BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Evil is a lack of good

Hello, and welcome to my debate. I am taking the position of Pro, you of Con if you choose to accept. Please be chivalrous, do not swear, and use no logical fallacies. Godwin's law shall not be invoked. Without further ado, let us begin. I argue that evil is a lack of good. Here is why: for years, people have associated evil with cold and blackness, emptyness, all quite entropic. It is almost as if they knew that good exists but evil does not. For example, in the bible Jesus tells us that the darkness does not understand the light. Now, would that not fit the description of something that is lacking, or nothing at all? He compares it to darkness, a lack of light. Again, thing about inherently good or whole things. Life can exist without death, but not vice versa. Love can exist without hate, but not vice versa. Light can exist without darkness, but not vice versa. Essentially, bad things must be compared to good things, but not vice versa.
Should same sex people go to the same school

My opponent has no provided a response, so I will further extend my arguments. I will discuss how single sex school are more beneficial to the teacher as well a sthe student. The teacher: A teacher teaching a class of 25 boys is going to have an easier job than teaching a group of 13 girls and 12 boys. The reason being is that boys generally do certain aspects of learning different than females. Males are generally better at pracitcal work as opposed to females who are generally better are languages. Teacher's that can adapt to this teach better. The student: In a class of boys, a male will not be afraid to speak his mind, as he is himself as male. In a mixed class, he is also under the pressure of the other sex and therefore may not speak his mind. The Consequences of this are that he may not learn the topic as good as he would if he participated. This is my further reasoning and hope my opponent responds.
Should same sex people go to the same school

First I will affirm what the argument states. The argument states not that Girls should only go to girls schools and boys only go to boys school, but should they? My opponent affirms they should not but does not give reasoning. I propose these arguments: 1) Having the same sex provides a better environment for learning. 2) The opposite sex is often a distraction. 1) In an environment, a male feels naturally more comfortable with a fellow male. And the same with females. Applying this to school, students are more comfortable to speak their minds with other men rather than wome nand men. 2) In a mixed class, girls can distract boys and likewise, merely because of hormones. A girl likes a boy , she will concentrate more on him and likewise. Seperating them is more beneficial. I await my opponents response.
This is not a debate

Thanks Con.I can win this contest by asking the voters to read my opponent's opening round to see if Con actually made any positive arguments for if I do not provide arguments as to whether or not this is a debate (the second horn of his dilemma). If he didn't then voters should vote Pro for Con not upholding his burden of proof (which he placed on himself in his opening statement).Therefore, my round is a word of advice to voters, rather than an argument. I advise voters to vote for Pro in accordance with the principles of being a good voter IF you can't see a positive argument given by Con according to Con's self-imposed BoP.Thank you for enjoying this contest.
This is not a debate

It is my burden of proof to show that this is not not a debate. Debate definition: "a formal discussion on a particular topic in which opposing arguments are put forward. If my opponent proposes an argument, this supports this debate not not being a debate and my resolution is upheld. If my opponent doesn't propose an argument, he will lose for failing to rebut my argument for why this debate is not not a debate. These are my formal arguments in support of the resolution.
Animal Rights should be introduced

I tend to avoid animal rights campaigners because I believe they are loony, and am still thinking this because my opponent has not provided a single valid argument which is annoying because I hoped he would.There is one thing I forgot to mention, humans can catch bovine tuberculosis (bTB), which is why in the U.K. badger numbers are beng reduced by culling in the hope of controlling the disease. If animals are given rights then human beings may suffer. I think it is quite obvious that human life is more important
Animal Rights should be introduced

I'm sure Nick Clegg would want to give animals the right to vote and there'd be people who would want this too, however this would destroy democracy, as there are more animals than there are people.A lot of people seem to think that animals are people too e.g. I was talking to a woman recently on plenty of fish who replied "I've worked at the school for 15 years. It was a long day because I've been to get my hair done as well tonight. We are goin to Liverpool on sat x". The above may sound like a normal message but she used the word "we" to refer to her dog, and she didn't even mention anything about a dog whilst conversing. There are plenty of mentally ill people just like this who will want animals to have rights simply because animals have feelings. They don't have a valid reason, they just want to say 'I care about animals; you don't.' You don't have to believe that animals should have rights to know they have feelings.In summary:It's ridiculous to think animals should have rights.
Animal Rights should be introduced

Thank you for starting this debate, could you please provide sources (or links) supporting your argument so myself and voters can watch them, thanks.I have not seen the videos mentioned yet but I'm sure animals do suffer unecessarily, however I do not believe this is a reason to give them rights for the following reasons:1. If livestock has a right to life, they can't be killed, this would have a huge impact on the price of meat, and farmers livelihoods. 2. If an animal has rights but is suffering, it can't be humanely killed. (How can someone ask for it's permission?)3. If animals have rights it won't be long before it's illegal to run over a mouse, or tread on a snail.4. Animals are worth money unlike humans who are priceless. If animals are given rights they wouldn't want a price tag on them so are people supposed to work hard for nothing? 5. An animals act exists [1]. It is illegal to trespass to kill a pig or whatever can affect a farmer so there is no need to give animals rights. All life suffers, it's the reason why they do that matters, and animals suffer in order to feed a growing population, advance medicine, and to provide certain people with entertainment. People don't have to choose to eat battery farmed eggs but they do knowing they are not free range. I think I've made enough points for now, I eagerly await your argument, thanksSources:[1] http://www.legislation.gov.uk...
Animal Rights should be introduced

Ok, hold on for a second. The people who vote no clearly have no insight into what happens to these animals, so let me give some detail. For example Fois Gras a style of duck is often done by force feeding the duck their entire life. Watch a video, then come back and vote because anyone who does this will without a doubt vote for animal rights. But if there is some, odd human being who votes no, then I ask you to look at a video produced by PETA. They show the true monstrosity of animal abuse and how angry men stomp on the skulls of piglets, keep monkeys for testing in small glass tubes and a sport is to put knives through a bulls body until it is dead. If you still vote no, than see a psychiatrist because nothing on this earth should ever have to through a life as bad as this. War victims are lucky in comparison to the pain animals receive, and to ignore this fact is without a doubt a true sign of your ignorance.
It is a choice to be gay or straight.

You admitted that sexual preference was only 40% based on genes and that how you are raised accounts for the other 60%. However, this argument can go in my way. Just because you are raised in a certain way doesn't mean that you believe a certain thing. You can be raised by straight parents and decide that you are gay without having a gene. Take my friend's sister for example, I know she was straight for a while as when my friend and I were younger, she would always talk about how great her boyfriend was and she went through two or three boyfriends. However, she then decided that she was going to be gay. Your sources help with your gene based side but people do have the choice. You also mentioned only men, and not once did you mention women.
It is a choice to be gay or straight.

Nope. The BOP is on whoever makes the positive claim, regardless of whoever makes the first one. I'm arguing that sexual preference is based on genetics and the environment we're raised in, and you're asserting that it's by choice. If anything, the opposite of why you've said it true- If I can prove that it's genetic based in a situation then it would tell how the resolution's false, and you would lose as you're playing Pro. Arguments: A study showed that: "evidence for two sets [of genes] that affect whether a man is gay or straight. But it is not completely determinative; there are certainly other environmental factors involved"[1] It also declares the mechanics behind the study: "A study of gay men in the US has found fresh evidence that male sexual orientation is influenced by genes. Scientists tested the DNA of 400 gay men and found that genes on at least two chromosomes affected whether a man was gay or straight" It isn't what completely determines though. Genes only account for 40% of sexual preference. There is literally no evidence supporting the claim that it's a choice, so the other part is how you're raised. Thanks. [1] http://www.theguardian.com... [2] http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
It is a choice to be gay or straight.

Pro made this claim in a poll. This is a chance for him to prove his claim. Gay- A homosexual, attracted to those of the same sex. Straight- Attracted to those of the opposite sex. Let's not be stupid and play schematics such as "It's a choice to love your dad, and he may be the same sex as you" for an easy win... I think it's pretty clear what I mean by gay. First round is for acceptance only. No new arguments in the final round, no plagiarism, and no voting purely based on whoever you agree with. Basically don't be stupid. Let's start.
It is a choice to be gay or straight.

"You admitted that sexual preference was only 40% based on genes and that how you are raised accounts for the other 60%. However, this argument can go in my way. Just because you are raised in a certain way doesn't mean that you believe a certain thing. You can be raised by straight parents and decide that you are gay without having a gene. Take my friend's sister for example, I know she was straight for a while as when my friend and I were younger, she would always talk about how great her boyfriend was and she went through two or three boyfriends. However, she then decided that she was going to be gay. Your sources help with your gene based side but people do have the choice. You also mentioned only men, and not once did you mention women" My opponent is appealing to a personal experience instead of using a compelling argument: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com... My opponent has not offered enough evidence to prove his claim. Until he does, his BOP is not yet fulfilled and we have literally no reason to vote for him.
Evolution is True

That was not a good instance of macro evolution first you gave no source for your information secondly how do you know that it was speciation and not them merely finding a new species of mosquitoes. "the Amino Acids can be explained to form cells slowly over time, it is not like we claim that it happened in a day, it took a billion years for this to occur, plenty of time for the acids to come in contact and form the first proteins and eventually cells." you in no way answered how amino acids can turn into cells. please give a scientific answer to this not just a hypothesis with a source. the argument so far has been on abiogenoses because of this I would say I am winning this debate being as the burden of proof falls on you and you have brought up no evidence for evolution thus far
Evolution is True

The instances of Macro evolution include species of mosquitoes in the genus Culex and Rhagoletis Pomonella (AKA the Apple Maggot). The beneficial mutation being the nucleotide insertion that gave rise to nylonace( i am sorry that i cannot get the correct spelling) a species of bacteria. As for the lack of oxygen it was believed that Earth would have had a reduced atmosphere much like Jupiter and other planets currently have, Which would not have had any oxygen. While it does not explain how they became Cells, it does show that non-living things can be made into living materials. The Amino Acids can be explained to form cells slowly over time, it is not like we claim that it happened in a day, it took a billion years for this to occur, plenty of time for the acids to come in contact and form the first proteins and eventually cells. , hypothetical of course because as some one in the comments stated, no one was there.
Evolution is True

to start of I do think evolution is fact I took this debate as a challenge. so from here on out I will argue as a non believer in evolution first the origin of life I am assuming you are talking about the miller-Urey experiment. the main problem with there experiment was there was no oxygen included. why was there no oxygen because they knew it would destroy any amino acids that could form. this does not explain life's origins anyway because it does not show how these building blocks became living cells. sorry by my speakers are broke so I couldn't hear the video. can you give me an example of macro evolution or a completely beneficial mutation? because your opening statement only dealt with abiogenesis they are the only thing that I can dispute so far
Evolution is True

Evolution is true due to observable and undeniable facts. First at the origin of life, If you run an electric current through methane, ammonia, hydrogen and water Amino acids the basic building blocks of life can form. All of those chemicals would have been present in the young earth, along with the electric current, simply because of where there is water there are clouds and where there are clouds there is thunder, which allows accounts for the electricity. More info here :http://www.accessexcellence.org... We also have observed micro and macro evolution, as well as beneficial mutations, as examples are given in this video http://www.youtube.com.... We can back this up using dating methods to verify ages of fossils linking humans to a common ancestor with monkeys. Given this evidence and more, Evolution surly must be true.
The Battle of the sex's; Do you believe the female is superior than a male in todays society.

For the purpose of clarification, my job in this round is not to prove that the male gender is superior to the female gender. I only have to prove that the argument presented by my opponent is simply not enough to claim that one gender is superior to the other. Let's start with my opponents first argument; lifespan. While I can not deny the fact that women generally live longer than men; I can point out the lack of constructive logic behind this argument. My opponent's logic here is that women live longer than men and as such are superior. Following this same pattern couldn't I then say that a tortoise lives longer than a human and as such is superior? My opponent also fails to recognize that an organisms lifespan is not solely dependent on biology, it is also influenced by external factors. This source explains it thoroughly: . http://www.scientificamerican.com... 2. Tolerance for pain. I notice that my opponent mentions that multiple studies have demonstrated that women have a higher pain tolerance than men, yet he failed to provide any links or documentation to indicate where these studies came from or even a clue as to how reliable and controversial these studies are. And in response to pain tolerance due to child birth; pain killers are pretty popular these days. 3. Body fat Women have less muscles to break down and turn to energy needed for the body to continue to function. Without this essential, the body ill collapse on itself and regardless of how much fat you have, you will die. 4. Intelligence My opponent makes a good point when he says that women have higher social and emotional intelligence than men;he however, failed to mention that men proven to be more logical thinkers and better in arithmetic than females are. Does that make men superior? . http://www.avoiceformen.com... Just because one gender excels in an area does not give my opponent enough grounds to say that they are then the superior gender. Both parties have their part to play as equals. 5. Disease The fact is, despite having only one X chromosome, men are far less likely to report sick than women are. . http://news.bbc.co.uk... 6. parthenogenesis If we want to go outside the human race, parthenogenesis is no prove of superiority. Ones again, if that was the case, then a gold fish is our superior. Throughout this round, my opponent has simply pointed out things that are irrelevant to whether or not women are superior to men. I have proven that in society, each gender has a role to play. The only way to achieve these goals however, is through equality.
Ted Cruz 2016

Ted Cruz is the only fit candidate, for any party, to be president of the United States. Ted Cruz is the only true conservative running for president, and is one of few true conservatives in Washington, D. C. He has demonstrated this numerous times, for example, he led the fight against Obamacare and voted no on the spending bill that funds Planned Parenthood. Ted Cruz is a strong Christian, who bases his votes and policies based on the Bible and Christian faith. He understands that this nation was built on the idea of Christianity, and that the founding fathers knew exactly what they were doing when they wrote such documents as the Declaration of Independence, U. S. Constitution, and Bill of Rights. He also fights for religious liberty, something that is being hijacked by Liberals who believe they are above the law. He opposes issues such as same-sex marriage and abortion, which are big issues to republican conservative voters. Ted Cruz is the only candidate who speaks truly to voters, and does exactly what he says he will do. Ted Cruz is a supporter of Israel, and wants to move the embassy to Jerusalem on his first day in office. Ted Cruz also wants to open a investigation into Planned Parenthood on his first day in office, and expose all the harm that organization does. In all, Ted Cruz should be the republican nominee and president of the United States because he will bring power back to the people, and make this country as pleasant as possible for future generations to come. I now await my opponents response, thank you.
Jonah never existed.

My opponent has again unfairly shifted the BoP over to my side, even though I demonstrated that the BoP is normally on the instigator. My opponent has presented no alternative philosophy or reason for the BoP to be on me, except that it is hard to prove a negative. But this is hardly an adequate reason. So I find it insulting when he/she implies that the BoP is obviously on me. Alternativatively, I did provide a rational framework where the BoP fits on my opponent. This isn't 'playing around'; this is providing actual quotes from actual debaters and philosophers on the subject. Finally, my opponent's whole stance on the BoP is unreferenced, which makes his position on this matter a bare assertion.[3]"...we have many pictures of George Washington that stand up to scrutiny. The same can't be said for Jonah."This argument also carries no citations with it, making it another bare assertion. Also, this counter argument seems to be misrepresenting my first argument which was that you cannot say someone did not exist simply because there are false legends about that person.Sources:[3]https://logfall.wordpress.com...
Jonah never existed.

In other words my opponent is playing around with the burden of proof. Yes, I should have stated the burden of proof was on my opponent the first round, due to the difficulty of proving a negative. Yet, this is obvious and I didn't think it needed to be stated. My opponent literally provides no evidence. Instead focusing almost exclusively on the burden of proof. I don't see the instigator automatically assuming the burden of proof. As for the George Washington and the Cherry tree, we have many pictures of George Washington that stand up to scrutiny. The same can't be said for Jonah. Also, cutting down a cherry tree is much more likely than resurrection.
Jonah never existed.

My opponent has unfairly placed the burden of proof (BoP) on me. Generally, it is automatically assumed that the BoP is on the instigator, unless otherwise specified in the first post. According to James Cargile: "When two parties are in a discussion and one asserts a claim that the other disputes, the one who asserts has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim."[1] According to Christopher Hitchens: "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."[2] Universally held debate ethics and regulations should not be changed just because an assertion is hard to prove. If Pro wished for the BoP to be shared, he/she might have worded the debate into a question. If Pro wanted me to have the sole BoP, he/she should have clearly stated that in the opening post. Anything outside of this is unethically shifting the BoP. A short example: if I were to make a debate called 'Adolf Hitler is NOT dead', the BoP would be on me because I'm making a claim. And the fact that this claim is negative does not change the fact that I have the BoP. Sources: [1]https://en.wikipedia.org... [2]https://en.wikipedia.org...
Jonah never existed.

"In short, Pro is trying to argue that Russell"s teapot doesn"t exist. The problem is that the burden of proof is squarely fixed on the instigator, who (in my opinion) will have an impossible time vainly trying to prove this assertion correct or even likely." petfishNope, the burden of proof is on you. This is due to the difficulty of disproving negatives, I can't disprove unicorns. My opponent must have the burden of proof.
Jonah never existed.

When we look at Pro"s claim, we see that Pro is trying to disprove a historical figure by discrediting legendary stories that surround that character. Simply put, this is as weak as saying George Washington never existed because he never cut down a cherry tree. Pro also discredits the Bible, the only available source on this character. But if we are to discredit the only source on a historical person, how can one reasonably prove this character never existed? The answer is that you can"t. In short, Pro is trying to argue that Russell"s teapot doesn"t exist. The problem is that the burden of proof is squarely fixed on the instigator, who (in my opinion) will have an impossible time vainly trying to prove this assertion correct or even likely.
Jonah never existed.

Who is this Jonah character anyways? The only reference I can find is within the Bible. A book that has been translated a bunch of times. Not only that but the entire story seems incredibly preposterous. Swallowed by a great fish? Survived 3 days and 3 nights? Possibly resurrected, this is crazy talk. Even if say a great white shark bothered Jonah, it probably just took a sample bite and swam away. "However, most of these are not fatal, and new research finds that great whites, who are naturally curious, are "sample biting" then releasing their victims rather than preying on humans." [0] I for one state Jonah never existed. Thanks in advance for accepting the debate. Sources. http://animals.nationalgeographic.com...