BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
In the last two years, The Indianopolis Colts were a better team than the New England Patriots.

My opponent forfeited his last round so there's not much I can say but extend my argument across the flow. I will now provide some scores from the Patriots last revealing their dominance. Sun 9/9/2007 1:00 PM @ Jets- 38-14 W Sun 9/16/2007 8:15 PM vs Chargers- 38-14 W Sun 9/23/2007 1:00 PM vs Bills- 38-7 W Mon 10/1/2007 8:30 PM @ Bengals- 34-13 W Sun 10/7/2007 1:00 PM vs Browns- 34-17 W Sun 10/14/2007 4:15 PM @ Cowboys- 48-27 W Sun 10/21/2007 1:00 PM @ Dolphins- 49-28 W Sun 10/28/2007 4:15 PM vs Redskins- 52-7 W Sun 11/4/2007 4:15 PM @ Colts- 24-20 W Sun 11/11/2007 vs Bye Sun 11/18/2007 8:15 PM @ Bills- 56-10 W Sun 11/25/2007 8:15 PM vs Eagles- 31-28 W Mon 12/3/2007 8:30 PM @ Ravens- 27-24 W Sun 12/9/2007 4:15 PM vs Steelers- 34-13 W Sun 12/16/2007 1:00 PM vs Jets- 20-10 W Sun 12/23/2007 4:15 PM vs Dolphins- 28-7 W Sat 12/29/2007 8:15 PM @ Giants- 38-35 W Throughout the season, the Patriots routed many teams and beat the Indianap-olis Colts along with the superbowl champion, New York Giants.
Religion has had a negative impact on the world

Well, Round 1. first off. I am not a religious narrow-minded stereotypical old guy, Yes i am catholic at birth but lets get to business, I do not believe Religion has a bad effect on the world, why? it has done nothing wrong. The reason there are wars over religion is the fact people are idiots, nothing in the bible was meant to be taken literally, It was the meaning behind it, anyone who fights for religion should not be part of that religion at all, religion is about peace and spirituality and belief in a greater being, Religion cannot have a negative impact on the world unless you see peace, harmony and good morals as negative, Case closed :P.
Gun Rights

The fight of whether gun control should be in place or it shouldn't be. I'm going to argue that gun rights are very important. First, guns are a freedom right, gun control doesn't work, and lastly guns do more good than bad. Guns are in the constitution as the 2nd amendment. It states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Shall not be infringed it doesn't state that regulation should happen or just a little gun control is ok, no it states that it SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. This is a right for people if it used to hunt, for shooting at targets, or defending themselves from crime. Gun control doesn't work look what happened in Connecticut which has some of the strictest gun control in the United States and someone was still able to obtain the weapons and kill those innocent children. I'm going to compare gun control to marijuana. Marijuana is the largest cash crop in the United States, but it is illegal. Then why do so many people get it, it is because when someone whats it bad enough no laws will prevent them from getting it. Gun control only makes it hard for the good law following people to obtain guns, while bad and evil people will find ways to get it and probably worse weapons. Gun do more good than bad. Because while there is the fair share of evil people with guns it takes good to stop them. Police officers don't prevent crimes they only get their to clean the mess it takes citizens to do such an act. Average amount of people killed in a mass shooting who are stopped by the police are 18.25 killed while if the shooter is stopped by a citizen the death rate becomes 2.2, that is a pretty good bet that someone will be safer to let citizens carry weapons. I have a few questions to ask the voters if the piolets that were in the planes of the attack of 9/11 had guns and were trained to use them would 9/11 happen. If some people at the mall in the movie theater in Aurora, Colorado had some guns would there be so many dead and injured. Gun control is what keeps the people from defending themselves and just lets them be sitting ducks. Sources http://www.law.cornell.edu... http://www.justfacts.com... http://www.silvercirclemovie.com... http://www.drugscience.org...
It is better to be too cold then to be too hot

1. You don't need anything to cool yourself down, you can use your hand. 2. If you get too cold, your activity will be limited by shivering. If you get too hot, you will sweat, mobility is still there. 3. Using a pool takes no effort. 4. Relief of fanning oneself exceeds heat gained by energy expension. Sources: http://wiki.answers.com... http://www.quora.com...
It is better to be too cold then to be too hot

"if you were fan yourself with something it would increase airflow by evaporating sweat. This is more effective than trying to stop air." It may be more effective, but not nearly as efficient. The act of physical activity, like fanning yourself, expends energy which actually creates more heat! Con proposes a method of reducing heat by creating more heat! I would say my argument is not invalid; rather, Con's argument is invalid. Also, on top of the fact that fanning one's self creates more heat, it also requires much continuous, conscious effort. Warming oneself by remaining in a curled up position in a blanket requires absolutely no conscious effort after the position is attained. Hence, it is better to be too cold then too hot. I eagerly await Con's response.
It is better to be too cold then to be too hot

My opponent's argument largely stands upon the Idea that it is easier to become warmer than it is to become colder. I would like to rebut that point by describing how a coat works. A coats works by trapping air, allowing the body to warm that air so a temperature stable environment can be reached. This makes a person feel warmer because his or her body does not lose heat. On the other hand, if you were fan yourself with something it would increase airflow by evaporating sweat. This is more effective than trying to stop air. Your argument is invalid. My favorite color is blue, and I'm on my phone, sources next round.
Official TOC Round 1

Resolved: Intelligent Design should not be taught in the Science Classes of public schools. This is the first round of the DDO TOC. Authorized judges ONLY. Regardless of position, both sides have an equal burden of proof. The first round is a confirmation round, followed by three debating rounds. PRO will forfeit the last round. No new material will be brought up in the final round. Good luck to my opponent; I look forward to an enjoyable debate. Judges, thank you for your time and patience. Without further adu, the TOC.
Minimum Wage should not increase to $15.

Resolution: The US Minimum Wage should not be raised to $15 an hour. Rules:- No semantics. - The time-frame for increase must be reasonable. - Sources may be in an external link. - Spelling and Grammar / Conduct sources are void. Summary:The topic of the US Minimum Wage has been a hot spot for political and economic debate since it's creation in 1938. Created by the Fair Labor Standards Act, and set to $0.25 an hour, the wage has been the centerpiece of an unchallenged quantity of studies and academia. Pro (LordHelm) and Con (Romanii) will debate whether the Minimum Wage should be increased to $15 an hour within a fair time-frame (as high as 2025). Voters may only use Sources and Arguments to decide a winner. The debate has been reset to allow the opponents a chance to review their arguments, as neither side felt satisfied with their rounds. Romanii has been picked for the debate, as he was the most qualified debater.
A diet of only whole fruits and vegetabes with sufficient calorie intake is ideal for health.

Now, here's a website worth having a look at. It shows the deception of the medical fraternity in how they deionize bacteria as being the cause of many human ailments and diseases. http://textbookofbacteriology.net... Note - All the pretty colours and size variations that they have used to show various bacteria types. But, I for one, am not deceived by this clever juxtaposition of size, shape and colour. All we are seeing here is the same bacteria with different colours added via clever photo-processing. Being an expert in photography and colour reproduction, I can see how the illusion has been manipulated for the gullible public. Note - My opponents comments about my information being from 1924 is irrelevant, because scientists still believe that bacteria are 50% animal and 50% plant to this very day. Nothing has changed. I suppose we should ask our vegetarian friend if he eats any seaweed or mushrooms, because they are both half animal and half plant as well. Note - I think he has already stated that he eats seaweed as part of his diet. Thus, my opponent doesn't know that he is already eating large amounts of animal protein without even knowing it! lol http://museumvictoria.com.au... Finally, my opponent has tried to deceive the voters. He has stated that "Yet, bacteria aren't animals. This is common knowledge and Pro has proved that bacteria aren't animals". Bacteria contain many characteristics of animals such as DNA, RNA, plasma membrane, ribosomes, flagellum, plasmid and pilli. Note - Bacteria can move whereas plants are static. Thus, bacteria is closer to animal than it is to plant. Thus, if my opponent is eating either mushrooms or bacteria he is in fact partly eating protein in the form of vitamin B12.
A diet of only whole fruits and vegetabes with sufficient calorie intake is ideal for health.

The journal Con linked is from 1924. [1]. Pro sources are newer and therefore more accurate. Con doesn't seem to be able to make any real argument. Con's round 4 argument is that bacteria have animal characteristics so therefore eating bacteria is not vegan. Con is right in that bacteria have animal characteristics in the sense that bacteria are living, have cellular structure, and so forth. Yet, bacteria aren't animals. This is common knowledge and Pro has proved that bacteria aren't animals. By eating a diet of only fruits and vegetables you are eating a lot of fruit and vegetables. Fruits and vegetables have lots of antioxidants, fiber, and phytonutrients [2] which have been proven to be healthy. At the same time foods with no antioxidants, fiber, nor phytonutrients like meat and dairy are excluded. Finally, fruits and vegetables lack the destructive substances found in meat and dairy like cholesterol, saturated fat, high amounts of fat, and animal protein that is detrimental to human health. "Antioxidants are man-made or natural substances that may prevent or delay some types of cell damage. Diets high in vegetables and fruits, which are good sources of antioxidants, have been found to be healthy; however, research has not shown antioxidant supplements to be beneficial in preventing diseases." [3]. In conclusion Con offers no rebuttal thus far, only playing around with the idea that bacteria are animals. Meanwhile Pro shows the health benefits of the resolution. A diet of only whole fruits and vegetables with sufficient calorie intake is ideal for health. Vote Pro. Links. 1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 2. http://www.webmd.com... 3. https://nccih.nih.gov...
A diet of only whole fruits and vegetabes with sufficient calorie intake is ideal for health.

Bacteria are neither plant nor animal but have characteristics of both. Thus, if you are eating vitamin B12, then 50% of what you are eating is animal. 50% is good enough to win this debate, so I will accept victory on my behalf. Thank you ball boys, thank you linesmen! lol http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
A diet of only whole fruits and vegetabes with sufficient calorie intake is ideal for health.

Claim: Bacteria are not animals. Warrant: "Animal Definition noun, plural: animals A living organism belonging to Kingdom Animalia that possess several characteristics that set them apart from other living things, such as: (1) being eukaryotic (i.e. the cell contains a membrane-bound nucleus) and usually multicellular (unlike bacteria and most protists, an animal is composed of several cells performing specific functions) ( 2) being heterotrophic (unlike plants and algae that are autotrophic, an animal depends on another organism for sustenance) and generally digesting food in an internal chamber (such as a digestive tract) (3) lacking cell wall (unlike plants, algae and some fungi that possess cell walls) (4) being generally motile, that is being able to move voluntarily (5) embryos passing through a blastula stage (6) possessing specialized sensory organs for recognizing and responding to stimuli in the environment " [1]. Definition for bacteria "Bacteria Definition noun, singular: bacterium (Science: Microbiology) Microscopic, single-celled organisms belonging to Kingdom Monera that possess a prokaryotic type of cell structure, which means their cells are noncompartmentalized, and their DNA (usually circular) can be found throughout the cytoplasm rather than within a membrane-bound nucleus. They reproduce by fission or by forming spores. They can practically live everywhere. They can inhabit all kinds of environment, such as in soil, acidic hot springs, radioactive waste, seawater, deep in the Earth's crust, in stratosphere, and even in the bodies of other organisms. " [2] "Neither. Living things are classified into 5 kingdoms - animalia, plantae, fungi, protista, and monera. Bacteria belong to the kingdom monera. Bacteria cells are prokaryotic while all the other kingdoms contain eukaryotes."[3]. "Eukaryotic cells contain membrane-bound organelles, such as the nucleus, while prokaryotic cells do not. " [4]. Impact: Notice the difference between bacteria and animals. Be definition bacteria aren't animals. Animals cells have organelles and bacteria don't. Creative comeback Con, despite being false. Therefore consuming bacteria is vegan. B-12 supplements are vegan. Links 1. http://www.biology-online.org... 2. http://www.biology-online.org... 3. http://www.answers.com... 4. http://www.diffen.com...
A diet of only whole fruits and vegetabes with sufficient calorie intake is ideal for health.

"Reply - This source of vitamin b12 is inadequate. The gut bacteria only produce vitamin b12 for their own purposes. It isn't transferred the the human host." Con There are plenty of healthy vegans who do not take supplements. Yes, this is anecdotal evidence. Look at 30bananasaday if you want testimonial evidence. [5]. The study Con references mentions nothing of eating fruit and veggies in the raw and whole state. A diet of all french fries and soda is vegan. The impact is that there is no guarantee these vegans were eating any raw foods in the study Con provided. "If you take vitamin B12 supplements, then you are eating meat in proxy. (cheating) lol" Con Claim: B-12 supplements are vegan Warrant:"Is B12 Vegan? The vitamin B12 component in B12 supplements and fortified foods is made by bacteria and sourced from bacteria cultures; it is not taken from animal products." [6] Logic, if bacteria produce the b-12 in both plants and animals, the manufacturers would skip the middle man, animals in this sense, and gather b-12 directly from bacteria. Impact: b-12 is vegan, thus supplements are not cheating. 5. http://www.30bananasaday.com... 6. http://www.veganhealth.org...
A diet of only whole fruits and vegetabes with sufficient calorie intake is ideal for health.

1. Quote -Bacteria eat decaying organic matter and excrete complex nutrients into the soil, including B12. This is then absorbed by plants, with some staying in the roots and some making its way into the leaves for us to take in. Reply - This source of vitamin b12 is inadequate. The gut bacteria only produce vitamin b12 for their own purposes. It isn't transferred the the human host. https://www.mja.com.au... If you take vitamin B12 supplements, then you are eating meat in proxy. (cheating) lol
A diet of only whole fruits and vegetabes with sufficient calorie intake is ideal for health.

"Your diet hasn't got any vitamin B12 in it." Con Pro begs to differ. "Microorganisms are the only natural sources of the B12-derivatives" [1]. "All fruits and vegetables contain some B12, but it's often in small quantities. Organic fruits and vegetables contain significantly more, however. Why? Bacteria eat decaying organic matter and excrete complex nutrients into the soil, including B12. This is then absorbed by plants, with some staying in the roots and some making its way into the leaves for us to take in. "[2]. B12 deficiency can occur in meat-eating humans. "Vitamin B12 deficiency is estimated to affect 10%-15% of people over the age of 60" [3]. "Vitamin B12 is a water-soluble vitamin" Con True. "The only good food sources of B12 are animal foods like meat, fish and eggs." Con Meat, fish, and eggs might happen to have B12 inside. Yet, the source is microorganisms [1]. A deficiency is widespread among vegans and vegetarians, who avoid these foods. In one study, a whopping 92% of vegans and 47% of lacto-ovo vegetarians were deficient in this critical brain nutrient. " Con Con uses no outside sources to back up his or her claim. Note, there are junk food vegans. Most French fries are vegan. Potato chips are vegan. Raw organic fruit contains some b12 from bacteria in the soil. Any processing removes some of the b12 producing bacteria. Besides there are b12 and multivitamin supplements. "1. Vitamin B12 is a waste product of a bacteria that can be found in and on the foods we eat (of both animal and plant origin). 2. B12 is also produced in the intestine and the mucosa of healthy humans." [4]. In summary, B12 comes from bacteria. Bacteria found in soil, plants, and animals. Links http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... http://www.raw-food-health.net... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... http://wilddonna.com...
A diet of only whole fruits and vegetabes with sufficient calorie intake is ideal for health.

Your diet hasn't got any vitamin B12 in it. Vitamin B12 is a water-soluble vitamin that is involved in the function of every cell in the body. It is tightly involved in the formation of blood and the function of the brain. Deficiency usually results in anemia, impaired brain function, symptoms of mental disorders and a smaller brain. There is also evidence linking B12 deficiency to Alzheimer"s Disease, which is the most common cause of dementia in Western countries. The only good food sources of B12 are animal foods like meat, fish and eggs. A deficiency is widespread among vegans and vegetarians, who avoid these foods. In one study, a whopping 92% of vegans and 47% of lacto-ovo vegetarians were deficient in this critical brain nutrient.
A diet of only whole fruits and vegetabes with sufficient calorie intake is ideal for health.

Pro will contend for the resolution. Con against the resolution. This is a factual resolution. Resolution: A diet of only whole fruits and vegetables with sufficient calorie intake is ideal for health. Example: Raw whole fruit in the morning, five bananas and five apples. Two 24 oz green smoothie with dates, flax-seed, banana, and kale and steam vegetables for lunch. A huge salad including grapes, apples, and spring mix for dinner. Intermittent snacking of raw fruit, celery, seaweed, and carrots.
P.C.'s Are Better Than Macs

A batch of thanks to my opponent for perpetuating the debate. I would like to begin off Round 3 by mentioning that my opponent has failed to attack one of my most salient points: while the up-front price of a Mac is (on average) higher when compared to a PC, the latter outweigh the former in the long run, because PCs will require much more repairs than a Mac (and each trip to the computer mechanic is accompanied by a hefty price tag). Now, to rebut his arguments and reinforce mine... • My opponent claims that Macs do not accept most forms of hardware components from other computer brands. Yet, he provides absolutely no impact to as why this is even significant when determining a Mac's performance. One must ask the question, "why does Mac need components from other computers?" Since Mac and its products are monopolized by Apple, there are actually less confusions as to figuring out which systems/hardwares are compatible with your computer or not. This saves tremendous time AND saves you money. • He claims that Macs fall behind in graphics (may I mention that he is not allowed to bring up new points in your final speech, so the point that PCs are superior in RAM and being the original founder of SD slots is null and void). There is two problems with this far-fetched claim. One: nowhere in his evidence does it explicitly state that Macs fall behind in graphics. It may be in my adversary's video, but anecdotal evidence should not be used (that is, we cannot confirm the guy's credibility nor expertise; he may be talking BS for all we know). Two: I already have evidence that Mac is extolled greatly for amazing graphics. Source: http://www.allgraphicdesign.com... • Again, let's rule off my opponent's anecdotal evidence that a one-centimeter drop will completely wreck Macs (it is quite ludicrous, and he has no way to prove its verity). Nor does he provide evidence that a Macs are less durable than PCs. We have no reason to concede it as true. In the same sense, as I mentioned before, PCs break down easily because it is susceptible to hundreds of viruses and breakdowns. • My opponent states: "...most viruses are designed for P.C.s." So he has automatically conceded my point that a PC is more vulnerable to viruses, and that it would lead to PCs being more expensive than a Mac in the long run due to the repairs needed. • My opponent claims that Macs are designed merely for aesthetic appeal. Yet, I have provided various sources that affirm Mac's high performance that trumps PC's in many aspects. The assumption that something well-designed cosmetically is automatically inferior in performance is a logical fallacy. I thank my opponent for this debate, as well as the voters. And for the following reasons, I urge a vote on the strong negative of the resolved. Thank you!