BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Xenotransplantation

I believe that human lives are important. If you needed an organ and there were not any available, would you not do everything in your power to get the organ you need to live? Xenotransplantation is the process of transplanting animal organs into humans to save their lives. Right now over 110,000 people are waiting for desperately needed organs that will never come. That can change with xenotransplantation. People today are using pig heart valves to treat humans: for example, as a source of heart valves for people with damaged hearts. With xenotransplantation we could save millions of people. I believe that xenotransplantation should be used in the usa.
A number not always represent the same thing, therefore 1 not always equal 1

My opponent's argument is flawed. Division serves to divide between groups, and not adding them. I'll demonstrate his flaw using his own argument. This time I'll substitute the number on the division, however it will still be equal to 1. The division now is 2 / 2 which is equal to 1. I'll now apply this to his argument. "So lets put it in terms of apples. 2 / 2 = 1 So essentially we are saying that you can fit 2 apples into 2 apples 1 time (assuming they are hollow). Numerically this is 1, objectively you have 1 apple, 2 apple inside 2 apple (2 + 2= 1)." We all know that 2+2 is not equal to 1. Two apples inside two apples cannot possible be one either. Therefore, his argument is flawed. If he was right by what he stated, the result should have remained the same.
A number not always represent the same thing, therefore 1 not always equal 1

This is my first argument and I must say I am very anxious to get started. Counterexample: You say that 1/2 / 1/2 = 1 and 1 + 0 = 1. and when you put these in terms of objects you get two different representations of 1. But you are looking at 1 as if it is two different things. 1 is a numerical value. That's it. So lets put it in terms of apples. 1/2 / 1/2 = 1 So essentially we are saying that you can fit half an apple into half an apple 1 time (assuming they are hollow). Numerically this is 1, objectively you have 1 apple, half an apple inside of half an apple (1/2 + 1/2 = 1). 1 + 0 = 1 So here we have 1 apple and we add nothing to it. Numerically this is 1, objectively we have 1 apple. So in both cases we see that 1 = 1
A number not always represent the same thing, therefore 1 not always equal 1

Very well. I Thank you for accepting ths challenge. I see is also your first debate, so I feel a little more comfortable with this. Here are my demonstration. Demonstration. 1/2 / 1/2= 1 1+0= 1 Half goes into half 1 time. The result 1 is the result of how many times 1/2 went into 1/2. If I had half of an object, and had another half of an object to be filled into, I would still have a half of an object. That half of an object would just be in a container, which I would be able to fill it 1 time. 1 with the addition of 0 remains 1. 1 here is a quantity, which remains the same. If I had 1 object and I added to no other object, I would just have that same object. The same object would be the same 1, as a whole. 1 object. One object does not equal half of an object. Therefore 1/2 / 1/2 (which equals 1)=|=1+0(which also equals 1) Therefore 1 does not represent the same 1, which results in 1=|=1
A number not always represent the same thing, therefore 1 not always equal 1

1 should always represent 1. Third round: Both, CON and I, will exam each others presentation and point any flaws in reason, and reason only, if there is any. Fourth round: Both can attempt to negate the flaws suggested in the previous round. To make it simple, you may only use numbers and only use the four basic operators (plus, minus, divide, multiply). There should be no sources but your mind. Nothing in this initial statement should need to be defined.
Common Core stresses kids out

Common Core, for math, ELA, and other subjects are stressing kids out to the extent. In the article, "A Poison Pill for Learning", it states "New York State had its second round of annual tests based on the Common Core, and for the second time, the results were disastrous." According to nydailynews.com, 8 and 9 year olds are being stressed out from the common core tests. ""These are 8-year-olds and 9-year-olds, and they"re stressed out and worried!" Said Stewart, 42, whose son attends the third grade at Public School 69 in Jackson Heights, Queens. "I don"t want my child or any child to have to go through this type of pressure."" According to npr.org, that in some places, like Finland, people are giving students stress, by basically saying (quoted from article) bomb this test, kids, and you can kiss your dreams goodbye. But also in Finland, beside the Common Core tests, they require their own "entrance exams" too. Common Core standards are stressing kids out, and with this stress comes bad scores, and with bad test scores, in some places, you may not get your dream job. No kids should be stressed out over a test.
Pizza is better than Tacos.

PRO fails to respond to the entirety of my rebuttals. Not only has he not shown that pizza is more logical, cheaper or easier to obtain because he provided zero framework for comparison and zero evidence for a single remark he made, but he has not established a framework for objectivity. Moreover, he dropped my entire framework and burden analysis, which we must once again extended forward. As I noted in my framework analysis, he not only needed to prove that one could be objectively better than the other, but also what characteristics qualify one as objectively superior. PRO has failed to do that, and because there remains ambiguity and he has, once again, failed to provide a single stitch of evidence, justification or proof, you vote negative by default. On top of that, PRO has dropped all of my rebuttals from the last few rounds, so I will extend those forward as well. Thank you PRO for this debate, and to our audience, please VOTE CON. Thank you.
Pizza is better than Tacos.

PRO has already lost this debate, because he REFUSES to respond to my framework analysis, and provide a framework for objectivity. He makes a number of baseless assertions, which he refuses to back up, but does nothing to establish objectivity -- every step of the way, his contentions are based on nothing more than personal opinion and subjective tastes/preferences, which do not meet his burden of proof. Moreover, PRO completely fails to respond to my earlier arguments, where I noted that his remarks are already indicative of a loss, that he attempted to change the goalposts, and that subjective tastes do not establish objectivity. I'll extend those points forward. He claims that pizza is a "more logical choice than tacos." Even if this WERE the case, he provides no framework or logical analysis as to how he came to this, or why this alone would establish objectivity, so the point falls completely flat. He provides a completely incomprehensible hypothetical that doesn't do a darned thing at advancing his burden. His contention boils down to: "6 people can eat two pizzas, while 6 six people would need two tacos." The prices he provides, as well as the preferences, are without any basis whatsoever in reality. He pulls the prices out of the sky, as well as the fact that people would each need two tacos. Moreover, he fails to establish WHY people would choose pizza over tacos in his hypothetical -- why price establishes objectivity. If he cannot connect that point to objectivity, he loses the debate. Moreover, he even CONCEDES in his hypothetical that people may be indifferent to pizza and tacos. If that is the case, pizza cannot possibly be superior to tacos. Bear in mind again, voters, that PRO must prove OBJECTIVELY that pizza is better than tacos, and that he has the sole burden of proof to do this. I, however, have no such burden from the other end. If, by the end of this debate, PRO has failed to achieve this burden, you vote negative. This is to say that, if it is even possible by the end of this debate that tacos could be superior to pizza or that the two could be equal on an objective basis, or that we cannot draw a conclusion objectively, you vote negative by default. He then lists a number of pizza restaurants and says that pizza is easier to find. How in the world does that advance the point of one being objectively better than the other? He doesn't explain how this is so, or even prove the point, because he only provides pizza restaurants, but doesn't even prove the point that pizza is easier to find than tacos -- just that pizza is easier to find. Because there is no objective standard, which it to say that PRO neither proves this case of his or demonstrates how it proves objectivity, this contention can be discarded outright.
Pizza is better than Tacos.

Pizza is a more logical choice than tacos why? You are sitting in a restaurant you are eating with 5 other people. The menu is simple Pizza or Taco. You ask everyone what they want. Say the group has no preference and says they like both equally. lets put in some prices. These prices are where you can get the cheapest pizza and tacos around Little Caesars and Taco Bell. The Pizza is 5 dollars rounding down tacos are about 1 dollars is you go with tacos.You would need 2 pizza so 10 dollars for Pizza and 2 tacos for everybody meaning tacos are 12 dollars Of course you would chose Pizza, everyone at the table likes it and its cheeper. Now I known what you are going to say. Hey Pro side this is only one situation. Pizza is easier to find. Take a walk down any street what do you see every where you turn. Pizza resturants. Pizza Hutt Little Caesers Hungry Howies Pizza Ranch Domanios Papa Johns Old Chicago Pizza Inn jet's Chuck e cheese's CiCi's Californa Pizza Kitchen. Heck, even Subway has pizza and those are the chain resurans Now lets think about the ones with Tacos... Taco Bell Chipotle Baja Grill Qdoba Moe's On the border. and not much else. After looking at those list it shows how much easier Pizza is to get making it a better choice.
Pizza is better than Tacos.

Pro writes, "You say I did but but yet you yourself did nothing to prove why Tacos are better. All you did was complain about my arguement, meaning you also have no evidence why Tacos are better."Pro fundamentally misunderstands the burden of proof, and note that he dropped every one of my arguments pertaining to it. As I noted in the last round, PRO is making an affirmation, and theefore he, not I, have the burden of proof. He must prove that pizza is superior to tacos. I do not need to prove that tacos are superior to pizza. In fact, if the OPTIONS that tacos are better than pizza, or that the two are equal, are still on the table by the end of this debate, you vote negative by default, as I pointed out in the last round. Also, PRO has completely failed to establish a framework for objectivity. I extend forward my framework analysis. PRO writes, " Info time:Looking this question up on Yahoo answers you will see that almost everyone will say pizza is better (https://answers.yahoo.com......)." There are so many problems with this it's absurd.First, PRO cannot simply post a link and expect me and our audience to pour through it. HE needs to make the argument himself.Second, this is NOT a scientific poll; it's yahoo answers, so the results are not the slightest bit valid. Third, even if people DID choose pizza over tacos, it would be, as I pointed out, ad populum -- we're looking for objectivity. Fourth, there were people who choose tacos over pizza, which disproves the fact that pizza could be objectively better than tacos, and in fact defeats PRO's entire case.
Pizza is better than Tacos.

I accept. FRAMEWORKThe burden of proof in this debate will necessarily fall on PRO, who is making a positive claim. Let's review what precisely he has to prove. If we call Pizza X and Tacos Y, PRO needs to prove the following: X > Y PRO's case for proving that Pizza is better than tacos must be able to prove that the former is objectively better than the latter. This is to say that, in order to carry his burden, he must be able to prove X > Y objectively, or that it follows in every case. If any of the following options are still on the table by the time this debate is over, you vote CON by default. X < Y X = YWHAT PRO MUST BE ABLE TO PROVEIn order to prove objectivity, PRO must be able to establish the following: P1) A framework for "objectively better" exists.P2) (x), (y), and (z) criteria establish a framework for "objectively better." P3) X posses (x), (y), and (z) criteria, but Y does not. C1) Therefore, X is objectively better than Y. PRO must not only be able to prove that one can be objectively better than another, but that X is in fact objectively better. Without accomplishing these two things, you vote negative by default. If he fails to disprove the notion that tastes and preferences are subjective, you vote negative.REBUTTALSPRO writes, "Pizza is a great food and is very rarely do people not like." He begins by asserting that Pizza is a great food. He is attempting to make a categorical statement, but provides no evidence or framework by which to substantiate it, so the assertion can be discarded outright. The second remark is, first and foremost, a concession, because he concedes that some people do not like pizza. If pizza were objectively better, or even objectively good, everyone would like it. Second, he provides no evidence for it, so it's a moot point. Third, even if it were true, it is nothing more than an ad-populum fallacy. PRO writes, "That proves that people like Pizza better."I refuted his last point, so this falls as well.PRO writes, "It's more common for people to like Pizza than Taco."PRO provides zero evidence for this claim, and even if it WERE true, it would not establsh objectivity, especially because PRO concedes that some people like tacos more than Pizza. That, in fact, is a concession. Moreover, he provides no framework by which to gauge objectivity.
would halo win against COD

I am not going to take this too seriously, this is just for fun and I am trying to practice critical thinking skills. I am a HUGE Halo fan, but I will try my best not to let that ruin my debate. If we had army regiments from the Call of Duty games, lets use Advanced Warfare, and Halo Marines from Halo 3, I believe the marines would get their arses kicked, here is why. The COD regiments from Advanced Warfare are actually trained soldiers, while the Marines were quickly drafted in the sight of the Human-Covenant War, meaning the COD soldiers have more experience. Not only that, but the humans in Halo 3 (before they reversed engineered Covenant/Forerunner weapons) were a tier 3 civilization, according to the Forerunner tier scale, while the humans in advanced warfare would be considered tier 3 as well, meaning both will have equally damaging weapons. Now in the time of Halo 3, Spartans were basically non existent (Sangheili killed most of them), so they are irrelevant. If the Humans from Halo 3 were to battle the COD AW humans and lose, this could mean that the COD AW humans would get a chance to reverse engineer the Halo 3 humans tech, making it a more even playing field.
Posters should be required to use proper spelling and grammar. (their vs. there vs. they're)

Alright let us take a look at your resolution. "Posters should be required to use proper spelling and grammar. (their vs. there vs. they're)" Time for a definition. Required: To have an obligation. Then you go on to say, "This is a site for intellectual stimulation. Poor grammar in writing, I say, goes against the point of the site." Yet I find myself in a very very strong disagreement with you. Such a stipulation on debate.org would severely limit the number of users who could possibly use debate.org which would in turn severely limits the number of people who could be intellectually stimulated. Secondly I find it extremely annoying when people use certain incorrect forms of grammar. This in turn creates pet peeves for me which I attempt to avoid at all costs. Thus mistakes such as these actually help to stimulate others in order to avoid such mistakes. Not all people are spelling B champions, ACT/SAT writing sections aces or even necessarily from a country that has English as a native language. To put such a stipulation on debate.org would hurt foreign involvement leaving us with a limited number of perspectives in political debates. This can in turn severely lessen potential intellectual stimulation. Also this problem can often be caused by speed debating or attempting to get through many debates in a limited amount of time. While I agree that bad grammar can hurt the intellectual stimulation in a round flat out not posting, because you didn't have time to press the review button and reread your argument, hurts intellectual stimulation more. Your argument reminds me of not allowing children into school because they are not smart enough in some area. Thus I offer you a counter advocacy. >>Posters should be required to use proper spelling and grammar to the best of their abilities unless an argument has a crux in non-proper grammar and/or spelling.<< Notice that my counter advocacy does not fall under the resolution and therefor does not agree with my opponents side of the debate. Thanks =)
plus is minus, and plus and minus is cause and effect,

Your arguments don't make sense which any common person would see. And you can't "plus or minus" anyways..... Plus and minus is not in any form a verb in the English language. If you think it is please give me an example where either plus or minus is used correctly as a verb in an English sentence. I really have no other arguments or comments other than you seem to be confused on what you are trying to say.
plus is minus, and plus and minus is cause and effect,

if I cant plus and minus I cant equal, without my perception of a future and a past is cant be self-aware my hand IS in front of me, I can move my hand to the left, and If I do I can remember I did it, plus and minus cause=intended or random is(equal, =) and(+) wherever my hand IS, is equal, where ever my hand equals is where it IS
plus is minus, and plus and minus is cause and effect,

....... Even so your statement "equal is where I'm holding my hand in front of me" is not correct at all. For something to be equal there has to be another object that it is equivalent to. Stating that your hand is equal because it is being held in front of you is not correct in any way. Equal= being the same in quantity, size, degree, or value. Equal= a person or thing considered to be the same as another in status or quality. And if you want to get into technicalities, "equal is where I'm holding my hand in front of me", WHERE you are holding your hand is its location. Location= a particular place or position. If your argument is that your hand is somehow equal because it is not moving then first of all that is incorrect. the movement would be zero. Second of all your hand is never not moving because it is alive. If it was not alive then you could not move your hand, therefore changing your statement and making your original statement invalid. I do not know why I am arguing with you as this is a silly topic.
Catholicism is the base of Christianity

I have to admit, the way you explained your tree is better than mine, let me rephrase my tree analogy. The Apostles gave a list of teachings, besides from the Bible. The Catholic Church is the only Christian denomination that holds on to ALL the traditions and teachings. And, just so I am clear, you agree with me that Catholicism is Christian. Because at first, it sounded like you said it was not christian at all.
Catholicism is the base of Christianity

Catholicism did not create Christianity, Catholicism was Christianity. There was not any other Christian Religion except for the Catholic Church. Of course this is a relative statement because Catholicism was split into the east and west. Non-Catholic Churches never came about until the 1500's I am not sure you are familiar with the Didache, but it was non the Biblical teachings of the Apostles, which explained worship and base beliefs. This is the base of Catholic teaching and worship. My argument is that Catholicism is like the trunk of a tree and non-catholic Churches are the branches, where Catholicism is the center. If there wasn't Catholicism there wouldn't be Christianity because Catholicism dates back to around 70 A.D, just after Jesus died. Also, if you claim yourself a Christian, you believe in the Bible and you profess something known as the Nicene Creed, or the short version, The Apostles Creed. These creeds were written by Catholic doctrine, centuries before the protestant reformation, which was the first time non-Catholic Churches were established.
Catholicism is the base of Christianity

You act as though the Catholic Church caused Christianity to exist, not the other way around. Catholicism is another way of interpreting Christianity, not the base of Christianity. In my opinion, the only base of Christianity is that Jesus died on the cross and rose again. And as Rev. 21:27 states "Let no one unclean enter it" I believe that Jesus washes away our sins when we accept him. If we sin after said event, he simply forgives us, since he is quite forgiving. And as for your final statement, I never did say I have no respect for the Catholic Church. I simply said I do not consider such to be the base of all Christianity. Now I am quite familiar with the image of the Lady of Guadalupe. If she is the virgin Mary, she does not look like how revelations described her "And a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars." Revelation 12:1 She has the sun around her, but not clothed in it, she has no crown of twelve stars, her hood may have stars on it, yes, but I do not consider that a crown. http://en.wikipedia.org... I also checked multiple other places, to make sure my memory of what she looks like serves correct.
Catholicism is the base of Christianity

Not a majority of Churches branched off of Catholicism, but all non-Catholic Churches branched off the Catholic Church. The term Catholic Church, believe it or not, was first used around 70 A.D Also, there may not be as many differences as you think, the way I see it there are no differences at all, its only the Catholic Church has things other Churches don't. The basic doctrine is exactly the same. Now you say Catholicism is different from Christian Churches, how so if Catholicism was first? And the vision in Revelation is Mary. I am sure you have heard of Our Lady of Guadalupe. That image of Our Lady is the exact same image describe in Revelations. Now purgatory is a hard concept, but rather plain and simple. Jesus died on the cross and won for us Salvation, however Revelations tells us "No one unclean will enter it.." Rev. 21:27 So Jesus' death had to have washed us clean from sin, but when? When and where are those sins washed clean? This is what we refer to as Purgatory, the place where that cleansing takes place. And Baptism at infancy,please tell me where in the Bible Baptism is restricted to just adults, because the Bible says concerning baptism "For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him" Acts 2:39 Baptism is when you become adopted children of God, and Jesus said "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 19:14). However,I can not change your beliefs, because you put your faith in what your Church teaches, and I do not in any way want you to give up your faith and system of beliefs and convert to Catholicism, rather, I want you have a deeper respect and understanding of the Catholic Church, as I have a deep and healthy respect for all Protestant Churches that hold true to the teachings of the Bible.