BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
intelligent design is creationism under a new label

-I will be arguing that Intelligent Design is not Creationism under a new name, but a type of Creationism.-I concede to most of the things Pro has stated, with the exception of a few important details.-It has been established between both Con (myself) and Pro before the start of the debate that Creationism refers to all religion with a god in general. This can be testified by reading the first 2 comments in the comment section of this debate._______________________________________________________________________________________-Intelligent Design can certainly be tied with Creationism because both ideas suggest that there are intelligent causes that has influenced the existence of certain features of the universe. Therefore, it can have implications towards religion, but that is not to say that Intelligent Design is a religion.-Creationism covers a wide array of different and contradicting beliefs and religions, and this has been established between both Pro and myself before I accepted his debate. I believe that among these beliefs/theories, Intelligent Design is one of them.-Most creationist beliefs base their ideas off of religious/sacred texts and must defend what are in these texts. Intelligent Design is based off of scientific and logical observations, and is not obligated to defend any part of the Bible, Quran, Torah, etc. -Therefore, I conclude by stating that Intelligent Design is a form of Creationism, but NOT Creationism itself. -It is not fair to say that Intelligent Design is Creationism because it would be like saying that all fruits are apples because all apples are fruits.
the world is free its just people make it not

Ah so the freedom you are talking about is being able to do what you want. Again, rules put in place by humans give us the freedom we want. Here's an example: There is a man that wants to kill 100 people. He lives in a country with total freedom or anarchy. He proceeds to kill 100 people and citizens are aware of this. These citizens are now afraid of this man and go into hiding to prevent themselves from being killed. They also fear from all the other people that could have possible temptations. This example shows that freedom can be based on rules in other countries such as China who have laws against killing. Every country has some law that ensures freedom and benefits the people, having the ability to do whatever you want to would only be freedom for a select few.
Classical Music

Look man i not wanting to give up on this and I not saying I will just this topic isnt my cup of tea. Yes i know you said about appreciating it more and people do appreciate it, I even enjoy listening to it. when you talk about how scientist and all this proved in studies, what about the whole world scientist only looks at what they ask people in area, they dont go place to place, village to village, town to town, people everywhere, its only a group of scientist views, we as a society listen to only facts on what this scientist proven we dont think in our minds and try with out sources on our own knowledge. lets get back to classical music I love the music to, but I not going to listen to everything studies shown, or scientist try and prove, who says I am wrong or who says what i say is wrong why use articles and studies and all that to try and prove something. When i stated "It all depends on a person on there scores, and studies, also how a person can play what they do its all them and who they are" the people choose I most guarentee in china or japan a child younger then your age bro can play instruments with out having a hard time why cause they put displine in there work it is what they want to be or to do. Classical music is always going to be apart of us, it still is a big part of who we are today, it just involved into now day music. The rythem and beat, they still are used melody and everything its like classic 2011 you know new classic, but i agree to what you are saying. everything i say though i not using sources its all my thoughts but yea i agree to all what you are saying and no classic music is not forgotten it just upgraded that all we all still listen to a form of classic. As for that article its someones point of view the publishers thoughts i mean writers. its only one scientist view and maybe many but not the whole worlds. It was an honor debating against you. this isnt my strong suite i already know you won, I had fun something new to debate about.
Classical Music

In this debate, I will attempt to prove that Classical Music should be appreciated more than it is. My opponent will attempt to prove that it is old and pointless--something that we really don't need any longer.Classical Music: Music written in the time period known as the "Baroque era" "Classical Era" and "Romantic Era"Famous composers from those three eras include: Beethoven, Mozart, Wagner, Puccini, Chopin, Vivaldi, Haydn, and Mahler.Contention 1: Classical music makes kids smarter.I contend that it is important for kids to listen to classical music from an early age. Why? Well, there is something called the "Mozart effect" that kids that listen to Mozart's music and other music from the classical era perform better on tests? What are my sources?http://www.mozarteffect.com...http://en.wikipedia.org...Contention 2: Classical music is a part of historyI contend that classical music is a part of history and it should be venerated.Contention 3: Classical music is the best form of musicI contend that classical music is the best music for the following reasons:1) There are no violent words in the music2) It has a MUCH better melody than most of the contemporary music3) It challenges our minds4) To play properly, it is very difficult and takes a lot of skill (Contention 4)Contention 4: Classical music takes a ton of talent to play properlyI contend that classical music takes more talent to perform well than most contemporary music. 1) Judges and critics of classical music look for dynamics, note accuracy and rhythm which is important to music. If scales didn't exist, music and classical music wouldn't exist.2) It is very hard to play all those fast scales, trills, and viberato/liberato that most of classical piano has.Those are my opening arguments.
Pharah has the best skin in the overwatch Christmas update

Your argument is completely based on opinion and on no particular fact or stat. In your eyes Pharah might have the best skin might others might see other heroes have better ones. Choosing the "best" look is impossible as this is something not everyone agrees on. However, I argue that Torbj"rn has the best Christmas skin, and I actually have a reason. The whole theme and point of these skins is the reflect the attitude, cheer and feeling of Christmas, and he is reskinned as Santa Claus. When you think of Christmas one of the first images you think of is Father Christmas indeed, Santa is a key image of Christmas. Torb's Christmas Suit, Beard, Candy Cane and Christmas tree perfectly present a true "Christmas" Skin. Pharah's skin is just frozen ice which makes you think of the North Pole, but not really Christmas.
Pharah has the best skin in the overwatch Christmas update

Pharah has the best skin in the new overwatch update and there is no doubt about it. Mei has the worst skin and that's that. But then again MeI is the worst hero. This Winter event would have been the best moment for Mei to finally get a decent legendary but all she got was a recolor with a hat. Like please hang you stupid Asian piece of trash. Down with mei. Let's lynch that dumb jap
That the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 will successfully mitigate economic slowdowns next year.

first to defend the resoloved argument. as i stated before there are reasons why this importent, but my opponent has failed to see this. so to extend my argument the reason this is importent is because it is part of the topic and it is the job to defend the entire resolution because of the already stated reasons that if you allow him to link out of curten arrguments it take ground from the con creating an unfair debate this is importent because a fiar debate is apior requirment for any competive or educational debate. so extend all arguments why you you should not believe the quote and because my opponent has failed to defend agniest this argument so extend it across. at this point my opponent has failed to meet his burden of proof even if you don't belive my attaks on bush he has missed all my attack on the plans ablitty to solve which is the root of the topic. so exstend my argument that some of the money will be spent outside of the US. secondly he has failed to defend that because of the we will have to barrow money hurting the us economy and only causeing the problem to be worse turning his case meaning there is no why that this plan will work. the reason my opponent gives to vote for him are random arguments aganist me but none of his argument have defend what is imporent as i state below as to give you the voters 1.i have won the argument over the word resolved 2.my opponent has dropped what he even calls the most imporent argument over this plans solvancy 3.my opponent has also droped my argument that this will cause the economy to become worse
That the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 will successfully mitigate economic slowdowns next year.

His plan, did not cause the economic slowdowns, it was us, the people, and the housing market. You must always look to what I just said, because my opponent is focusing on arguements that are useless and do you make this debat go anywhere. HE fails to realize, that all of his bush bad rhetoric is just a cover for I don't know what caused it. What caused it was the housing market, from the 1980's till now. The plan, has incentives for fannie mae and freddie mac to help the housing market, which is causing the slowdowns. It has nothing to do with Bush, I know people want to blame him, but it is the mortgages and ebt accumulated from the housing market. My opponent, only focuses on his own arguements failing to realize, that my contentions stand,. he does not extend anything, expect it won't work. He is focusing it on off topical arguements on resolved and Bush, because I used a Bush quote, I'm bad. Vote for the affirmitive for the following reasons, don't get sucked into arguements that are not important.
That the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 will successfully mitigate economic slowdowns next year.

All the quote is, a reason, bush is not the reason the economy is bad, because it started to spiral out of control in the 1980's. It won't fail, it miitagated the damages. It will, but hello, some will be spenmt on the U.S. You won't have a tax increase until 2010, even, then, it is your own money you paid already. It has worked, so his ideas fall. Deficit is not a bad thing to consider. It this paln, fails, then the democrats have failed and the republicans, no it has wortked in the past and will continue to do so. Your evidence is flawed, mine still stands.
That the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 will successfully mitigate economic slowdowns next year.

1. what is in the next year.-2009 2. where dose the money for this come from- It is a tax rebate, 3. what prevents money being spent on thing made outside of the country.-Notings does, but that doesn't mean all of it will be spent outside the country. 4. where is this economic slowdown being mitigated -It is just making the slowdowns milder, slowing down the slowdowns 5. will this increase investment in forgin -Idk forgin now i will provide definitions for this debate All it is from is the national forensics league, the topic is right in front of your eyes. Yes, but do you know, that American companies make products there and get the profits here. Besides, this has been done in the past and it worked in 2001-2003. How can people pull out of a economy, that they live in, 300 million people are not going to do that. Besides, the reason, they are introuble is because they are not spending. Giving them money to spend, which worked in the past will work. Give me an example of this happening in real life, instead of what if's and I might consider it valid. Wrong,Government gives money=people=companies=profits=more jobs=more money=more profits. It is not from inflating money, or taxes or even foriegn investment, it is from taxes already paid by the taxpayers. It is your tax refund given earlier to send on the economy. They would not inflate money, because that would be suicide, now onto your foreign arguement. According to Eric Tymoigne assistant professor of Economics at Fresno State University."If the trade deficit is an issue, it is in relation to the previous point. The problem is not a financing constraint, that is, that one day the United States may not be able to borrow dollars from the rest of the world to finance its imports. Indeed, the United States has a dollar- denominated monetary system and so can print as many dollars as it needs to finance its expenditures. In addition, the rest of the world cannot save any dollars before the United States injects them into the world financial system via its current-account deficit. Thus the problem is elsewhere. It is that currently the private sector, more specifically households, is the only U.S. sector capable of satisfying the rest of the world's net desire to save. But U.S. households have reached a point where their income is insufficient to satisfy the desires of the rest of the world. Therefore, households must borrow dollars, not from the rest of the world that wants to obtain dollars, but from domestic banks that do not need foreign dollar savings to refinance themselves because they have access to the refinancing channel provided by the central bank.2", the probelm is elsewhere, Aff wins. You have good points, but you need to know this plan, learn about it.
That the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 will successfully mitigate economic slowdowns next year.

there are 2 problems which my opponent's arguments. 1. he fail to see the fact that my arguments have a point all he says is that it is a bad argument to attack the word resolved. all he says is that you shouldn't listen to it and not even given any defense to what it really says and because of this failure you should vote on it because the fact that it is uncontested it is 100% true so this would out weight any chance that it could be a bad argument. secondly there is a point of this argument as i stated before that by not being resolved to the topic the con side loses ground, which cause the debate to be unfair, and an unfair debate destorys all point to debate. and even if you don't listen to this argument it is no reason to vote for the pro over it. 2. he has failed to defend what he calls the most important part and yet he fails to say any thing about it. so extend my argument on how money spent outside of the country will cause the plan to fail. and extend my argument to barrowing money will hurt the economy. now of voters 1. you should still vote on the resolved argument because of the is nothing contesting it 2. because he fails to defend against my attack on it ability to be successful meaning there is nothing from the pro supporting the topic. 3. the fact that this is counter productive you should vote on this argument as will because it has been conceded thought the entire debate
gun ban

In conclusion not only do guns save lives,but it is your constitutional right. 'Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence...from the hour the pilgrims landed to present day,events, occurrences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable...the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil. ----- George Washington First President of the United States of America
gun ban

Even now you can't just go buy a gun without lots of paperwork (at least in my state) so were not just giving guns away to criminals. It is your constitutional right after all. Harvard study shows that countries with gun ban have higher crime. Russia has 4 times the crime as USA and has very strict gun control. Norway,Finland,Germany, and France have low murder rates and less gun control. Luxembourg has a total handgun ban and has 9 times the murder rate of Germany.
gun ban

The topic of this debate needs clarification. As it stands right now, it looks like the debate is over whether you believe gun bans are bad and unconstitutional. Since I do not know you well enough to debate what you believe, I will focus on what it is that you believe " that gun bans are bad and unconstitutional. This is an absolute statement, so I am actually debating the following statement: Gun bans are always bad because they are always unconstitutional. I can unravel your argument with one statement: Convicted felons and the criminally insane are not allowed to own or be in possession of firearms. This is neither bad not unconstitutional. The 1994 Supreme Court Case of Beecham v. US held that convicted felons are not to possess firearms. So, there is at least one situation where gun bans are not bad or unconstitutional, thereby making your statement false.
A person can be an overall genuine person in the eyes of god without accepting a religion.

Somewhat disappointing. I hope my opponent responds in a future round because I'm actually interested with discussing his claims. Religion does not make a person moral. Religiosity has no bearing on morality. However, none of the major faiths believe you to be a truly moral person without being part of the faith. According to the theology of many religions, good people burn in hell for not accepting Christ, making Partners unto Allah, or various other blasphemies. While good people will often quickly argue that this isn't the case and hope upon hope that their religion isn't as spiteful, hateful, and evil as this, they are themselves being more moral than their religions. So no, unbelievers can't be good in the eyes of God. There is no God and thus no eyes. Just a bunch of damn-first-ask-questions later followers who insist that non-believing Hindus are burning in hell, though when asked about Gandhi might think about it for a bit longer before they decide how the laws of the universe are properly laid out. The best among them will reject the obvious conclusions of hateful speech, and insist that since it's good it can't work that way, ignoring the irony that they are of better character than their God. So in the end, it doesn't have to be the case that "all good people go to heaven". Nor should it be the case when considering that goodness has nothing to do with religion. Religions damn you to convert you, not to make you a better person, but to make you another brick in the wall.
A person can be an overall genuine person in the eyes of god without accepting a religion.

We've all read the bible verses, and the preachings that say everyone is the same in god's eyes, but I'm sure you've also read the preachings that those who deny the presence and love of god will not be saved. But the cowardly, UNBELIEVING, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death." (Revelation 21:8) Now, I for one believe that even without religion, a person can live a fulfilling life for both him or himself, and still respect and help those around him or her. Is this wrong? Sure, you can do the wrong thing for the right reason, and you can do the right thing for the wrong reasons - but what if you do the right things for the right reasons? Are you still to be condemned among the murderers, thieves, and adulterers? There is no widely accepted "official" definition of the word RELIGION, but almost all the definitions included something along the lines of "an organized approach to human spirituality which usually encompasses a set of narratives, symbols, beliefs and practices, often with a supernatural or transcendent quality, that give meaning to the practitioner's experiences of life through reference to a higher power or truth" and I chose this definition because I think it effectively covered almost all of the things religion stands for. I'm sure people will argue that religion teaches morals, and that the teachings help to educate people about how they should behave to be good people, and I can't deny that that is true - but if that's all religion is meant for, couldn't someone still be a good person without religion? I mean, yeah - religion is a good thing, and I'm sure without it we would be in an entirely different situation today without it - but has it not also motivated people to commit acts that would be considered anything but "holy" and "justified" in the name of the "greater good"? Let me clear up that I am not saying anything bad about religion - and if you follow it, all the more power to you.. I'm just curious to see what other people think.
Gay Marriage should be legal

Rebuttal 1:" First of all the Catholic Church should have soveirgenty." Ok... Agreed... Your point? "Second of all the United States was built by founding fathers who believed in God and God had a lot of to do with everything around us. " Agreed... Your point? "Second of all the church should not influence what the legislative but I just suggest that." Disagree, the church should have the ability to petition the government just like everyone else. They should just respect other churches' sovereignty. And in doing that, they should not keep another church from marrying whomever they want. "This is a free society but their is boundarys." And those boundaries are such: Theft of: Life, Liberty, and Property "If this is just mainly free then everything should be legal then shouldn't it?" No because no one would be free if you did not have law protecting Life, Liberty, and Property. Theft of life is death, theft of liberty is slavery, theft of property is a democrat... lol j/k... "We make laws to maintain order and to keep society going on the right direction." Society makes its own directions and has nothing to do with maintaining liberty, law on the other hand is only in place to maintain Life, Liberty, and Property "Homosexual couples could not have a baby anyways so they have to adopt." lol, well... "And having kids in need wouldn't happen if boneheaded people who have kids do not care for them, who cant support them and decided to have sex and etc. " Can't say I disagree... "There is no tests or studies but that is just science, you do not need to do it." Huh? "Just ask people with gay parents." I have a friend who's parents are gay... he's fine... and likes girls... "I know a few that i dont really talk to much but they seem misearable." So your saying this happens to everyone? "They are gothic, and those lost souls out there. I feel bad for them." Oh, your right the gothic people are odd... but it seems to be the "cool" thing to them... so not cool... "And a man is what protects the child and a woman is what natures it." My dad was never around... I turned out all right... "BTW... I am a social conservative-republican and I hope you the party has shifted in recent years." I figured that... I'm a political science major and i can peg a political ideology before your done with the first sentence. lol I'm a libertarian-republican... Means we are not that diffrent... I just respect personal freedoms more. The worst kinds of Republicans are Totalitarian Big government republicans and Neo-Cons...