BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Aliens does not exist!

I feel as if you have not fully grasped the proposition that you set yourself up to defend. You began this debate with the proposition that ‘aliens do not exist.’ The burden of proof was on you to make your case, yet you have made no effort to provide any evidence or proof to that end. I would like to reiterate what I said at the start of this debate: it is not my responsibility to prove that alien life DOES exist, only that one cannot reasonable support the assertion that it does not exist. I feel I have done that. I will now take your points one by one. “There are photos of mars and aliens on there. It's 98% chance that it's fake. With the technology that we have today anybody can change, or put something in a picture. You could even make a website and pretend like it's the government. That's why you don't always believe what's on the internet.” I addressed this point earlier when I addressed hoaxes in general. The fact that there are hoaxes proves only that hoaxes exist, nothing more. Because someone fakes one thing you cannot jump to the conclusion that all instances are fake (hence my examples of art forgeries). I agree that we shouldn’t always believe what is on the internet, but it is just as fallacious to assume the opposite is therefore true. “Rumors about aliens have been here forever. They seem pretty smart, so where the hell is the aliens?” Rumors are not evidence, rumors are simply rumors. And much like I said about hoaxes, simply by virtue of something being a rumor you cannot assume it is therefore false. “The only reason why aliens are so popular is because alien fanatics hyped it up.” That is an assertion you would have to back up with demonstrable evidence in some way if it were crucial to this topic. But, even if it is true, it has no relevance on whether or not alien life does in fact exist somewhere in our universe. “When people claim they saw a UFO they are usually intoxicated with drugs.” That is another assertion you would have to back up in some fashion, were it relevant. However, whether or not people are intoxicated when they claim to see UFO’s has no bearing on whether or not alien life exists. And given that none of my argument has been based on eye witness testimony, I think it’s safe to say it is not relevant to this discussion. “People waste their precious time researching about false things that we don't even know exist.” That is probably true. And once again it seems you agreed that we do not know if alien life exists. Therefore, we cannot categorically state that aliens do not exist – which is the position I set out to defend at the start.
Aliens does not exist!

Obviously I need to repeat my claims. There are photos of mars and aliens on there. It's 98% chance that it's fake. With the technology that we have today anybody can change, or put something in a picture. You could even make a website and pretend like it's the government. That's why you don't always believe what's on the internet. Rumors about aliens have been here forever. They seem pretty smart, so where the hell is the aliens? The only reason why aliens are so popular is because alien fanatics hyped it up. When people claim they saw a UFO they are usually intoxicated with drugs. People waste their precious time researching about false things that we don't even know exist.
evolution is illegal to teach in schools

i am sorry i have so far screwed up this debate but here we go ok what i want taken out of the schools is the teaching of fakes in most of the schools such things as lucy or neanderthal man (sorry i have really bad spelling) and other things that have been disproven time and time again to be taken out i dont want to pay for them to be taught as yet they are still lies. Ok if you do have facts to evolution that have not been disproven yet (the big bang is not evolution so i do not want to hear about microwave radiation.) i do not mind if you put it in the text books. but still evolution is yet a theory that is not genrally belived cause yet again one third (that is a billion christians and a billion muslims then a suposed amount from other relgions to make up any other deficet you point out) or more of the worlds population can not see this please dont tell me this is because we are a bunch of blind morons i dont want to hear it some of us are open idiots i understand but there are some true genieus among us. ok now it is my turn to post a definition this is a definition for science 1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences. 2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. 3. any of the branches of natural or physical science. 4. systematized knowledge in general. 5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study. 6. a particular branch of knowledge. ok lets highlight a couple of things here number one uses the word laws not theories number two says observations and no one has observed evolution on a macro scale micro evolution may be a fact and i know a humans immune system does become more advanced and other virus and germs devlope singal new gene. any how if your so right and evolution is a fact you know whay you are calling me is a monkey plus time or a fish plus time or slime plus time there you go.
evolution is illegal to teach in schools

Before we begin, let me point out that the Supreme Court case Epperson v. Arkansas established that to outlaw the teaching of evolution is in violation of the First Amendment. So you've kinda already lost in that regard. But on to the real spirit of the debate. Evolution is both theory and fact at the same time. Observed changes in organisms over time have been proven. (http://www.stephenjaygould.org...) The question is how exactly those changes came about. Gravity is, in fact, also a theory. Does my opponent also want the teaching of gravity to be illegal? Both evolution and gravity are taught in schools under there current theories. That is to say, there is currently no other scientifically acceptable alternative. This is simply a part of science. My opponent's next claim is that evolution has not yet been scientifically proven and is therefore a religion. As I have previously stated, theories are almost universally accepted explanations among the scientific community for certain facts, or observations. This is a part of science and that is why evolution is taught in SCIENCE class. But let's take a look at the definition of religion, shall we? Religion 1. a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship. 2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order. 3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader. 4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion. I presume my opponent would say that religion falls into the last, and most dubious, definition of a religion. By this definition football or basketball are religions, and should not be taught in P.E. class. But even this classification is a stretch. The only reason evolution is so passionately defended is because it is so vehemently opposed by those in the religious community. As I have shown, evolution, like gravity, is a widely accepted explanation for a set of facts. It is not a religion, as my opponent claims. No one worships evolution or uses it as a set of guiding moral principles. As the Supreme Court has proven, it is most certainly legal to teach it. I believe the burden is now squarely on my opponent's shoulders to come up with some shocking new evidence that proves otherwise.
Probable existence of a natural God

I am an informed atheist who will be arguing that the existence of a personal God is incredibly implausible, though never impossible. Confirming: We are debating a physical entity, a personal God, omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient, who still watches over his creations today, and is responsible for the core processes of the universe. I look forward to a fun and informative debate! Good luck.
Probable existence of a natural God

I'd like to start off by saying that this debate is not meant to be a political one. It is not meant to implicate obligations to morality, etc. It is only meant to debate the possibility of a God that exists in accordance with the known functionality of the universe. In no way does this existence imply validity of religion, morality, after life, or consciousness. That being said, I would like to use the first round for acceptance of rules and definitions, second for opening statements and any immediate refutations, third for further elaboration, and fourth for summarization of each side's own argument in a concise and understandable format. I will be debating Pro for the probable existence (likely existence) of a God entity that exists with acceptable violation of the known functionality of the universe. Con will debate for the improbable (unlikely) OR impossible (0% likely) existence of a God entity that exists with acceptable violation of the known functionality of the universe. I emphasize "with acceptable violation" because as we know, Science is not absolute, no theory or law is concrete, and there is room for some seemingly unnatural/unexplainable behavior. Often science contradicts itself, but this very contradiction is what makes improvements. These kinds of contradictions are the only ones that I want to make arrangement for. "God" in reference to a conscious being with a physical body. The "God" entity's exact physical properties will remain undefined for debate purposes. "God" entity will for the most part, remain uncharacterized. In other words it will remain unknown if the entity is kind, jealous, angry, etc. Ideally I would like Con to be an informed atheist with reasonable knowledge of Science and perhaps some knowledge of human behavior, but anyone who deems themselves proficient enough in logic & reasoning will be fine. Of course good spelling & grammar is asked, but most imperative is the concise statement of argument (i.e. don't ramble).
Probable existence of a natural God

Your first summary point was that your theory bridges the supernatural with science. The only problem with this is you are using science to fulfill certain parts of your theory that does not exist. We do not even know if it is possible to cross between universes, or get past what is between. We don't even have a strong case that there are multiple universes, much less intelligent life on one of them. Your theory takes the concepts of science and stretches them to the point of complete incoherence. Although you first say your theory does not require faith, you then say "For this theory to sit on all fours it requires one to assume emotion, feeling, or intuiton as evidence that works in tandem with current scientific views". How do you put emotions inside a living thing? That is not something you can do scientifically. Also, all emotions serve an evolutionary advantage, such as sadness, which makes other take pity in us, shame, which shows others we are sorry, and jealousy, which inspires us to beat our competitors and reach the top. For all your talk of your theory combining science and bridging faith and science, how honestly likely do you think your theory is? It is slightly better than the theological God, as it does sorta use science, but you theory is truly a "God of the Gaps" and I would put its likelihood at about 1.5%, half a percent higher than that of the religious Gods.
Hillary Clinton Is a Werewolf

First off, my opponent says the BoP is on me, when I clearly stated, "while my opponent must prove she is not. ". CON must provide proof she isn't a werewolf. Just so you know, I don't actually believe Hillary is a werewolf, I was just bored and decided to do an interesting, and strange debate. 1. The Obvious Evidance Every reasonable person knows that werewolves are the mortal enemies of lizard people. Therefore we can conclude Hillary is trying to dethrone the reptillian goerment that is controlling the world. However being a werewolf, she would make the world a lot worse if she became president. This explains her hatred of Obama, who is a lizard person. . http://nypost.com... Obama endorsed her, not knowing she was a werewolf, so she could be the reptillian proxy in the U. S. Government. From there she would have attempted to do a worldwide reptilian genocide. 2. Photographical Evidance Hillary Clinton has been caught in the act of transforming into a werewolf many times. Here are a couple. 1) You can look at the image below, and see she is starting to grow fangs. This is quite unnatural. . http://www.whale.to... You can only conclude she is in the process of becoming a werewolf. 2) Here is another picture showing the growing of fangs and the absence of lips. . http://www.whale.to... Once again, she is in the process of becoming a werewolf 3) If you look at the image below, you will notice the large fangs. . http://www.freakingnews.com... Now you can tell this isn't normal. Nobody has fangs, especially like that. She must be in the middle of the process of turning into a werewolf. 3. Video Evidance The video below shows a dummy (literally) comparing Hillary to a Werewolf. As you can tell Hillary and Werewolves are extremely similar. This shows that the actions of werewolves and hillary are very similar, showing Hillary has a good chance of being one. 4. Alien Evidance Hillary is quite interested with the idea of aliens. Why? Because she is a werewolf from the moon! She knows about them already and wants the public to know so they can unite and overthrow the alien-reptillian government! . http://thehill.com... I rest my case here, hoping everybody can see how Hillary is a werewolf. Once again just so everybody knows, I don't believe Hillary is a werewolf, I'm just doing this for fun.
Contacts (pro) Vs. Glasses (con)

This is being issued because I think a good debate was passed up on by a forfeiting opponent.I will be arguing that contacts are the superior choice of eye wear.First round is for acceptance and clarification of terms.Second round is for Construction of the case.Third round is for rebuttals.Final round is for refutes of offered rebuttals, and reconstruction of the case. (no new arguments or rebuttals can be made).Glasses, accepted as a pair of vision corrective lenses worn by a wire or similar frame work, worn about the nose, brow, and over the ear for support.Contacts, accepted as a pair of vision corrective lenses being applied directly to the eye, rather than supported via framework.
Contacts (pro) Vs. Glasses (con)

Glasses can act as an extension of your personality and make a great fashion statement! I cannot see someone with contacts making a fashion statement. Most people would never know that you are wearing them in the first place. "Contacts reduce the amount of oxygen reaching your eye and can cause or increase the severity of dry eye syndrome." (1) Having worn contacts before I have to say that this could not be more true. I constantly needed to put eye drops in my eyes because they were so dry it was starting to bother me. Having to buy the bottles of solution was starting to get expensive which is one of the reasons I switched back to glasses. (1)http://www.allaboutvision.com...
Contacts (pro) Vs. Glasses (con)

"Glasses will end (up) costing less than contacts. With contacts, you have to be a new supply..."If the desire is for something disposable. There are permanent contacts. A rigid gas permeable lens has an extremely long life time, when compared to its disposable counterparts, and is less likely to be scratched or marred than a set of glasses used for the same duration. "If you are buying a pair of sunglasses then you are going to have to keep them with you all the time and if you are a glasses wearer then all you would have to do it trade. No big deal to me, does not seem to be that much of a hassle to simply take off one pair of glasses and put on another." I will consider this a concession to the point about practicality, then. "I am not to crazy about the idea of having to put something on my eyeball for me to see straight. I would much rather wear glasses that way nothing bad can happen to my eyes if I happen to fall asleep with them on." This is the nature of eyewear, in general, though. There is perhaps an inch of space between the lens and the eye, with a contact, there is none. Its not a wide gap at all. If the worry is regarding sleep, there are extended and sleep ware contacts, and the occasional nod off or lapse of memory about taking out one's contacts pales in comparison to having plastic and metal on your face should you roll over. I would be more worried about my glasses being marred from sleeping in them than I would be from the contacts giving me issue. "People should be proud of what they are given and not change what they look like." While I appreciate the sentiment, its not exactly a premise to rebut the idea of colored lenses. My hair grows, but I cut and shape it into something I prefer. People dye their hair. Trim facial hair. Color their nails. These are all contrary to how one looks 'naturally' but get altered depending upon personal style. Some people prefer another color, just like some people prefer different frames. With regards to infections, and other nasty bits of biological detritus, look no further than the pads on the nose, or along the rims of any set of spectacles. The amount of gook housed there, which regularly collects and accumulates, is enough to send any hypochondriac in fever sweats. Contacts by their nature are soaked regularly in sterile disinfectant. Can that be said about glasses? Contacts in general need to be rinsed before worn. Is that said about glasses? At any given time some one has a mishap with their glasses, does a person wearing contacts suffer the same pitfall? These are all salient points, but are widely dropped by my opponent without even touching on safety.
Contacts (pro) Vs. Glasses (con)

I also have both contact and glasses, but I am finding that I wear my glasses more often then my contacts. Glasses are the best choice between the two options provided in this debate. There are countless choices when it comes to picking out frames for your lenses. You could have a pair of glasses for any occasion and then you would still have choices if those ones start to bore you. You can even get prescription sunglasses so there is really no reason why people should not pick them. Glasses will end costing you less than contacts. With contacts you have to buy a new supply every 6 months to a year, whereas with glasses you will only need the one pair that you buy unless you prescription changes to the point where you need new ones. Which does not happen all that often. If you are buying a pair of sunglasses then you are going to have to keep them with you all the time and if you are a glasses wearer then all you would have to do it trade. No big deal to me, does not seem to be that much of a hassle to simply take off one pair of glasses and put on another. I am not to crazy about the idea of having to put something on my eyeball for me to see straight. I would much rather wear glasses that way nothing bad can happen to my eyes if I happen to fall asleep with them on. Inflammation and infection ( found on lasik website) "Even wearing the most advanced extended wear lenses increases the risk of inflammation and infection if you do not take them out while you sleep. A study by the University of Manchester found that inflammation, infections, and chronic eye problems were more common in people who wore their lenses while they slept than those who did not." Falling asleep with your contacts in can damage your eyes sometimes beyond repair. The easiest thing to do is to wear glasses, that way if you fall asleep with them on it is no big deal. I would much rather have someone see the color my eyes really are that way they are getting to know the real me and not someone that is trying to look like someone they are not. People should be proud of what they are given and not change what they look like.
The Teaching of Safe Sex Education in Public Elementary School

Boy! you sure got defensive when I clearly pointed out where you were (1) promoting promiscuity and (2) marxism I do appreciate that you have morals and do NOT think that either of these are good things however your premise here is wrong Safe sex education discourages sexual intercourse. Safe sex education teaches children, much like you intend, to not have sex. This is NOT TRUE the "sexual educators" take the opinion that you had LAST TIME, that you have now REVERSED upon me challenging it here was that opinion As I already asserted in my first round of arguments, the innocence of children has already been destroyed and should not be questioned. This debate is an issue of how to react to their innocence already been destroyed by the likes of Jamie Lynn Spears and Company. the only way childrens innocence is destroyed is by ADULTS giving them ADULT INFORMATION too early again, I apprecaite that you see the value in what I have said and hopefully you have seen the light and will rethink your views on children sex eduication and marxian rhetoric I will warn you of the insidous and dangerous nature of the marxists that have infused the education system and will poison your mind to the truth. the rest of your "debate" is just confused rhetoric that simply obfuscates the main points here that I have made above- some personal attacks on me on style etc that are not useful so I will omit them take care and good luck cheers and happy new year
The Teaching of Safe Sex Education in Public Elementary School

This is very simpe, and you obviously too young to be a parent, so you wont know what its like to try and protect your children from inapproprate things (1) The public schools have no business covering this topic in any way, other than health class, denoting parts and functions , in a dry manner (2) elementary school (under age 11) is way too young for Children to be learning about sex. they need their innocence preserved. (3) Some of the current debates raging are whether CONDOMS should be distributed to children age 11 - this is ridiculous Children should be taught that dating should not occur until at least age 16, and that sex should not occur outside a committed realtionship, and really marriage. By infusing them with liberal "do what feels good" nonsense- kids are being sold a bill of good that will lead to * teenage pregnancy * depression * STDs * confusion It is very important to teach kids that they need to respect eachother and see eacother and human beings to be cared about, NOT sex objects. Children in high school are NOT emotionally ready or mature enough for sex Children in Grade school need their innocence protected and need to be sheltered, not exposed, to adult topics my 2 c