BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gun Control

Thank you for accepting. I will begin with the effectiveness of gun control. Gun control is seen effective in other countries such as Germany or Switzerland, but every country is different and every citizen is different also. Comparing the United States' statistics to another country's statistics is irrelevant, in my opinion, to the argument of gun control. In the United States, we see the lowest firearm murder rates in states that allow open carry or open carry with restrictions. This is a point that helps my case that gun control does not help in our country. Another point that gun control is not effective, is that, yes it is cliche, guns do not kill people, people kill people. The majority of mass shooting committed within the United States, has been committed by a person with a mental illness. We do not need to focus on the "unnecessary" guns, but the "necessary" improvement of our mental healthcare system. Which brings me to my second argument, the "need" of gun control. Gun control is not needed because, for example I will use the Newtown massacre as an example, Nancy Lanza very well knew her mentally unstable son was living at home with open access to her guns. No gun safe and no mental help. That is my argument.
I will lose this debate.

At this point, I'd like to note that Pro still has not fulfilled his burden of proof. But let me summarize my case thus far and re-examine his burden.In order to ultimately win this debate, there actually is no paradox: I do not have to argue that my opponent will lose and that I will win. Even if I were to win, this still does not prove Pro's case because the end does not justify the means.The mere fact that there is a possibility that Pro may still win, or that the debate would end in a tie -- let's say that no one decided to vote, so we ended in a 0 to 0 tie -- disproves his case. As I said, he must argue that he had prior knowledge of and can substantiate the fact that he will lose this debate. But that's incoherent: votebombing, lack of interest in voting, et al. could easily change this result.Then he could argue that simply not posting any arguments in spite of being online means that he should in theory lose the conduct point and thus lose the debate. First and foremost, you cannot reason from this that becaue many people would dock the conduct point, that he would lose the debate, and thus win the debate, and deserves the points. That logic, again, extends ad infinitum, and voters must only consider the contents of this debate before making their decisions. There is no causal relationship between forfeitting nd losing: there's only a correlation. One could forfeit, and either win on arguments, which counts for three times the amount of points that conduct does, or we could tie due to lack of interest.So, again, even if I were to argue that I should win this debate because my opponent has not fulfilled his burden of proof, I am not arguing that I will. That burden of proof is on my opponent, and he must be able to prove that in the next round in order to have a chance. And, if he doesn't prove it, he hasn't fulfilled his burden nor provided a single credible argument.
I will lose this debate.

I accept this challenge. I would like to note that Pro has made an affirmative statement before the debate was even accepted -- his asserion that he would lose the debate. Therefore, he has the burden of proof to affirm not only the end result that he has postulated, but that he knew beforehand and had the means by which to have prior knowledge of this end result. His use of the word "will" implies as much, which casts away any ambiguity that his argument may have or could have entailed. The first question he must answer, for instance, is how either of us could answer prior to the voting period who in fact won this debate. Because Pro has the burden of proof, he must prove to you that he will lose. I only must neutralize his points. Then, he may go on to argue that his resolution extends beyond the confines of this debate -- that is, if a few members vote in favor of me, than he was in fact correct, and as such should be awarded the victory. I would not only point out the self-reinforcing effect -- that is, each time he pulls ahead, he would be proven wrong, and thus those members would be obligated to change their votes, leading to an unrelenting cycle -- but also that DDO rules require that voting be predicated on what actually took place in his our debate. So using votes as the gauge for who ought to win is not allowed, and is not a proper barometer for who will win this debate, and thus it cannot support Pro's argument.
Global Warming is a hoax

Is that *gulp*... a forfeit!!??If it isn't, then the argument isn't serious. I admire attempting to follow a rule, but you did not follow the rules.Oh God... And we also have an other set of logical fallacies...I can't but chuckle at how you called "facts" "fake"... How'd you manage that?Fact n.1.something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.2.something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact.3.a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth.4.something said to be true or supposed to have happened: The facts given by the witness are highly questionable. You seem to actually acknowledge what I wrote as facts. Yet, when acknowledging facts you do not falsify them. And what do you mean by fake websites? I have nothing to do with them! I swear!Unfortunately for you sir... Proofs are not only needed, they are also required. Fail attempt at sarcasm haha. The funny part is that most formal structures are legitimate in case all conditions are true, but yours goes like this: In case all argument presented in this website were made of personal attack and accusations of lying, it would be pretty dumb... SO ALL OF WHAT YOU WROTE IS DUMB AND FAKE! IT IS PROVEN AND DOES NOT NEED TO BE PROVED!!! Dude... Where is the connection? What does what have to do with anything?Also, Evolution is a controversial issue, which means not everyone agree with it. So you seem to suggest that people who believe in evolution should give me their vote on "Who used the most reliable sources". While people who don't should vote a tie. (It is not like you give actual resources...)I should probably accept this proposal. But I agree not with it's fairness (for you!). So I need you to confirm that you really want to cut this deal first in the next round.I already presented proofs In an other notice It also seems that the word "proof" sends all the dots right next to the word "so"... (See!)Weirdhttp://www.youtube.com...Vote Pro!I have no idea how will you do it. But pray to God that you catch up.
Global Warming is a hoax

I watch the "an inconvenient tr... lie...". That movie was full of lies that theyhttp://scienceandpublicpolicy.org...http://www.telegraph.co.uk...Al-Gore himself tells you to ignore him and keep believing in GW.http://news.investors.com...Leave the guy alone with the mega-bucks he earned, his oil company, and his gigantic carbon footprint.The Co2 ppm is meaningless until you explain how Co2 does Global Warming. For example, during the Cambrian period, Co2 ppm was 18 times higher than today, the 7000 ppm did not invent Venus #2.The early graphs of Co2 increase are a fraud, they doctored and selected data to make a scary graph.http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...http://journals.ametsoc.org...If you don't start a graph from a zero, it will look sharp.The glacier bubbles will have a lower concentration of Co2.http://www.warwickhughes.com...Not only do Global Warming alarmists defend the manipulated graphs, but they also claim that the Co2 level never rose above 300ppm for x0,000 years. But oops, fossils records proves you wrong...http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...How did the Co2 increase that much without humans?http://online.wsj.com...Scary!http://theglobalwarmingfraud.wordpress.com...Please show me how Co2 beats H2O.How possibly can we cause a change of 350% by the end of the century when we only contribute a tiny 3.5% of the Co2? Is nature excluded?How come BILLIONS of dollars are spent in order to PROVE something proved?Because that thing was NEVER proved.Is that the best result they could come up with? 0.12 Fahrenheit? OMG a disaster!Dude... The earth was 20 Fahrenheit warmer than that... The earth did not flood...Glaciers are melting and thickening:http://www.ihatethemedia.com...As for the sea level, it is a myth (like global warming!), "Self explanatory":http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.ae...http://www.theaustralian.com.au...1/3 of Netherlands rises above sea level!http://www.dutchnews.nl...Oops... That's an other IPCC mistake. The IPPC also added the area that could be venerable to flooding, that way the statistics would look more scary.Listen... When the first island sinks, give me a call.The sunscreen was a nice touch (Assuming it was invented millions of years ago), I like the use of the word "Have". People don't Have to wear sunscreen, people choose to wear sunscreen.I also would like you to confront the political (And commercial?) aspect of Global Warming.Are people doing this to make money? Why do oil companies love GW policies? Why are people behind it getting richer rather than doing something useful about pollution? All that money is getting on the pockets of con artists, people keep buying expensive green products, but that is not science.The fact that the GW movement was caught making frauds is enough to remove any legitimacy to superficial reports.The real hockeystick graph:http://pjmedia.com...
Global Warming is a hoax

before you start round 3 i recomend you watch an incoveinent truth also it is not global warming its climate change this is why some places get cooler and some get warmer. yes 95% of co2 is not man made but the 5% that we do make is tipping the balance lits like having a scale and having 100kg on one side and 100kg on the other. that is what it is like in nature but because of man and our technolgy that its now 100k and 105kg and then 110 then 115 until everything crumbles. statistics: the co2 level has never been above 300ppm (parts per million) until 1950 http://climate.nasa.gov... "Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities, and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position" "All three major global surface temperature reconstructions show that Earth has warmed since 1880.5 Most of this warming has occurred since the 1970s, with the 20 warmest years having occurred since 1981 and with all 10 of the warmest years occurring in the past 12 years.6 Even though the 2000s witnessed a solar output decline resulting in an unusually deep solar minimum in 2007-2009, surface temperatures continue to increase" Emission Scenarios (SRES), by the end of the 21st century, we could expect to see carbon dioxide concentrations of anywhere from 490 to 1260 ppm (75-350% above the pre-industrial concentration). 50 years ago nobody had to wear sunscreen. http://www.scientificamerican.com... During the 20th century, sea level rose an average of 7 inches after 2,000 years of relatively little change. The 2007 IPCC report conservatively predicted that sea levels could rise 10 to 23 inches by 2100 if current warming patterns continue. self explanotory http://www.businessinsider.com... According to the EPA, global sea level has risen by eight inches since 1870. Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com...
Global Warming is a hoax

Hoaxn.1. An act intended to deceive or trick.2. Something that has been established or accepted by fraudulent means.global warmingn.An increase in the average temperature of the earth's atmosphere, especially a sustained increase sufficient to cause climatic change.I am going to argue that there is no such thing as global warming, or at least there is nothing valid that proves such a thing exists.No forfeits or concessions.Argument must be serious. No limit to a specific aspect of Global Warming.R1:Acceptance (Ask to modify rules in comments)R2:ArgumentR3/R4:RebuttalR5:Summary and conclusion. Maximum of 3000 characters.
Existence of God

Life comes from life and the original life must have come from Being possessing eternal life, that is, life that existed before physical life, that includes the universe... TIME begins simultaneously with the birth of the universe, and God is NOT within that time... if you would say, the big bang theory was the beginning of all time, then who created that "big bang"? a.>(This obviously does not prove that God exists, as there is near infinite amounts of proof of the Big Bang and theories on how it happened, none of them relating to God.)< b.>(Humans built the building, trees reproduced and evolved to form other trees, the universe was created by the big bang or one of the other many theories scientists have.)< c.>(That is exactly what happened though, the universe got lucky)< "Since this argument is you trying to prove the existence of God though, I don't think that using a scripture thousands of years old supposedly created by said God without any proof of this creates a legitimate argument." well, i think i have to defend the Bible this time: THe Bible is an UNCHANGING REVELATION, much of the uncertainty and unbelief in the Bible have come from the so-called SCIENTISTS. Because the inerrancy of the Bible is on the level of observable facts, it is most open to attacks from skeptical and unbelieving scholars. Science has assumed an aura of authority and almost infallibility. Many have made a virtual god out of it. The word "science" simply means "knowledge", and is to be neither worshiped nor feared. The significant thing about science is that it is CONSTANTLY having to CHANGE ITS CONCLUSIONS AS FRESH FACTS COME TO LIFE. Scientific textbooks only a few years old are virtually OUT OF DATE today, while the BIBLE has not had to be altered in the last degree over THOUSANDS of years since it was written. Why should one doubt a Book that has withstood the centuries, and every attack leveled against it, for sciences that have to be revised every few years? Because nothing is permanent except God, science changes, but the Word of God do not...
Existence of God

(1) "The Bible is not a textbook that attempts to prove the existence of God--the Bible opens with a positive fact that God does exists." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I, being Jewish, do not study or follow the Bible, only what you would refer to as the Old Testament, so I do not know about Corinthians 2:14 to start. Since this argument is you trying to prove the existence of God though, I don't think that using a scripture thousands of years old supposedly created by said God without any proof of this creates a legitimate argument. So yes, you are basically right in saying "I will take no long proofs from the scriptures because I assume you do not believe the word of God (but correct if i am wrong)". I would like to point out that I actually believe in the same God that you do, just not a creator God (this in no way de-legitimatizes my argument as I am arguing that you cannot prove the existence of God, not that God does not exist). (2) "The world is here. It must have come from somewhere. Somebody or something must have caused it to come into being at one time or another." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This obviously does not prove that God exists, as there is near infinite amounts of proof of the Big Bang and theories on how it happened, none of them relating to God. (3) "Someone built this building. Someone created the trees. Someone operates the universe." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Humans built the building, trees reproduced and evolved to form other trees, the universe was created by the big bang or one of the other many theories scientists have. (4) "'If all the pieces of a watch were placed in a can and the can shaken gently for a million years, the watch would not be 'accidentally' put together and running." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ That is exactly what happened though, the universe got lucky I rest my case.
Existence of God

It is difficult for a NATURAL man to believe in something that he cannot see, touch or feel 1 Corinthians 2:14 The problem for the Christian is solved in the first verse of the Bible, "In the beginning, God created the Heaven and Earth," Genesis 1:1 The Bible is not a textbook that attempts to prove the existence of God--the Bible opens with a positive fact that God does exists. I will take no long proofs from the scriptures because i assume you do not believe the word of God (but correct if i am wrong) Proof from Cause >The world is here. It must have come from somewhere. Somebody or something must have caused it to come into being at one time or another. >Here is a book. Someone must have written it. No printing press can of itself produce a book, be it ever so modern press with the latest electrical gadgets. >Someone built this building. Someone created the trees. Someone operates the universe. "If all the pieces of a watch were placed in a can and the can shaken gently for a million years, the watch would not be "accidentally" put together and running. The only sensible answer to the problem the existence of the world is the existence of an intelligent Being whom we call God.
Pro Evolution vs young Earth Creationism.

I will be arguing for evolution against young Earth creationism. First, the world cannot be less than 10,000 years old due to glacier carbon dating which show the world to at least 400,000 years old. [0]Picture should be here.Almost all Diamonds were formed at least 500 million years ago. This is much greater than 10,000 years ago. "Almost every diamond that has been dated formed during the Precambrian Eon - the span of time between Earth's formation (about 4,600 million years ago) and the start of the Cambrian Period (about 542 million years ago). " [1]The oldest fossil is over 3 billion years old, this is greater length of time than 10,000 years ago. "Some of those ancient fossils, known as stromatolites, are more than 50 times older than Sue -- 3.45 billion years old," [2]The furthest object in space took 13.2 billion light years, that's 13.2 billion years to reach Earth. 13.2 billion is greater than 10,000. [3]I propose that instead one of two possiblities, God created man via evolution. That God created the first microorganisms which eventually evolved intom humans. The second possiblity is abiogenesis. [4]Although these two ideas of how the first lifeform was formed contradict each other, either one acting indepently could both satifiy the critera of evolution and defeat creationism. Thanks for the debate. Sources0. http://www.skepticalscience.com... 1. http://geology.com...2. http://science.howstuffworks.com...3. http://www.nasa.gov...4. http://www.allaboutscience.org...
Gay marriage should be legally allowed

I accept this debate and will be arguing that gay marriage should not be legally allowed. Marriage. Traditionally, marriage has been a formal act of union between a man and a woman. An act recognised as the formation of the nucleus of another of the cells that make up society; the family. Whilst it is true that marriage is not contingent upon the intent to reproduce, historically, traditionally, there were no birth control methods save the withdrawal method. It can be safely assumed that marriage and children, for the majority of history, are bound up together. As late as the 20th century there was a social stigma attached to women having children out of wedlock. Should a couple find themselves pregnant, it would be the done thing to be married. A moral and social responsibility. This demonstrates that children are a fundamental part of marriage, or more precisely, that marriage is the genesis of the family unit. Of course, the reasons for two people being married is that they are in love and they intend on spending the rest of their lives with each other and all manner of fluff. Underpinning that thought however is that they will start their own family. There are naturally those exceptions who will want to be married but not to start a family, but it is far more widespread that marriages produce children than the contrary. Since homosexuals cannot produce their own family unit, their desire to marry is purely down to an expression of their love for each other. In more cynical cases, perhaps their desire to marry is more to 'get even' with heterosexuality. Perhaps they would like the perks and legal protections afforded to married couples by the system. But these would be no reason for allowing them to marry. I propose a separate institution is best. The homosexuals inability to form a family should preclude them from the traditional institution of marriage, but since homosexuality is so widespread and accepted in the mainstream these days, they should be allowed to join together in a formally recognised act of union, like a civil ceremony. The real crux of the matter is which legal perks and protections would they receive? If homosexuals were given all the same legal and societal assurances as a natural couple in their own bespoke act of union, would there be an issue? They are 'married' in all but name. They are joined together in a recognised act of union. It offers most of the same advantages, but it is not called a marriage. Keep marriage for naturally occurring families and create a separate institution for separate unions.
Gay marriage should be legally allowed

There has been a media frenzy over this issue over the last couple of years. People are separated into 3 distinct camps, as ever: those who say it should be allowed, those who say it should be disallowed and those who have no interest in the matter whatsoever. I will argue that there will be negative effects from gay marriage. If you look at the media coverage, if you look at why this debate was even started, you will see that even the idea of gay marriage is divisive. This division of society is the biggest negative effect that gay marriage has. It seeks to put people into their camps and from there they attack each other. This is the worst thing that can be done to a society. It helps to separate out and polarise ideals and when that occurs, you will find more often than not civil strife, perhaps civil war, follows. In the context of the present day world, there is already the shifting ideals of science vs atheism, gun control vs no gun control, republican vs democrat, labour vs conservative etc. This issue just heaps further straws onto the already overloaded camels back. There is no good reason to incorporate homosexuals into an already established institution. Doing so just cheapens the institution for others. Nobody likes to share. Nobody likes to see their own life cheapened by others and, rightly or wrongly, a lot of people do see it that way. The fact that there are those who oppose it is proof in itself that it has a negative effect on society for it has merely caused a further,a different rift in the confused ideology of our times. And it the homosexuals who are the instigators of this public debate. It threatens people's religion, or they perceive it to. I'm sure I do not need to go into the details of how incendiary religion can be. Religion and politics are often said to be the two topics of conversation to steer clear of. Why provoke such a response? What does marriage mean to homosexuals that it is so important? I contend that the idea in itself was largely designed to cause ructions in society. And it has done so, and it will continue to do so. The whole topic is a poison chalice that had no need for introduction in the first place. But now that it is here, its divisiveness and negative effect on society is out there in the open for all to see.