BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Evolution

Challenge accepted, John135086 (CON). I am a former Atheist and a Christian, although religious belief is not related to the subject of evolution. Since CON hasn't set up the conditions of debate, so I'll take the initiative: We'll debate the theory of evolution on the grounds of "flaw". 1. The definition of flaw: transitive verb : to make flaws in : mar intransitive verb : to become defective I will argue against CON that the theory of evolution may be flawed, but it is ever-updating theory according to the data findings discovered by scientists in the future. In other words, the theory of evolution cannot be remaining flawed and must be updated. I assert that the theory of evolution is accurate according to data findings. If the conditions are acceptable for Pro, then we'll start by having PRO will have to summarize why the theory of evolution is flawed. Links: 1. The definition of flaw: http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Evolution

Hello,I'm here to debate that Evolution is flawed. Not in the sense that evolution took a wrong turn and crap happened,but in the sense that the entire idea of evolution IS flawed. Now while I myself am Christian and whoever accepts this will probably be a atheist,I'm not here to debate the existence of God. While you may use God in your argument,please keep it to a minimum. Also,I don't think this would have to be necessary,but please,no trolls. Only accept this if you are serious. In addition,first round will be acceptance,after that do it however you want,but we will not set in stone any specific way for this. Lastly,I would like a experienced debater to accept. This is my third account as I have cancelled the other two,and I myself am experienced debater. Thank You!
Term Limits Should be abolished

First of all, this is my first debate, so when I probably lose, please give me advice. Well, first off, I would like to cite my main example as to why they should be abolished First, I would like to cite FDR, who was not restrained by term limits, which allowed him to implement long-term plans to aid America, such as the new deal. "He was elected President in November 1932, to the first of four terms. By March there were 13,000,000 unemployed, and almost every bank was closed. In his first "hundred days," he proposed, and Congress enacted, a sweeping program to bring recovery to business and agriculture, relief to the unemployed and to those in danger of losing farms and homes, and reform, especially through the establishment of the Tennessee Valley Authority. By 1935 the Nation had achieved some measure of recovery, but businessmen and bankers were turning more and more against Roosevelt's New Deal program. They feared his experiments, were appalled because he had taken the Nation off the gold standard and allowed deficits in the budget, and disliked the concessions to labor. Roosevelt responded with a new program of reform: Social Security, heavier taxes on the wealthy, new controls over banks and public utilities, and an enormous work relief program for the unemployed. In 1936 he was re-elected by a top-heavy margin. Feeling he was armed with a popular mandate, he sought legislation to enlarge the Supreme Court, which had been invalidating key New Deal measures. Roosevelt lost the Supreme Court battle, but a revolution in constitutional law took place. Thereafter the Government could legally regulate the economy."( http://www.whitehouse.gov...) By allowing president's to not have term limits, they can institute long term plans such as the new deal. This kind of policy-making is effective, and allows plan to be completed, instead of having them disbanded by a new president.
Term Limits Should be abolished

if we look specifically at the budget, we can see that whenever a presidency changes, new presidents often have a mass budget failure their first years (. http://cyberlizard.com...) B) usually, it is easier for an incumbent to become re-elected, rather than the party putting up a new candidate, and as long as their are elections, we can remove an incumbent if his ideas and plans are failing (. http://www.whitehouse.gov...) Final Paragraph Second, On the case study of FDR impact on America is well viewed even to today, in a poll taken on July 5, 2007 by Rasmussen, his presidency's approval was at 81% (. http://www.rasmussenreports.com...) Continuing with Charles Coughlin, it is almost impossible for all of a president's decisions to be liked, and their is conflict. While you have sourced a critic, FDR's approval to today shows that he was popular. So even if it did become a quasi-monarchy, it was a quasi-monarchy that during every election could have been ended and this "quasi-monarchy" was well liked. THIRD, I would like to point out that my opponent can take items from Roosevelt's critics, but as history shows we see Roosevelt as a very successful president. (again, . http://www.rasmussenreports.com...) and that his long term reign allows him to become one of the top ten best presidents (. http://www.c-span.org...) So, I would like people to vote, we see a president who has great success through the ability to reap long term benefits, and because he is unhindered by term limits, he has great success.
Best youtube video ever WITHOUT SOUND

This debate is for fun. Whoever posts the best YouTube video win. Here's the rules. YouTube videos can include a sounds, but still good enough that it is still worth the watch while muted. The debater only can post one video per round. So please make a wise choice. Videos can be funny, good, gay, stupid, whatever, but our goal is to post something in here so good that it is worth the time to watch.
Stalin guard was the best battle of WWI

OK first of all, there was no battle called "Stalin guard". It was called "Stalingrad". Stalingrad was the name of a Soviet city on the Volga. Now let us define "best battle". I don't think there is such a thing as a "best battle" but if we are talking about the battle in terms of how epic it was and how much happened then yes, Stalingrad would probably stand at the top. Stalingrad was the second largest battle in history with roughly 2 million deaths making it by far the bloodiest battle in history. The battle of Stalingrad was also probably the most important battle of WWII. Why Stalingrad was important: -Saved Stalingrad (the second most important city in the USSR) -Saved the valuable oil-fields at the Caucuses (Grozny, Baku, Maykop, etc) which provided some 95% of Soviet oil. -Saved the British Empire (stopped Germany from breaking into the middle-east which was lightly defended from where they could reach India and Egypt) -Germany suffered a staggering 850,000 casualties -This was the largest defeat for Germany -The entire coarse of the war in Europe changed (in other words this was the most important turning point of the war) -The Germans were in retreat on a scale never seen before shortly following the end of the Battle of Stalingrad -Ensured that Turkey would not join the axis By the end of the battle, Stalingrad could be compared to Hiroshima in terms of the scale of the destruction.
No-one can understand someone better than the person him/herself

My opponent's entire argument is plagiarised. It is sourced here:. http://psycnet.apa.org...The paper he is sourcing is "SelfKnowledge of Personality: Do People Know Themselves? " also viewable here: . http://www.simine.com...Also, none of that is relevant to my case, and is just misrepresenting my own. As a result, I shall simply point you back to my argument plan. "My general argument shall be that all knowledge one can gleam from another person can be learnt through psychological techniques and examination. Further, the average person can learn of all these psychological techniques. They are also privy to certainty regarding their own motivations, unlike others which have to guess. Thus, the individual themselfcanbe more certain, and thus know more, than anyone else regarding themselves. "But quite simply my opponent has refused to debate me, and instead has stolen someone else's work and passed it off as his own.
No-one can understand someone better than the person him/herself

Quality of debate is 100% essential and dictates how one votes. But the quality is the quality of your argument. You don't seem to understand what the word "your" means. It means not somebody else's work. That makes it not your argument. Further, most of what you put is completely irrelevant to the debate itself. For no reason, you brought up internet porn. The quality of discussion on banning of pornography of that article is high, but on the topic, it is 100% irrelevant. Once you present your own arguments, you start doing well. You are not right, because you have not said anything. Other people have said something, you have copied what they put with no actual reading of the information, apparently. And if we read Round 3, we see a lot of it actually disproves your case, not proves it. I'd strongly reccomend re-reading what someone else has written, because what you've put makes little sense in most cases.
Curious on Police Drug Bust

I don't know what this debate is about truly, but mainly suggest that you do a quick Google search. In fact, I'll help you do this Google search.Stated under the article "What Happens to All the Money Seized in Drug Busts", it states that most of the money goes to advancing their technology in order to carry out more drug busts. Simple as that, and nothing else.Source: http://www.wfsb.com...
Curious on Police Drug Bust

Blessing American People, Are you ever CURIOUS as to where the money from police drug bust go to? I have thought of this a lot. I called around and all the department's gave me wrong and different answers. Its sad they do not want the public to know where or what they are doing with all that money. There are a lot of people out in this United States that can use the money. I am going to try to pass a law in this problem. I am going to call congress and address this problem. What do you think?
Trans-Humanism Is Not The Rightful Path Of Humanity

I believe my opponent is taking a false position.We can debate science and technology, but ultimate the flaw in my opponent's logic is one of speculation, not science or technology.Essentially, any argument for or against digitization of human intelligence requires that we examine the nature of the digitization and the limitations, if any, placed on future evolution by such an action being taken.This difficulty can be explored via a comparative analysis of two hypothetical futures which take very different views on the subject.The author Richard K Morgan uses DHC as the primary means of space travel in the trilogy of books known as the Takeshi Kovacs Novels. In this fictional universe, infants are implanted with high-density 'stack' of computational storage in order to preserve the consciousness of an individual. Human bodies become an economic resource. Later in the series, one discovers that the ancient and presumed extinct Martian civilization (named due to a flawed theory that the civilization originated on Mars and was now extinct) has in fact found a way to quantum-encode not only consciousness, but physical reality itself.Taking a different approach entirely, the Finnish author Hannu Rajaniemi in his fantastic and riveting novel Quantum Theif describes a future in which mankind has mastered the art of creating nearly infinite copies of themselves in quantum computers. These variable-function copies, known as 'Gogols' (probably derived from the mathematical term googol or 1.0 x 10^100) can be created with limitations in their quantum variability which affects their sapience. Any human which uses the technology gains effectively god-like powers over their lives, including the ability to use nanotechnology to recreate new bodies and to dominate the rest of humanity.The technological differences in the application of the technology clearly influences any argument towards the veracity of the argument. Since we have not yet managed to come anywhere close to the encoding and upload of human consciousness, we cannot quantify the value of doing so.Essentially my argument is that my opponent is perpetuating an argument from ignorance and as such arguing a speculative slippery-slope fallacy from the outset.
should children play mature rated video games

Hello 7c Raise your hand if you have a cellphone? What if you saw all your friends with a phone would you beg you parents to buy you a phone. There are many parents who cant afford the phone bills, therefor, you would feel pretty awkward being the only person in in the class that doesn"t have a cellphone. We feel that children should not be allowed to bring phones to school. There are many situations when you have to call your parents, however almost all teachers have cellphones on hand if there is ever an emergency. Most schools have landline phones in case there is an emergency, the school can deal with the situation before you can get to your phone. Also the cellphone can have the risk of being stolen or damaged. The cellphones can cause distraction to the student and the class. Also there are many possibilities where students use there cellphone tpo
should children play mature rated video games

First of all jou don't know what your talking about the brain may not be affected but the eyes surely are. There are many children that sit very close to the t.v my t.v is 70 inches but it still can strain the eyes for a long period of time and therefor the playing times should be minimized. If not your gonna have to be prepared for glasses. BAYUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUm!
should children play mature rated video games

I think that children should not play mature video games because many, children can get influenced by the stuff in the game especially at a young age. Now that games are becoming more and more violent this issue becomes even more dangerous with the sudden interest of children in mature rated games. I have been told on many axons that the games was mature rated but i understand the things that go on in the games i play. However there are many other children that don't understand what happens in these games. The worst part about this situation is that games graphics are now being improved and if it a gory game, that gets upped too. So, main point is that game sellers should stop children under the age of 12 to buy mature rated games.
In the U.S. criminal justice system, should truth-seeking take precedence over attorney-client privi

There are exceptions and limitations to the attorney-client privilege. For example, if a client tells an attorney that the client plans to murder someone, the attorney is free to go to the police. It can be waived. So it is not without limitation. But those who have examined the issue since the early 1700s concur that its existence generally favors public policy. The attorney-client privilege aids justice by encouraging free communication between client and attorney. The argument against the privilege is that if a client tells the attorney something incriminating, the state could use that information to prove its case. But presumably, the communication would not take place absent the privilege. Thus, the attorney-client privilege does not harm the truth-seeking process because it only keeps from the Court information that would not exist but for the privilege. I look forward to continuing our debate in Round 3 should you elect to do so.
In the U.S. criminal justice system, should truth-seeking take precedence over attorney-client privi

Under our Constitution, the Fifth Amendment grants individuals the right to remain silent when accused. We don"t torture confessions out of people any longer. The Sixth Amendment grants people the right to a lawyer when accused of a crime. For lawyers to adequately represent someone and to give them good advice, they have to know what happened. The only reason an accused person is going to talk to the lawyer is because the accused knows that the lawyer won"t tell their secrets to someone else. Instead, they"ll listen and help that person know what to do. The lawyer is not a truth seeker. The accused is not a truth seeker. So let"s say a woman is accused of murdering her husband. She has the right to remain silent and she chooses to exercise that right. Courts can"t decide that people who remain silent are more likely to be guilty or might be hiding something. If they couldn"t, the right to remain silent wouldn"t be a right, it would be a trap. But she can talk to her lawyer. If she can"t, then it"s not much of a right. If the woman says she did it because her husband beat her up regularly, it might not be a defense to the charge, but it could be a mitigating factor and the lawyer will use the information to try and get a lesser sentence for the woman or the lawyer might use the information to go investigate the history of the couple. But for the attorney-client privilege, the lawyer would never have known about the couple"s history, because she wouldn"t talk if it meant the lawyer would have to immediately go to the police and report the terms of the conversation. But let"s make the scenario worse. Say the woman told the lawyer, "I killed him for the money when he was defenseless." The attorney-client privilege means that the lawyer can"t go to the police or tell the judge. But he also can"t put the woman on the stand and let her lie. He"s also restricted in what kind of arguments he can make. In other words, he can"t argue something he knows is untrue or let the woman get on the stand and lie when he knows it"s a lie. But he can remain silent and make the state prove its case. She"s innocent until proven guilty and we have "truth finders" in the role of judge and jury to decide what happened. As I said earlier, neither the defendant or the defendant"s lawyer is a truth finder. The attorney-client privilege lets a lawyer find out the facts so she can best represent her client.
In the U.S. criminal justice system, should truth-seeking take precedence over attorney-client privi

In the United States, clients have the right to secretly have conversation with the attorney. Attorneys can plan things out and prepare their speech to prove the clients innocent. However, they should not lie to the public and prove the clients innocent, because attorney-client privilege is to help the attorneys. The oath of the court is to tell only the truth, and attorneys should not break this rule. First, anything can happen if there are secrets. Truth-seeking needs true information about the clients, and secrets don"t help. These secrets include the conversations between the attorney and the client. The reason is that the client can tell the attorney the truth, and refuse to tell the truth to the public. The attorney can learn that the client is guilty of the crime, but they have to keep it secret from the public because of the attorney-client privilege. The attorney can give up the case after knowing the secret, but they cannot say why they give up the case to anyone, so nobody knows if the client is guilty. If truth-seeking privilege is not a higher priority than attorney-client privilege, clients can get away without anyone knowing if they are guilty.
Download Album: Mac Miller " Swimming [LEAK] | Full Zip

Mac Miller has announced a new album. It"s called Swimming and it"s out August 3. He"s also shared a six-minute song called "Self Care. " It arrives with a Kill ["] http://album360. Us/2018/07/28/download-album-mac-miller-swimming-leak-full-zip/ http://album360. Us/2018/07/28/download-album-mac-miller-swimming-leak-full-zip/ http://album360. Us/2018/07/28/download-album-mac-miller-swimming-leak-full-zip/
atheism is a theism, belief to the contrary

belief is religion, religion can not exist without belief in something.. belief=theism=yes position disBelief=aTheism=no i accept i dont know=agnostic=maybe only 3 positions exist on any imaginary claim atheism, is A theism, like a rock atheism=a theism to the contrary any belief is belief in god, god is information, beliefs are false, religion is false, belief is religion.
atheism is a theism, belief to the contrary

Do I need to keep saying this? Your argument is: If you believe something then it is a religion. But atheism DOES NOT fall under the other characteristics of religion. One of them being the belief in a god. Atheism is the opposite. There is no distinction between sacred and profane objects with atheists. We don't perform ritual acts. We don't follow a moral code we believe to be sanctioned by the gods. We don't feel characteristically religious feelings, and we don't perform religious acts. We don't pray. (Okay, 7 makes no sense. Everyone has a world view regardless of religion. So does 8.) Yes, I suppose we have a "social group", but there is a majority here.
atheism is a theism, belief to the contrary

belief is theism, atheism is disbelief, disbelief is belief, atheism is theism, negative is antipositive your oppinion is your oppinion, good can be a subjective term. do you believe, that your oppinion, is that the warrior series is good? or is your oppinion that its a good series? i dont understand your point.. belief that there are no gods is belief to the contrary
atheism is a theism, belief to the contrary

I accept. The Encyclopedia of Philosophy has an article pertaining to a religion, which I will list in the sources below. It lists some of the characteristics of religion, none of which pertain to atheism. 1. Belief in supernatural beings (gods). 2. A distinction between sacred and profane objects. 3. Ritual acts focused on sacred objects. 4. A moral code believed to be sanctioned by the gods. 5. Characteristically religious feelings (awe, sense of mystery, sense of guilt, adoration), which tend to be aroused in the presence of sacred objects and during the practice of ritual, and which are connected in idea with the gods. 6. Prayer and other forms of communication with gods. 7. A world view, or a general picture of the world as a whole and the place of the individual therein. This picture contains some specification of an over-all purpose or point of the world and an indication of how the individual fits into it. 8. A more or less total organization of one's life based on the world view. 9. A social group bound together by the above. Now, atheism is defined as the belief that there are no gods. Wait, you say, BELIEF! You can believe in something without it being a religion. For instance, I believe that the Warriors series of novels is a good book series. However, do I do any of the things above? Do any of the things above pertain to my belief that Warriors is a good book series? The same applies to atheism. See you in Round 2. SOURCES: Forgive me if I post the wrong article. http://atheism.about.com... http://www.iep.utm.edu...