BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Evolution is true and Biblical Creation is false

The argument between evolution and biblical creation is a long lasting one and it may take some time to officially resolve. I, myself, fall under the side of those in support of evolution. This scientific theory has been proven time and time again by methods such as the fossil record(1) and the E. Coli experiment(2), though these are not the only methods. I also enjoyed the Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham debate(3), during which Bill Nye pointed out a good amount of evidence pointing towards evolution and against biblical creation, some of which may be cited in this debate. On the flip side, I haven't seen any good evidence, or evidence at all, for biblical creation, just faulty arguments and false claims of proof. I am an open-minded person and if someone is willing to take up this debate and defend biblical creation, providing good evidence to support it, as Bill Nye said at the end of his debate, I will gladly convert my ideology to that of creationism. (1) http://evolution.berkeley.edu... (2) http://en.wikipedia.org... (3)
Price Gouging Following Natural Disaster ought to be permitted by law

I would like to argue that price gouging following natural disasters can be a good thing, and that it ought to be permitted by law.Definitions"Price Gouging Following Natural Distaster" (PGFND): the practice of marking up the price of a good rapidly (over 50% increase in price roughly) in response to sudden increase of scarcity as a result of a natural disaster (flood, tornado, typhoon, godzilla attack, etc.)"Ought to be" is a functional phrase to establish the weighing mechanisms by which the judges shall make their decision. What "ought to be" is the policymaking standard that would yield the best results for the people of "this house." For this debate, "this house" will be considered to be the United States legislative branch, or a general attitude of any state legislature. What is "best" for the people of "this house" is open to interpretation."Permitted by law" should be self-explainatory. States that permit price-gouging may not be cited as a defeat to the justification of this debate, but may be cited as an example of the benefits/detriments of price-gouging.SettingsThe debate will be 5 rounds, at 10,000 Characters each. 72 Hours to respond. The voting is open to those with an ELO above 2,500, and it is select winner format. Whoever responds to this challenge must have completed at least one debate to accept, but I would be open to debating a n00b if they messaged me first.Rules-No trolling-No semantics-No kritiks-By accepting the challenge, you accept my definitions-First round is for acceptance and pleasantries only-Round two is for constructive arguments only, no rebuttals may be made here.-Round five is for final analysis only. No new arguments or sources may be introduced here. Only an analysis of the contentions made by each of the debaters is allowed.I look forward to this debate, as I am trying to become active in debate once again. I hope this topic will be interesting to discuss
Caramel's Ideal Society

I pointed out that Caramel isn't serious about his political ideology. He's never debated any of the competent defenders of capitalism. As a response, he said he's never received any debate challenges from me. This implies that he will take a debate if I challenge him. The full resolution is that Caramel can't offer any uniquely anti-capitalist recommendations that will substantially improve the status quo. For example, both capitalists and Caramel dislike central banks, so he can use this argument, but it won't carry any weight on the resolution. He has to say things like "businesses should be illegal" or something. As a brightline for "capitalism", I'll put forward the two principles of self ownership and use-rights. Essentially they mean the right to exclude other people from use of yourself or your property. So you can't rape me, and you can't break into my granary. These rights get fuzzy at the margins, but they can be clarified later. Caramel has articulated his desire for societies of about 2000 people who all do their own farming and live by a tribal code of honor. I'll leave it to Caramel to elucidate this further... What I expect to happen is one of the following 1) Caramel will unwittingly make capitalist arguments. For example, if he thinks everyone should VOLUNTARILY go into these tiny sustenance communes, that is within capitalist rights, and is therefore not anti-capitalist. 2) Caramel will make anti-capitalist arguments on pragmatic grounds, but fail to explain the incentives faced by actors moving to and in that system. For example, if he thinks that we should be forced to stop using currency, I'll ask you to consider the extreme danger of creating an organization powerful enough to ban currency, as well as the incentive of each individual actor to revert back to using currency as a superior means of trade. I'll also run pure economic arguments against him depending on the issue. With currency, I might argue that economic calculation is impossible without prices etc. At any rate, this is enough fluff. I'm trying to give Caramel as much of a heads up as possible (and to avoid being one of those guys who starts a round and says "ill wait for my opponent to startlol"). I don't have any contentions or points now, but I ask that Caramel organize his case as well as possible. Numbers, bullet points and so on...
Abortion

"If you ever went to confession, which I assume you never did, you will feel something come over you (if you have a good relationship with God) when the priest says the forgiving prayer. It makes you feel like you have been carrying a lot of weight for a long time, and had just been free of your burden. The burden you have been feeling are your sins. They have been weighing you down for a long time. You feel great, that would be your soul getting freed of the weight of your sins my friend. This is some proof of the human soul" == REBUTTAL == My opponent has not shown any evidence of a soul. Personal experience is subjective. If I didn't feel such an experience, would it be proof a soul doesn't exist? At any rate the "weight of he shoulder" effect is guilt. Humans feel guilty if they do something perceive to be morally wrong. Talking to another human being, and one you know is guaranteed not to say anything to authorities, makes people lose this feeling of guilt. It's a mental effect. "Some evolutionary psychologists theorize that guilt and shame helped maintain beneficial relationships, such as reciprocal altruism. If a person feels guilty when he harms another, or even fails to reciprocate kindness, he is more likely not to harm others or become too selfish. In this way, he reduces the chances of retaliation by members of his tribe, and thereby increases his survival prospects, and those of the tribe or group. .. .. As a highly social animal living in large groups that are relatively stable, we need ways to deal with conflicts and events in which we inadvertently or purposefully harm others. If someone causes harm to another, and then feels guilt and demonstrates regret and sorrow, the person harmed is likely to forgive. Thus, guilt makes it possible to forgive, and helps hold the social group together. " -- . http://en.wikipedia.org... My opponent has not refuted my arguments, so they stand. I await my opponents response.
Abortion

I will give you proof now. If you ever went to confession, which I assume you never did, you will feel something come over you (if you have a good relationship with God) when the priest says the forgiving prayer. It makes you feel like you have been carrying a lot of weight for a long time, and had just been free of your burden. The burden you have been feeling are your sins. They have been weighing you down for a long time. You feel great, that would be your soul getting freed of the weight of your sins my friend. This is some proof of the human soul.
Abortion

I am presuming that he as CON, must prove that abortion in every circumstance, once conception has occurred, should not be permitted, and I the opposite. == CON Arguments == "It doesn't matter if the embryo isn't fully formed, once he/she starts forming, it has a soul, along with the rights of a human being. He/she is a child of God, like you and me, and deserves to [b]e treated so. " --> My opponent must back up these statements. He must prove that a soul exists and is in every human being and foetus. == PRO Arguments == I will present 3 arguments, the Life argument and the Viability argument. === Life ==== The Foetus is not truly life until it has brain and heart activity. Until then it lacks vital organs which makes it technically alive as a human. You cannot kill what is not alive. The heart does not form until the 6th week of pregnancy "The heart bulges, further develops, and begins to beat in a regular rhythm. " -- . http://en.wikipedia.org... The brain doesn't form until the 5theek -- "A neural groove (future spinal cord) forms over the notochord with a brain bulge at one end. Neuromeres appear. " -- . http://en.wikipedia.org... Therefore, until the 6th week of pregnancy, abortion is acceptable. === Viability Argument === If the Foetus is not viable, then it is a parasite. If the foetus cannot survive outside of the womb on its own, then it is reliant on the mother, and not human until it can do so. "It is rare for a baby weighing less than 500 gm to survive" -- . http://en.wikipedia.org... This graph should be a good guide as to what we are dealing with - . http://en.wikipedia.org... "According to data years 2003-2005, 20 to 35 percent of babies born at 23 weeks of gestation survive, while 50 to 70 percent of babies born at 24 to 25 weeks, and more than 90 percent born at 26 to 27 weeks, survive. " -- . http://en.wikipedia.org... It is then feasible to say that a baby below 20 weeks of gestation is not viable, and therefore a parasite. I await my opponents response.
Abortion

I thank CON for his response. == CON == "It is quite hard to show you proof that the human soul exists, along with God. You get this knowledge by personal experience, not simply books or articles on wikipedia. The soul is a fragile thing, and once the embryo becomes even the tiniest little cell, it has a soul. Yes, the brain and the heart are very crucial, but what matters the most i the SOUL, my friend, and if you do not take car of it, cleanse it of its sins, you will LOSE it, and lose all hope." == REBUTTAL == My opponent is contradicting himself. on one hand, he is saying an upkeep of a soul is required for it to be kept. He also claims all foetus have souls, even though they lack the ability to upkeep them. Also, appeal to emotion. He has also not proved a soul exists either. == CON == "Why don't you prove that the soul DOESN'T exist?" == REBUTTAL == I needn't affirm a negative. me or hypothesis has yet been shown that could predict or validate the theory of a soul existing. The burden lies on you to affirm a soul exists. I await my opponents response.
Abortion

It is quite hard to show you proof that the human soul exists, along with God. You get this knowledge by personal experience, not simply books or articles on wikipedia. The soul is a fragile thing, and once the embryo becomes even the tiniest little cell, it has a soul. Yes, the brain and the heart are very crucial, but what matters the most i the SOUL, my friend, and if you do not take car of it, cleanse it of its sins, you will LOSE it, and lose all hope. Oh, and one question: Why don't you prove that the soul DOESN'T exist?
Denver Broncos Super Bowl Champions

Hopefully Pro can return to defend his team. But in the meantime, I'm gonna get the ball rolling...Regular Season Records (Wins-Losses)2015 Denver Broncos (12-4) <---- Pro's selection2013 Seattle Seahawks (13-3)1998 Denver Broncos (14-2)1989 San Francisco 49ers (14-2)1985 Chicago Bears (15-1)1972 Miami Dolphins (14-0)The 2015 Denver Broncos won 12 regular season games. Whereas all five of the teams that I have selected won 13+ regular season games. It is safe to say the 2015 Denver Broncos who won the 50th Super Bowl were NOT the best regular season football team. Note: The NFL did not expand to 16 game seasons until 1978. This is why the 1972 Miami Dolphins only played 14 regular season games.Super Bowl Performance2015 Denver Broncos won Super Bowl 50 by a score of 24-102013 Seattle Seahawks won Super Bowl XLVIII 43-81998 Denver Broncos won Super Bowl XXXIII 34-191989 San Francisco 49ers won Super Bowl XXIV 55-101985 Chicago Bears won Super Bowl XX 46-101972 Miami Dolphins won Super Bowl VII 14-7Yes, the 2015 Denver Broncos won Super Bowl 50. Fifty - meaning that 49 other NFL teams have also won a Super Bowl. As you can see, all five of the teams I have selected were also Super Bowl winners. Three of these teams won their respective Super Bowl in 30+ point blowouts, more than double that of the 2015 Broncos win margin. That's a level of dominance that the 2015 Broncos simply don't match.So if the 2015 Denver Broncos were not the best regular season team. And the 2015 Denver Broncos were not the best Super Bowl team, it is safe to say that they are NOT the best football team in the history of the Earth.Sources:http://www.nfl.com...;http://www.pro-football-reference.com...http://www.pro-football-reference.com...http://www.pro-football-reference.com...http://www.pro-football-reference.com...http://www.pro-football-reference.com...http://www.pro-football-reference.com...;
Denver Broncos Super Bowl Champions

Thank you for the opportunity to debate an NFL topic - they're my favorite :)Burden of Proof:As much as I detest the term, the burden of proof lies on you (Pro) to prove that the Super Bowl 50 Denver Broncos "are the best football team in the history of the Earth." I believe there have been multiple teams in history that were better. Being that the BoP lies on you, I only need to show that ONE of those teams were better than the Super Bowl 50 Denver Broncos to win the debate. In other words, you need to run the gauntlet. In order to be fair (considering I get last say in Round 3), I will list all of those teams now. Then we can debate the teams in Rounds 2 and 3.I believe the following five teams to be better than the Super Bowl 50 Denver Broncos:- 1972 Miami Dolphins- 1985 Chicago Bears- 1989 San Francisco 49ers- 1998 Denver Broncos- 2013 Seattle SeahawksIt's on you (Pro) to prove that your Super Bowl 50 Denver Broncos were better than all five of the teams that I have listed.Quick note:Most sports sites - even the NFL's own website [http://www.nfl.com...] - lists them as the 2015 Denver Broncos. I am pointing this out to clarify, as I will refer to them as the 2015 Denver Broncos in the later two rounds.
That in Most Cases, Abortion is Wrong.

I challenge sjrrj to this debate due to a heated exchange in the message section. The topic is that in most cases, abortion is wrong. The BoP is shared in this debate. I urge my opponent to use links and sources to back up evidence, as it should make for a better debate. Round 1: Acceptance. Round 2: Arguments only. Round 3: Rebuttals only. Round 4: Closing, rebuttals allowed. If I or my opponent breaks this structure, the conduct point is immediately forfeited. However, it will not result in a full, 7-point forfeiture. The rules are as follow:No plagiarizingNo heavy swearingKeep the debate on topicNo arguing about the structure/rules. Abortion: The deliberate termination of an unborn fetus.
That in Most Cases, Abortion is Wrong.

I apologize for letting the time go to waste. My family has recently been through a crisis and I never would have taken part in this debate had I known it would happen. I apologize for not being able to debate. Though my profile said I was online for much of the time my argument was due, I actually was not, and the few times I was able to glance at it, I did not have enough time to make a clear statement, let alone an argument. I apologize for this waste of time. Hopefully some time in the future we may be able to redo this debate. I sincerely apologize to my opponent for taking up his time. Vote for him, as I am not able to continue this debate effectively. Good night everyone.
That in Most Cases, Abortion is Wrong.

Not really to be a jerk or anything, but really? I saw you were on numerous times during our debate, and you couldn't take a minute out of your day to tell me that you can't post and argument? I mean, I spent three hours typing and researching, AFTER you said you could whip me down in a second (in the message section.)I'm very, very dissapointed as to how this debate turned out. Anyway, my opponent doesn't make any arguments, so her BoP can not be fulfilled. Thus, I believe you should vote pro!I ask con to at LEAST type a sentence in round three and four so I don't have to wait six days for the debate to go into voting period.
Ministry to a girl facing execution

The basic facts which must be assumed to be true are a 'little' girl with the help of her older brothers murdered her father by pouring gasoline over his bed while he slept and igniting it. The girl was found guilty of murder and sentenced to die in the gas chamber. The night before the girl's execution the pastor minister with her. He advises her to repent and to ask for God's forgiveness. He tells her of the promise for eternal life in God's Kingdom. In this part of the ministry to the girl the pastor is reaching into his own beliefs about God, about eternal life, about repentance, and forgiveness with the hope it will help the girl come to terms with what she has done and what will be done to her as a result. But to open her to the glorious opportunity for her after she has been put to death in the gas chamber and crosses over into the next dimension.. Will it be with God or will be for eternity in Satan's Pit. The pastor is telling her she still has the choice not to go to Satan's Pit. My opponent claims the pastors views on the death penalty whether generally or specifically to this case are irrelevant. In fact they are highly relevant. If the pastor were opposed to the girl's execution his response to her could have and maybe should have reflected it. Even if he was unable to prevent the execution he could have given some indication that he would at least make some effort. But my opponent does not deal with that. He imagines bizarre events which of no chance of happening. When the pastor answers the girl telling her she is to die because the law requires it and she must be punished he is being honest with himself and with her. She poured gasoline over her father and ignited it causing her father to suffer a horrendously hideous death. At sunrise the girl will be gassed for the murder of her father. The pastor doesn't want to give her false hope. As the little girl is breathing her gasps of air the pastor will be satisfied if she has come to accept her punishment and what she did to her father was wrong; and in dong so has repented and asked for forgiveness from God the pastor will know he has served her well. In closing I want to thank you for participating in this debate and doing it exceptionally well and very respectfully as well. By the way if I was taking the other side I would talk about what the pastor might have, could have, and should have said to the girl instead of or in addition to what he said at the end.
Ministry to a girl facing execution

As to your point #3--- You claim the woman would not be executed is invalid. The scenario presented is a hypothetical one where the stipulated facts are assumed to be true. What the debate question is asking is about the pastor's response to the woman as it concerns the situation as it has been conveyed. Now if you are going to respond to hypothetical question by refuting the hypothesis then you need to get your own facts right. The gas chamber is no longer used. Hanging is used on rare occasions Most countries with the death penalty use varying forms of this method. Shooting is used on rare occasions in a couple of states. It is also used by other countries usually in one of two variations. The electric chair is also used on rare occasions in the U.S. I don't think it is used elsewhere. The most common method in the US and internationally is lethal injection. Internationally because China uses it for most of their executions and they're responsible for close to 90% of all executions You further invalidate your response in part 3 by presenting 'facts' which are irrelevant to the situation. The stipulated facts of which and facts which are not in dispute are a teenage girl has murdered her father in a very cruel manner, has been sentenced to death and in all probability has been executed. To claim the pastor is wrong because the facts are wrong is an invalid response. The girl asks if I repent... will I still die at sunrise. To which the pastor gives a matter of fact and honest response when he tells her 'yes it is the law and you must be punished. Again facts presented as the basis of a hypothetical have to be accepted as true- to refute them on their face as untrue is an invalid response. Here the pastor makes two points. Both of which are correct. One the woman will die because that is what the law requires; and the second that she must be punished. That she must be punished is broadly true even if one including the pastor disagrees with the specific punishment. For the pastor to have answered her as you would have would be giving her false promise and false hope. As to Part 1 of your argument. The pastor by sharing with the girl his understanding and beliefs about God, Christ and the afterlife is trying to be reassuring to the girl. Even after you have been gassed there is still something to look forward to - eternal life in God's Kingdom. There are several things which the girl must be capable of knowing. What is going to happen in the next several hours? She is to be punished. How and in what way? She will be executed by lethal gas. Why is she to be executed? For murdering her father. What the pastor is offering is she still has a promise if she can fulfill the requirements for eternal life. None of it means the pastor has to agree with the girl's punishment other than there is little he can do to change it. As to Part 2 -- my arguments in the paragraph above apply here as well. Further the pastor is not merely telling the woman to repent but to genuinely repent and to ask for forgiveness. Very simple, honest and practical advice
Ministry to a girl facing execution

In our story the pastor is making the rounds at the women's prison. He ministers with a little girl who is scheduled to die in the gas chamber for the murder of her father. The girl with the help of her two older brothers poured gasoline over her father's bed while he slept and lit it on fire. The pastor tells the little girl about Jesus and how he died on the cross for her and the pastor goes on to tell her of the gift of eternal life. If she genuinely repents and asks forgiveness for what she's done God will forgive her and grant her eternal life at His side within his glorious Kingdom. the little girl asks the pastor. If I repent and ask for forgiveness will I still die at sunrise? The pastor answer Yes it is the law. You must be punished. The question is did the pastor advise the girl correctly. I say he did.