BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The earth is an oblate spheroid

"My opponent assumes this will be an easy debate I see. News flash, pictures aren't infallible evidence for anything. They are unsourced, and I have no idea if they are even real or not"My opponent seems to have missed the obvious implication, which I honestly did not think needed to be spelt out. There are a host of bodies, both public and private, that have satellites in orbit that can take pictures of the earth and confirmed that the earth is round. As there is such an array of options which one I used isn't really relevant because there being a wealth of such imagery is common and very basic knowledge. In this case, in case it is ever relevant, I went with NAZA's DSCOVR satellite which usually takes several pictures a day (https://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov...).Also pictures are certainly evidence of what they represent existing. Whether they are infallible or not is to be decieded, I look forward to your attempt to refute them.I've actually created better images of earth in Photoshop myself.Please feel free to provide them. Also feel free to explain why this is relevant. Do you have proof that the array of photos taken from massess of satellites run by the national and international space organisations and private satellite communication companies across the globe are all part of a conspiracy to defraud humankind in regards to the shape of the Earth? Then what does your professed photoshop skill matter because that does not refute the pictures."Anyone with a few hours or less of free time can do it.https://youtu.be...;Please note that the first step of the process CON has laid out in the link is to literally google and use pictures of a spherical earth that NASA has taken from orbit.Fact is, these pictures are unverifiable. None of us can say they've seen the earth from this far away. All we see ourselves are flat horizons and we can't tell we are moving. So the pictures go against our common senses. My opponents arguments are the equivalent to proving shark kitty exists by simply posting an image of him.My opponent is apparently unaware that there being space agencies run by professional experts who arrange for pictures to be taken from space and verify their authoenticity. You know, like NASA. Or he is being intentionally obtuse and refusing to engage with my argument.Either way, I feel that any voter will understand that the there being a wealth of imagery available from professional and governmental bodies is very basic knowledge. Even if they feel it is not, it has now been pointed out.
The earth is an oblate spheroid

My opponent assumes this will be an easy debate I see. News flash, pictures aren't infallible evidence for anything. They are unsourced, and I have no idea if they are even real or not. I've actually created better images of earth in Photoshop myself. Anyone with a few hours or less of free time can do it. https://youtu.be... Fact is, these pictures are unverifiable. None of us can say they've seen the earth from this far away. All we see ourselves are flat horizons and we can't tell we are moving. So the pictures go against our common senses. My opponents arguments are the equivalent to proving shark kitty exists by simply posting an image of him. https://i.pinimg.com... It's a ridiculous argument, and I hope he can come up with something more substantial than just images, or this will be a short debate.
The earth is an oblate spheroid

There is no irrefutable evidence for a spherical earth that I know of. There are very many reasons to consider a flat earth, and even a few that would suggest a concave earth. I don't know, I'm still on the fence. My opponent is convinced that the earth is a spinning ball, and has irrefutable evidence for this belief. For this to be true, two things must be proved: curvature and axial rotation. Opponent must state their arguments in r1 and forfeit the last round.
Young Earth Creationism is Supported by Scientific Evidence.

D'oh! Now you're nitpicking me! How dare you use my own reasoning against me! You..... :) I'm sure I could probably find some research papers dealing with thermodynamics or explanations about why the universe is 6000 years old but starlight from suns billions of light years away can be seen, or why radiocarbon dating is wrong..... but I think we would both agree that such theories are "bad" science. Also, unless someone in the comments can find it, I will concede that scientific evidence for creationism is not published in peer-reviewed journals. I recall one controversy a few years ago and wouldn't be surprised if there were more, but after being peer-reviewed the theory or theories were discredited. I'm just too lazy to actually find the example. To make a long story longer, is YEC supported by evidence? Yes it is. That evidence is called the bible. Is it supported by "good" SCIENTIFIC evidence? No, it is not. I concede to you good sir! I will now forfeit any additional rounds.
Young Earth Creationism is Supported by Scientific Evidence.

Pro seems to have come in to this debate thinking he would receive an easy win. However, I'm afraid I am going to have to make this much more difficult for pro than he thought it would be because my wording is, in fact, rather precise. Pro seems to be under the impression that he can cite evidence that is poorly and unscientifically gathered that supports young earth creationism (YEC). However, the resolution speaks specifically of scientific evidence. As it is scientific, it must be legitimately obtained as a result of the exercise of the scientific method, be based on valid scientific proceedings, and be published in a scientific peer-reviewed journal. Therefore, as pro has admitted "the 'support' for young earth creationism is just bad science," I think it is he who will have a tough time this debate. In order to prove the resolution, pro must provide valid scientific evidence that supports YEC. Posting URLs on the screen doesn't qualify. Pro must present the evidence and justify it, and I will debunk it the next round. Pro has not actually provided any evidence. One cannot make an argument merely by posting sources. Until pro actually provides evidence, I have won, as he unambiguously has the burden of proof. Good luck to pro.
Young Earth Creationism is Supported by Scientific Evidence.

I'm going to win this, not because I disagree with my opponent, but because of his unfortunate choice of his thesis statement. I am not a creationist, nor an intelligent design-ist. I accept the scientific evidence for geology, evolution, chemistry, radiation, astronomy, the fossil record, biology, and the historical record as being, to the best of our current understanding and knowledge, as proof that life on this planet and the universe itself are billions of years old. But, is Young Earth Creationism supported by scientific evidence? YES. Is Young Earth Creationism PROVEN by scientific evidence? NO. I can now go on and on citing lots of evidence that supports young earth creationism. Ten seconds on Google resulted in this: http://creation.com... http://www.icr.org... https://answersingenesis.org... However, in almost all cases, the "support" has not been proven, nor established, nor regarded by the mainstream scientific or historical community as acceptable evidence. Most of the "support" for young earth creationism is just bad science, like "God of the gaps" reasoning, scholars commenting on fields that they are not experts in (a physics professor discussing the evolution of the eye), researchers who have already made up their minds (believe the earth to be 10,000 years old then go looking for evidence) and disregard evidence that doesn't support their hypothesis, or researchers who rightly do attack the evidence but do so for misguided reasons. A lot of pro "mainstream" Young Earth believers consists of those with incredulity and lack of knowledge, "I can't understand how it works so therefore it must have been impossible/require a supernatural agency." "I have no idea how to move a stone block weighing several tons, therefore it would be impossible for the ancient Egyptians to do so, therefore aliens must have made the pyramids." I believe my opponent and I will both agree that the majority of "support" for young-Earth creationism is bunk and pseudo-science. But is there support for it? Yes, there is. Is it "good" support? No, it isn't. The only thing left to debate now is for my opponent to say that there is no "support" but unfortunately he would be wrong. There's lots of support, it's just a lot of rubbish. Unless my opponent wants to take the side that the support is indeed evidence and proof, unless he wants to start debating that the Earth is indeed 10,000 years old, I think this debate is over. I would advise him to forfeit and start a new debate with a stronger opening statement. And yeah, I know I'm nitpicking my opponent's unfortunate use of the word "support." But, in a written debate like this, grammar and vocabulary are important. I believe I know what he intended to say, but what he intended, and what he actually wrote, is not the same.
The creation of state run "orphanages" to house children of at risk families. Read opening argument

Here are the points made in the last Con post I. Children age 6 to 7 are not participating in gang violence II. Younger children would be incapable of formulating this type of student government III. Access to programs should be brought to the children in at-risk families, not the other way around IV. Cost I. Children age 6 to 7 are, by and large, not participating in gang related violence. However, when a child is raised in these areas, they are often recruited at a young age because they have no family to go to for support, and the gang provides this family. By removing the kids from his "home" (which was never really there to begin with) and putting him in a "gang" supervised by the state that teaches them civic virtues instead of gangbanging, you raise the kids as they would have been raised anyways, except now they are productive members of society. II. Who says that the 6 and 7 year olds would be forming the government? This is a long term project with long term results. Thus, the program takes a while for it to get up to full steam. The first batch of kids would not hold their elections until they reached high school age. Since there would be a constant stream of replacements right at their heels (just as in a regular high school), the first government would set the basic ground work and all the others would follow after them. Thus, the age problem wouldn't be a problem. III. The problem is, these programs require money and impetus to join and participate in. This makes it quite difficult for at-risk kids, since the families don't have the money and the parents don't particularly care whether the kids succeed in life or not. Thus, the kids have no reason or ability to join the programs. On top of that, gangs are often openly hostile to these programs and the people who participate in them, because they deprive them of fresh recruits. Remove the kid from the problem area, and he won't be a problem any more. IV. The thing is, however, that if a government can come up with billions upon billions of dollars of imbecilic pork barrel spending, then the system is more than capable of being milked to create the institution that I've outlined. Also, if this institution was established in an area with a relatively decent population, it would be able to bring thousands of jobs to the area and provide a stable non/semi-skilled workforce for as long as the institution was in place. In a very short amount of time, the program would pay for itself in as much as that it would help generate revenue as much as any other program, and it would continue to generate revenue in perpetuity for as long as the institute was open. It's the pork that never dies; a corrupt politician's Sï¿½hrï¿½mnir that actually serves a purpose.
The creation of state run "orphanages" to house children of at risk families. Read opening argument

Greylance, Thanks again for the arguments. I can understand how some things get very heated, I'll try my best to stay cool headed as well. :) I am afraid that I may be coming off as assuming that because the kids are poor, they are not good leaders. That is certainly not the case. Your clarification that you are talking about kids with a maximum age of six or seven poses an entirely new set of obstacles in getting this kind of institution to work. You argue that these same kids are the ones forming organizations of "drug smuggling, gun-running, protection rackets, and murders" on a regular basis. I would say they need to be quite a bit older than six or seven. No doubt, there is the occasional story of a child finding his parents gun, but that does not mean the leadership skills are coming into play there. Children of this age will also be ill-equipped with the resources to decide how to 'govern' in this community. How old were the participants in Boys State? Much older than 6 or 7, I am sure. If the problem is, as you state, that children from lower class broken homes don't have access to programs like Boy Scouts, JROTC, NHS, or other programs designed to enhance leadership skills and responsibility, then the solution is not to create an orphanage to ship these kids off to. The solution, rather, is to allow the state to significantly expand the availability of such programs to children that come from these households. That way, you can continue the advantage of direct parental involvement, and also reap the benefits of these programs, without the cost or the legal ramifications of creating this supervised, child-governed orphanage. It's true that many people in America feel the election and political system is a joke. Many have no clue what they are voting for. That's a primary reason our founding fathers introduced the electoral college. But that's a separate debate. It is still a simple truth that the more wise solution is to expand access to foster homes, bring in more people that will be willing to be parents, and give those families enhanced access to programs that will help build upon natural born traits. In addition, I think we need to think about the real costs associated with this proposal. Not only are you building the entire new community: gym, library, dorms, etc., but you are now going to pay for every meal, every stitch of clothing, upkeep on any damage done, etc. This quickly rises into the billions of dollars. Now I assume that you would argue the money we save on the drop in crime will make up for it, but if states were to heed some of my earlier suggestions, we avoid cost and still drop the crime rate in future years. Thanks Greylance, I look forward to Round 3!
The creation of state run "orphanages" to house children of at risk families. Read opening argument

A large problem in American these days is that of broken families that have no parents but numerous children. I am not speaking of a couple who have divorced, live in decent homes, pass their children back and forth for the court ordered visits, squabble over alimony, etc. I am speaking of families where there has never been a father figure, the mother is often unemployed or employed just enough to pick up welfare, and there are often six or seven plus children in familial limbo. These children will, unfortunately more often than not, turn to either crime, drugs, or both to escape from their lack of a real home, and soon repeat the cycle. There is often little or not hope for those born into this system, and despite what many politicians want to say, we have no way of alleviating this other than a firm pat on the back and telling them to hit the books harder. I did not think of this very often (when I did I just wrote it off as a incurable evil in the world) until I went to Boy's State of Virginia. While there, I was put into a smaller body of around forty boys my age (called a city) and we lived together for a week. While there, we participated in elections for our city mayor, sheriff, representatives and senators to the state congress, and finally our Governor, Lt. Governor, and Attorney General. While there, we had constant adult supervision obviously, but it was kept mostly in line by the kids themselves. Now I understand that the boys I was with were, albeit, a very select group of young men by the nature of Boy's State, but I don't see how a similar system couldn't be devised using increased adult supervision in a more controlled environment. To see if this would work out or not, I would suggest that one state (let's say Virginia) use a small tax on a few various items to raise enough money for the clothes, shoes, teachers, and other personnel needed to run the institution, and then tap into federal funding to help build a school, housing, library, cafeteria, gym, soccer and/or football field, and swimming pool. After this was established, a state agency would be set up to locate, process, and transport a group of younger boys and girls to the facility. (I would suggest younger children because they would be more accepting of a new way of life as opposed to grabbing troubled teens and yanking them out of their home environment and thrusting them into a new one. ) Have the kids grow up in the facility, form their own governments (such as at Boy's State) so that they may figure out how best to handle their disputes (with adult supervision). Have the kids all attend classes together like at a normal high school, and take measures to provide extra curricular activities outside of what the institution offers (i. e. - negotiate for a Boy Scout/Girl Scout troop to be established there, etc. )
single lives a better life

single has much more things to be concerned for instead of love ....he can brighten up his future....he can attain success..unless whole time is wasted on useless daily issues...which r not of much concern...and moreover v hav tym for practicing our hobbies...v r can make usefull evry single sec of our life..instead of filling our loneliness and for most men (im not talking of all) generally in metropoloitan cities it is a medium to fullfill our sexual desires...dats all ...wat kind of relationship is dat ....so I strongly recommend dat lyf living as single is f much more fun and free ...their is no one so insecure for u ...u can live lyf d way u wan
Gun banning

I concede that America has grown from guns. So what? Don't forget that you have also "grown" from slavery, racial segregation, and sexism. In fact, many other countries have. These things have, in one way or another, influenced our society. That does not mean we should keep them all, just because they are traditions. Our society has evolved to recognise that sometimes traditions are not the best way of devising normative policy. Our policies should be thought out, reasoned, discussed based on the available evidence.In the case of guns, it is darn true that 39% of homicides are directly attributed to firearms. That's a lot in its own right!It gets even more terrifying, when you take a look at the RECENT statistics with regards to MURDER.The figure is almost 68% (!!!) of murders are committed with guns. That's more than two thirds. And the stats are for 2011.http://www.fbi.gov...I have quoted the fact that gun-free countries have substantially lower crime rates than the United States with its powerful gun lobby.What else do you need to justify the removal of guns from ordinary people?
Gun banning

America has grown from guns. When they take away our rights, whatever they may be, there will always be protests. Gun violence > Homicides > % homicides with firearms 39.5604 http://www.nationmaster.com.... We should not ban them, but strictly regulate who can buy them. In Montana and Texas, it is against the law to follow any government law about gun banning. New York as the strictest gun laws in the States: according to http://nymag.com..., Andrew Cuomo will regulate clip sizes, make you renew gun linsences, a harsher sentences for crimes that use guns (just to name a few). Andrew's new laws are way to strict. Instead of banning them completely, we need to keep guns from mentally handicaps.
Gun banning

Riots? Civil War? What are you talking about? UK, France, Germany, Switzerland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Norway, the Netherlands, and many many other civilised countries do very well without guns. And none of them ever faced riots or civil wars, as you say, because of adequate gun control. What's stopping the US from introducing similar measures?What's stopping the government from banning a lot more? Well, many things simply have to be banned, just because they are inherently so bad, that no reasonable justification can be possibly made to keep them. Controlled substances, for example, like heroin or cocaine. Explosives. Child pornography. Cigarettes and alcohol are effectively banned for the under 18s. The rationale behind banning them is that they are capable of causing sufficiently severe and irreparable damage, whether physical or emotional. They are not just banned at the whim of the government There is a lot of reasoning being done, when the government devises a particular policy. In the case of guns, there is strong evidence, that countries with adequate gun control feature substantively lower homicide rates, while being similar in other respects. Take UK and US for example. In the US, the homicide rate is 4.8 homicides per 100,000 inhabitants. In the UK, for example, this figure equates to 1.2 homicide cases per 100,000 people. France is sitting at 1.1, Germany - 0.8, Netherlands - 1.1, Australia - 1.0. That's about at 4 times less than the US. http://data.un.org...;Now, why on Earth would you put money on your personal feelings and beliefs rather than reliable statistical evidence, which leads to the only possible conclusion that gun control causes more violence. Substantially more violence. It did not have to be true, but it is, in light of empirical evidence. The finding is conclusive. If you want to reduce violence, you have to take away guns. And that's a pretty good reason to take them away, if you want to spare some innocent lives. In fact, by allowing guns, the government prima facie positively infringes on the right to life of every single individual, a very fundamental one. And it's no conjecture that the right to life would trump the right to guns in all the conceivable circumstances.With regards to black market, well, I'd view it as a necessary evil. Unfortunately, there is black market for virtually every single thing. Explosives, drugs, child pornography, cigarettes, alcohol, gambling, fake identity documents, etc. Should we just deregulate them all and yield to the criminals? Black market, while impossible to extinguish completely, can, nevertheless, be confined within its four corners, so as not to cause too much of a concern to the general public. It is not much of a concern anymore in the UK, because our law enforcement is doing a jolly good job at bringing the criminals to justice. US has an excellent law enforcement, capable of scoring just as high, or even better.
Gun banning

Gun banning. Its been debated over for many years. But, when the Newtown shooter shot up the school, it turned many people to vote for the banning. I stand against them! When you take away our guns (assault or otherwise) what's stopping the government from banning alot more? If you ban the guns, it would create more problems then solve. Riots and black market, just to name two. It would create another Civil War.