BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Did the nazis deserve the death penalty

q1. "Did the Nazis deserve the death penalty?" a1. I completely understand where you are coming from in you views, and I think it is a fair point. However, the point of these death sentences wasn't for revenge, it was to show strength and decisiveness. Considering this was the 2nd time Germany tried to conquer Europe, world leaders needed to ensure that no further war/conquest would take place. By executing these terrible, terrible individuals, the message wasn't vengeance; it was deterrence. By killing these monsters, it would show the world just what the cost of such evil was. As someone who is of European Jewish decent, I admit I am biased on this; but I firmly believe such violence was needed to deter any such events happening again. q2. "Who should we extent our compassion and mercy too, and if not to everyone, baring in mind this example, how can we even make a fair choice and know that our actions are not a reflection of our anger and the fact that we want revenge." a2. I think most deserve compassion and mercy; but when the death of the individual can save the lives of others, it should be carried out. You're right it is hard to make unbiased decisions, but this is what court systems are for. Although it's not perfect, it's better than nothing. Note: I am against capital punishment.
You can talk about anything on debate.org

"Yankee doodle went to town riding on a pony put a feather in his hat and called it macarioni. Does that sound like an adult or kid's song?" This song does not exist ;)???????? Now back to the case------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ SNorki kkokkokokk snikw dr edd reddd gggg yyyyuutbrvcexdv v v v v vtg vfcds i h aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a z a a za z a a a aa a az a a a aa you uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu u u u u u u uu u u u u u u u u uu u u u u u u uu u uu u u Contention 1- You can not talk about anything on debate.org? Why? I am a fogtogokgokogkfot5kohkohky
You can talk about anything on debate.org

"The debate is you can talk about anything. I am using nonsense words and random sentence to prove my case. HHGGKKJITHCTRUOVYIVC;D7568RFD756IF7DF7. THAT IS CODE FOR NONSENSE. hAVE FUN REBUTTALING ONE!" Pro is a troll.................. Trolololol :DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
You can talk about anything on debate.org

The song indeed does exist. It is a part of yankee doodle. Now your case shows my theory right because you are doing nonsense. jinglebellsjinglebellsjinglealltheway hahahhahahahahahhahahahhahahahhahahahahahhahahhahahahahhahahashahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahhahahahahhahahahahhaahahhahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahhahahahhahahahhahahhahhaha!
Young Earth Creationism

Rules1. I will negate the resolution that a God created us, but that we originated from monkeys, evolving overtime into what we are now.2. No plagiarism; Don't copy someone else's work and claim it as your own.3. No trolling.4. No semantics.5. The BoP (Burden of Proof) is shared.6. First round is for acceptance only (With the exception of clarifications).Failure to follow these rules will result in a 7-point forfeiture. These rules also apply to me.
Young Earth Creationism

Rebuttals """Mutations are just about always harmful in living organisms in the wild. With mutations being so rare is It really logical to think that it is possible for at least 16 millions different species to evolve based on a mere chance[7]?" If you meant that according to evolution, there aren't 16 million different kinds of species, then the question is irrelevant. Otherwise:Doesn't this defend MY position? How so? Because, if mutations are completely rare (Meaning that not often are animals changed into another kind[1]), and most animals remained their kind, ? Hopefully, you realize the flaw in your argument."Not really. Evolution states that there aren't 16 million different kinds of species."Then, like said, the question is irrelevant.Also, (Apologies. I'm a pedant) evolution doesn't state things. It's simply impossible. Evolution is an inanimate noun.New Presentation(s)RecordingsScientists have observed, and some have also documented (And maybe published documentary), evolution of monkeys. I await my opponent's next set of arguments.
Young Earth Creationism

""Mutations are just about always harmful in living organisms in the wild. With mutations being so rare is It really logical to think that it is possible for at least 16 millions different species to evolve based on a mere chance[7]?"If you meant that according to evolution, there aren't 16 million different kinds of species, then the question is irrelevant. Otherwise:Doesn't this defend MY position? How so? Because, if mutations are completely rare (Meaning that not often are animals changed into another kind[1]), and most animals remained their kind, ? Hopefully, you realize the flaw in your argument."Not really. Evolution states that there aren't 16 million different kinds of species.
Young Earth Creationism

Rebuttals "How could I argue creationism if I do not make the claim that Life appeared spontaneously? If you look at the fossil record you will notice that there are gaps and then all of a sudden complex life comes around[4][5][6]. How can you discredit an explanation as to why there are gaps in the fossil record?"Fossil records of 1 amongst many varieties of species are exceedingly rare, and only occur under specific conditions, and that the earliest multi-cellular life forms were all soft-bodied (And invertebrates) and thus left little to no trace as fossils for us to observe due to not having a bone that doesn't rot, unlike the body. "Mutations are just about always harmful in living organisms in the wild. With mutations being so rare is It really logical to think that it is possible for at least 16 millions different species to evolve based on a mere chance[7]?"If you meant that according to evolution, there aren't 16 million different kinds of species, then the question is irrelevant. Otherwise:Doesn't this defend MY position? How so? Because, if mutations are completely rare (Meaning that not often are animals changed into another kind[1]), and most animals remained their kind, ? Hopefully, you realize the flaw in your argument.I await my opponent's next set of arguments.Sources[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Young Earth Creationism

Alright. I concede that point, though, but I no longer concede to loss.Presentations 1. How could I argue creationism if I do not make the claim that Life appeared spontaneously? If you look at the fossil record you will notice that there are gaps and then all of a sudden complex life comes around[4][5][6]. How can you discredit an explanation as to why there are gaps in the fossil record?2. Mutations are just about always harmful in living organisms in the wild. With mutations being so rare is It really logical to think that it is possible for at least 16 millions different species to evolve based on a mere chance[7]?
Young Earth Creationism

My opponent conceded.Rebuttals ""Prayers don't come true" Well, there was this movie where a God was so lazy that he decided to grant all wishes. Chaos ensued. That's why God doesn't do so."Yes. Chaos would've ensued. However, God should've listed that restriction. Otherwise, no. Don't attempt to modify the Bible. So, the people starred in the Bible have sinned to, and also have been forgiven. So, how are we distinct from them in a sense that we don't have our prayers granted and we don't receive answers like they do?Anyhow, Creationism isn't associated with Christianity; Creationism is simply the claim that a higher power created us humans. It doesn't have to be the biblical God.I await my opponent's next set of arguments.
Young Earth Creationism

PresentationsFossil evidence In the fossil record: There are snapshots from the past in which, if arranged from oldest to earliest, illustrate a panorama of evolutionary change overtime. The snapshots may be scattered in places and have bits missing, but that which we are left with clearly supports the claim that we originated from different animals, evolving overtime. Similarities between humans and related living organismsDuring and since Darwin was born, people have been studying animals. Scientists, lately, have been discovering that we humans share DNA with others as our former selves (Or at least some)(Monkeys)[1]. I await my opponent's set of arguments. Sources[1] . http://www.sciencedaily.com...
Public Forum, October Topic: Poverty Reduction vs. Environmental Protection

First of all, I'd like to set a guideline for the round. Poverty is defined strictly as making $2 or less a day. This is the World Bank's definition and should be adhered to in the round. In my opponent's first contention they speak about the death toll. However, they are negligent of the fact that the environment is to blame for the majority of these deaths. The majority of poverty related deaths occur due to air and water pollution. These are both clearly environmental factors. According to the UN, 33% of all worldly disease can be attributed to environmental factors. Thus, shouldn't we be cutting down on the root of the problem instead of trying to solve poverty? As I stated in my own case, most impoverished countries are at the greatest threat of environmental disasters. Thus, it is only logical to solve the environmental crisis first because putting a roof over someone's head won't protect them from a tsunami. My opponent's second contention should be dropped on the basis that it is in no way feasible. I challenge my opponent to show how the UN can help to reduce poverty. In the past their efforts have failed since the UN can only really help by donating money. However, this money usually ends up in the hands of corrupt war lords and dictators and never really has an affect on the impoverished people. Even when the UN attempts to donate food to impoverished nations there have been many cases of food riots where citizens burn the donated food. In my opponent's second contention he also insists that all nations become industrialized because this will promote environmental sustainability in the long run. However, my opponent is ignoring the simple logic that when nations go through industrialization they produce the most greenhouse gases. This will only make the threat of the environmental more dire thus being an irrational alternative. Plus, China is one small scale example and my opponent can not prove that this statistic is applicable on a global scale. My opponent's third contention is that the UN has a moral obligation to its people, which means prioritizing poverty reduction. However, this point works as a Con point too. It is the UN's moral obligation to protect the general welfare of people. If the environment is becoming such a threat that it deserves attention too then wouldn't it only be rational to prioritize the environment under this contention. In addition, while poverty kills about 18 million people a year, the environment has the potential to kill the human population as we know it. Thus, the issue of morality works on the Con side of the debate rather than the Pro. For all the aforementioned reasons I urge a Con ballot
Public Forum, October Topic: Poverty Reduction vs. Environmental Protection

This is a debate for the October Public Forum Topic. The resolution is "Resolved: When in conflict, the United Nations should prioritize global poverty reduction over environmental protection." I've got one more weekend to debate this topic so I figured I might as well try and get one last practice round in. Whoever accepts this just post something short and meaningless in round 1. Then we can post our contructives in R2 and have R3 and R4 for rebuttals. I plan on just using my in tournament pro case, feel free to do the same as far as your con case if you wish. This will be my first debate on this website, so if I appear a little uneasy to the concept then I am sorry (for example I have no idea how many characters I should make the argument max. I went with 8,000 simply because it was the default setting). Anyway, I wish my opponent the best of luck. Hopefully we can get this thing moving.
God Exists

As for the QM argument:1- That is one experiment about the interpretation of QM and not about QM itself. It seems as though however for the experiment to work the choice would have to be casually disconnected. Yet, it is possible that this is not the case as there is a lot we don't yet know about QM. 2- "Not really. Something outside the system has to collapse the wave-function of the universe, we are part of the system. Therefore, we are not sufficient to collapse the wave-function of the universe." -I don't think this is entirely correct, as I provided a quote from a physicist to support my contention that we couldve collapsed the wave function3- There is a lot we still are unclear about with QM. It seems rash to suppose God exists simply because of oddities in QM especially given the fact that many physicists do not believe in God.4- Hilbert's hotel is a problem however it more shows that infinity is not a number. As a concept it can work and therefore, conceptually there could be an infinite regress. As for introspection: 1- Just because they do not share a property does not mean they cannot interact, you assert this as if it is self-evident and give no argument to the contrary2- Formal causation can work because an immaterial substance can be the form of matter. 3- You contradict yourself. In the first instance you say that a mind is needed to collapse the wave-function of the universe. Yet this mind must be immaterial in order to avoid being part of another (or the same) wave function. Hence you say that an immaterial mind can collapse a material wave function. This contradicts your premise that the material and immaterial can interact. I would argue that an immaterial mind can collapse the wave function inside the brain and this is a solution to the interaction problem (although there is no evidence so far that this is the case, it is at least possible). 4- There is a lot about physics we do not yet know. it is possible that there are physical laws or states that can interact with the immaterial thus providing a solution to the interaction problem Hence your argument fails
Should Abortion Be Legal

The debates go back and forth forever about what defines a human life. Is it a human life in sperm form? Zygote form? When it has elbows? A cerebrum? When its brain starts producing its own chemicals? Many believe it clearly becomes a human life when it begins breathing, but don’t trust any consensus - there is an individual and naturally built expert on this topic. It's called a mother. Before birth, a pregnancy is physiologically a piece of the mother. Every system in a woman's body alters itself. Under the influence of natural emotions, instincts, and chemicals, and with medical advice from a doctor, a woman makes an infinitely more informed judgment call about what is growing inside of her than I or my opponent. There is a risk that if we reduce such complexity to an absolute law, society will become dumber."Put the baby up for adoption," or "Put a damn condom on," my opponents says. He concludes that abortion is under the jurisdiction of God. Well, there are many measurements that define the quality of a debate performance, but bossiness is not one of them, nor is religious conviction. A rational audience is persuaded by logical validity and information. To stay on topic, I invite my opponent to expound on why we should trust a legislature to understand a mother’s body better than she can.
Should Abortion Be Legal

First of all abortion is must cruel and disgusting thing in the world. Your end a life that has no control of what your doing to it. The child in the mother's stomach has no control on what you do it. I know a few people that always say "What if that baby had the cure for cancer in there brain" but that life was ended because that parent decided to end that child's life. If you can't afford to have a baby theres multiple things you can do with the baby. (1) You can put the baby up for adoption and a couple that cannot reproduce can take that baby out of your hands. (2) If you can't afford it why are trying to have a baby, if you can afford it you shouldn't be having sex. (3) Put a damn condom on. Their's only one person in the world thats aloud to take lives of child like that. The lord himself.
Should Abortion Be Legal

Suppose a camper starts a forest fire, and we must quickly choose one of two choices: we can immediately extinguish the fire before it gets out of control, or we can throw the perpetrator into the flames, punishing him for failing to control his camp fire. The former option neglects the man's punishment, the latter option leaves us with a dangerous fire to fight. To me, damage control matters more than punishment. When Con legislates against late-stage damage control, simply because it should have been implemented earlier, he prioritizes "punishment" above the social good. A society with such priorities would never allow a surgeon to operate on a smoker's lungs, or an endocrinologist to treat a diabetes patient. Larger populations do not have to be dangerous. They do not have to cause war, famine, or drought. We can raise children to think critically and world-consciously, with proper educations and careful parenting. But parents who are not ready to be parents - for financial or pyschological reasons - must do us all a favor and avoid being parents. Unless we obtain miracle levels of individual responsibility, a larger population will always require a larger economy, one which will drain more energy, emit more greenhouse gases, and inflict more crime upon itself. As resources drain away, leaders of various societies will increasingly wage war on each other for what is left.Allowing abortion isn't enough to control our population, but making it illegal is a huge step backwards.
My Opponent Will Contradict Himself

Ahaha very clever CON. I applaud you. However, this debate is not over yet. I summon my finishing move! 1. Will you not answer this question with a yes? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Good game. You see, if my opponent answers “yes,” then that means he will answer the question with a “no,” however since he answered “yes” he cannot answer “no” so he commits a contradiction and therefore loses the debate. If he answers “no,” that means he will answer “yes,” however since he answered “no” he cannot answer “yes” and therefore commits a contradiction. To piece it together, he is basically saying: Yes, I will not answer this question with a yes. (Contradiction because he claims he will not answer with a yes but he answers with a yes.) No, I will not, not answer this question with a yes. (Answering “no” creates a double negative which could be rephrased to “No, I will answer this question with a yes.” Since he answered “no” after claiming he would answer “yes” he commits a contradiction.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2. Do you like mangos? 3. Was this debate mildly entertaining? 4. Can you ride a unicycle? 5. Do you dislike me because of this stupid debate?
My Opponent Will Contradict Himself

"1. Is your username on Debate.org Rational_Thinker9119?"Yes "2. Did you just answer the above question with a yes or a no?"Yes "3. Are you going to answer a question in this round with a no?" Yes "4.Did you just answer the above question with a no or a yes?"Yes "5. Did you just answer the question I just asked above with a no or a yes?"Yes--- "6. Do you think you will contradict yourself in this debate?"No---You see, there is no rule against asking myself questions. So, because I asked myself a question, and answered "no" to it, I didn't contradict myself. I told the truth in question 3, as there is a question in this round that I answered "no' to (my own question). That is clearly an obvious and cunning loophole (it is not desperate or dumb, but really clever to ask myself questions!), which my opponent said was allowed. I have not contradicted myself at all...
My Opponent Will Contradict Himself

1. Is your username on Debate.org Rational_Thinker9119? 2. Did you just answer the above question with a yes or a no? 3. Are you going to answer a question in this round with a no? 4. Did you just answer the above question with a no or a yes? 5. Did you just answer the question I just asked above with a no or a yes?
My Opponent Will Contradict Himself

Rules 1. First Round is for acceptance. 2. I will ask my opponent five questions a round. 3. My opponent must answer every question with a “yes” or a “no” 4. Capitalization does not change word meaning. For example, a “Mango” is no different from a “mango.” This way my opponent cannot say I did not answer “Yes,” I answered “yes.” 5. Don’t be stupid and try to loophole everything. Obvious or cunning loopholes are allowed but nothing desperate or dumb. Whether or not a loophole is desperate or dumb will be argued between the debaters and left up to the voters. 6. My opponent must answer each question truthfully. Breaking any of these rules will result in a full forfeit and 7 points going to the other debater. Contradiction - "a combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another"
The Origin of Language

In the Wikipedia's http://en.wikipedia.org..., experts say, "Monkeys and apes often attempt to deceive one another, while at the same time remaining constantly on guard against falling victim to deception themselves. Paradoxically, it is precisely primates' resistance to deception that blocks the evolution of their signalling systems along language-like lines. Language is ruled out because the best way to guard against being deceived is to ignore all signals except those that are instantly verifiable. Therefore, my question is this, is the origin of language a mutation? And also, why are primates trying to deceive each other causing them to be unable to learn languages ? I believe language is a mutation in 1 or more primate(s) that caused them the inability to be resistant to deception.