Scientist cannot find any transitional fossils. No one knows the exact date of fossils. Scientist say they determine age by sedimentary layer. If you ask a scientist how do you determine a layers age? Their answer will be they determine the age by fossils. Scientist use circular reasoning. Where are all the half-evolved animals?( No half evolved animals have ever been found and never will be. If scientists couldn't find any in the last 140 years, how will we find any in the future. We are a lot more advanced than we were over one hundred years ago. With all this technology we still can't find any evidence. http://www.vedicsciences.net... Fossils are not a reliable source of evidence for evolution. Scientist can't keep using fossils to try to prove evolution.
Evolution is Defensible.

The first two are simply nitpicks, but the opponent should read and learn from it for future debates. The first nitpick is that nothing in science is 100% proved, since doing that requires infinite evidence (which is not possible to obtain). The second nitpick is that it is that your objections are not placed into separate paragraphs, it makes it easier to accidentally miss your arguments if you do that. Your argument is that there not as many fossils around as they should be. But this argument ignores the fact that the vast majority of animals that die and decompose before they get the chance to fossilize. "Science is all about observation, you need to observe something to know its a fact. Scientist say that evolution is real because they found fossils. The scientist did not see what happened to the fossils or if they are an extinct or a deformed creature." Actually ,There more evidence for evolution then just the fossils. One of the evidences for evolution is called, which is called speciation. here so examples. http://www.talkorigins.org... I ran out of time so I to post so links. http://www.skepticblog.org... I am unable to find any website saying you said chromosomes
Evolution is Defensible.

With all the technology we have now we still can't 100% prove that evolution is a fact. If the earth is billions of years old then it should be easy to find fossils anywhere you dig. Many animals have died in the billions of years that the earth has been here, so why can't I go dig anywhere and find a fossil? Even with the many layers of rock, There should be countless of fossils to be examined. Science is all about observation, you need to observe something to know its a fact. Scientist say that evolution is real because they found fossils. The scientist did not see what happened to the fossils or if they are an extinct or a deformed creature. How can scientist be so sure that the fossils are not another species or a deformed animal? Trilobites have hard bodies and are complex creatures. There have been no previous ancestors of arthoprods found in anywhere around the world in any layer of rock. Trilobite fossils are found all around earth with no creature that is similar to a trilobite. Trilobites had hard shells, basic organs and complex eyes like the ones flies have. The eyes have 100's of sophiscated lenses connected to the optic nerve going to the brain. In the way scientist think they would say that it had to take billions and billions of years for there to have been a hard shell creature. But yet there had been no creatures that have been found that show the small changes of one species to another. People or animals without the right number of chromosomes can't have offspring's. Animals or humans with any defect don't have the right amount of chromosomes. Humans with down syndrome can not produce a baby due to the lack of chromosomes. These mutations are reccesive and cannot be a reason for evolution to be proven. Scientist say mutations occurred and its a reason why evolution is real but mutations need to be dominant. Dominant genes get passed down and recessive genes hardly do. http://www.walterreeves.com... http://www.ucg.org...
Evolution is Defensible.

In this debate, I will defend evolution from Con's various arguments . I did this debate before but no one voted, therefore it was a tie. But first, I will provide an definition of Evolution. Evolution- the scientific theory that states modern organisms descended from ancient ones through a process of gradual modification over billions of years and share a common ancestry. There will be 5 rounds with an maximum of 2,000 Characters. Here's the debate will look like. Round 1 - Acceptance and new arguments Round 2 - Defense of your arguments and new arguments. Round 3 - Defense of your arguments and new arguments. Round 4 - Defense of your arguments and new arguments. Round 5 - Defense of your arguments, but no new arguments. The voting period will last for 2 weeks and myself and the opponent will have 72 hours to post the argument. Here is some rules for Pro and Con to follow. - No Semantic interpretations (For example, using the word theory in an way that means guess when you are suppose to use the scientific meaning of the word) - Please refrain from using the bible or any other holy texts to try disprove evolution. - You must understand what you post as I do not want my opponent to simply copy and paste from anti-evolutionist websites without knowing what the information says. - Avoid throwing insults around, even if you are annoyed at the opponent for any reason. - The debaters follow the rules at all times. This should be obvious but I hope you enjoy the debate
Evolution is Defensible.

So your saying a news website is a "terrible source of info" just because its entertaining? Also the quote you used is an opinion. You are using many unreliable sources. Even national geographic is using snope.com as their source of info. Word press is a blogging website where anyone can write what they want. Your links that you are using is using wikipedia and snopes.com as their source of information and if you don't believe me then click on one and scroll down. https://jonharper70.wordpress.com... That's from the word press website, it has no facts. http://www.techrepublic.com... say that giants exist has already been refuted on round 4 by using snopes.com as your source and I clearly proved that snopes is a biased website of a married couple in California, that is a very liberal state. You have no proof stating that the Smithsonian did not destroy giant remains. Phttp://www.abovetopsecret.com... The link above explains that the Smithsonian did destroy the giant remains. If you read the article you didn't explain the 1.3 meter long femur to be fake. http://worldnewsdailyreport.com... This link ^ is reliable because it does not get its info from snopes or wikipedia like your links that you have been using. The majority of my opponents links have been back up by biased websites. If any of you voters have been on jury duty then you know that you decide based on evidence that you see and nothing from outside info. I ask you to do the same here. To all the voters I ask to put aside biased feelings and only look at the evidence that you see in this debate. As you can see that evolution has been a theory for the last 100 years and it still is a theory today. We shouldn't limited by what science says, lets be open-minded to ever possibility of how we got here.
Evolution is Defensible.

Huzlers is a terrible source of info since it is About satirical entertainment as shown in this statement found at the bottom of it's home page. "Huzlers.com is a combination of urban news and satirical entertainment to keep its visitors in a state of disbelief." http://huzlers.com... The picture is created by the Australian artist Patricia Piccinini. http://www.hoax-slayer.com... The claims about Snopes.com are unsubstantiated assertions (Expect for the married couple part). https://peninsulalighthouse.wordpress.com... http://www.patheos.com... http://www.nytimes.com... The claim that The giant fossils was destroyed is already refuted on round 4. http://www.hoax-slayer.com... https://kedarsoman.wordpress.com... http://news.nationalgeographic.com... All 3 links above show that the pictures of fossils of giants have been edited in some way. My opponents link about claims that Lucy has been faked, even though that is not the case the link below explains. https://northstatescience.wordpress.com... your analogy relies on a strawman of Bayesian reasoning since as I explained in round 3, it does not statements such as the "coin will land on head's" but it does statements such as "There is an 50% chance that the coin will land on heads". So the people will vote after my opponent post for the last round, to I want the voter's to vote honestly based on evidence and not vote bomb because they want a certain side of the debate to win.