BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Donald Trump's "Muslim Ban" is unconstitutional.

Thank Y'all! ! First, I would like to point out that Trump's Executive Order is not a Muslim Ban. It is a ban on nationals of the countries. The seven countries that are Muslim majority were chosen by President Obama believing that they were of particular concern. [1] They are countries that Obama, who all the Democrats worship, chose with the advice of his State Department. If it was a Muslim Ban as PRO claims, why are the 3 countries with the largest Muslim population Indonesia, India, and Pakistan not mentioned in the order? [2] The answer is that it is not a Muslim Ban. It is simply a temporary travel ban from countries exposed to terrorism and where terrorists could easily disguise as terrorists. Now onto the unconstitutional part. First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. "[3] The Constitution, specifically the Bill or Rights guarantees the EXERCISE of religion. Trump isn't banning people from practicing their faith, or expressing their faith, but this shouldn't matter as I have proved that it is not a Muslim Ban. The travel ban, or as PRO would call it, Muslim Ban, which is false, is not unconstitutional, as it follows the law, specifically Sec. 212. [8 U. S. C. 1182 which states, "(3) Security and related grounds. - (A) In general. -Any alien who a consular officer or the Attorney General knows, or has reasonable ground to believe, seeks to enter the United States to engage solely, principally, or incidentally in- (i) any activity (I) to violate any law of the United States relating to espionage or sabotage or (II) to violate or evade any law prohibiting the export from the United States of goods, technology, or sensitive information, (ii) any other unlawful activity, or (iii) any activity a purpose of which is the opposition to, or the control or overthrow of, the Government of the United States by force, violence, or other unlawful means, is inadmissible. (B) Terrorist activities- IN GENERAL. -Any alien who- (I) has engaged in a terrorist act (II) a consular officer, the Attorney General, or the Secretary of Homeland Security knows, or has reasonable ground to believe, is engaged in or is likely to engage after entry in any terrorist activity (as defined in clause (iv)); (III) has, under circumstances indicating an intention to cause death or serious bodily harm, incited terrorist activity; [4] I look forward to this debate, good luck! Sources: [1]. http://thehill.com... [2]. http://www.mapsofworld.com... [3]. https://www.law.cornell.edu... [4]. https://www.uscis.gov...
Donald Trump's "Muslim Ban" is unconstitutional.

Donald Trump's "Muslim Ban" is unconstitutional. It is hard to debate that this is not unconstitutional. Our founding father based this nation on the freedom of religion, so why is a religion being singled out and "banned" from entering our country? Many people will argue that most terrorist attacks are carried out by Muslims, but that is simply not true. How could this possibly not be unconstitutional? The fact that anyone is being banned based on any similar trait is unconstitutional.
Poppilo is the best starter

I, a Game Overthinker/Pilgrim of Knowledge, accepts this argument. First off, I need to point out the fact that this is more of an opinionated topic. However, it depends on the context of the topic. I bring this up because you don't elaborate on how this was going to be presented. Is this going to be an "which is better in Sun and Moon" or "which is more powerful out of the three"? If you can tell me and we could go off of that for the rest of the debate, that would be great.
Poppilo is the best starter

In this argument... You are allowed to swear. Free speech boi. My argument is in the newest Pokemon series, Pokemon Sun & Moon, Everyone stupid thought Poppilo was the worst starter in the history of Pokemon. They even said Everyone hates Poppilo. but then nintendo wanted to prove them wrong by giving Poppilo the best stats ever. So, sucks to be who did not select Poppilo to be there starter. Besides, who can resist that adorableness? ;)
Most of the Human Genome is useless junk

I guess I certainly do have a tall order since I am playing devil's advocate. I think it is off topic to look at junk in DNA as evidence of ID or evolution. In the scope of ID as an hypothesis, Junk DNA could be evidence of deterioration. ((religiously known as the fall)) Because it is deterioration one would have to reason a more orderly and more efficient state existed prior. This is off topic so I will continue into my opening statements. Thank you con for debating this with me. I apologize for the confusion it was my mistake. To clarify I will be arguing Pro that "Most of the Human Genome is useless junk". First I want to begin with an illustration. Imagine in the creation of a human cell the father's donation of genes are all recessive and the mother's genes are all dominant. During the protein coding of the combined genome The father's contribution would be ignored (no blue eyes). The mother's genes would be coded for. And the produced baby would have brown eyes. From the start we know that Humans have 46 chromosomes. 23 of which are from the mother. Therefore 50% of the Genome is a set of base pairs that are corresponding copies, or the mirror of an allele. The copy is a contender vying for coding preference (dominant genes having veto power). The illustration still maintains in pairings that are not completely recessive or completely dominant, because even if some of the genes of the father were dominant, and the mothers recessive you would have 50% non coding genes. [1] If both genes contributed were dominant, half the combined genes would be copies. Synonyms of "useless" are ineffectual, fruitless, unproductive etc. . One could take a mother's contributing 23 chromosomes duplicate them and have all the information needed for a human. This follows then that 50% of the Human Genome is already extraneous, and useless. Because I'm arguing for "Most" I now wish to turn our attention to the remaining 50% of the Genome. We know some of that is from endogenous retroviruses. [2] Even taking the BEST CASE scenario as reported by ENCODE [3] we would still be left with 20% of the entire genome being from virus or mutation. For the sake of argument we cut this in half for 10%, being the contribution only from the mother. and this follows that 40% of the genome is the required amount of unique information from parental contribution to produce a human being. Therefore 60% (Most of the human genome) is useless in that it is redundant, noncoding, endogenous virus, or mutations. [1] . http://www.uic.edu... [2] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [3]. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Most of the Human Genome is useless junk

My opponent is not making this easy.I want to draw the readers attention to where my opponent talks about the ENCODE project. They place biological activity in quotes as well as they should. The ENCODE project has been critized of what they consider functioning. http://www.genomicron.evolverzone.com...Similar to the case of pseudo genes, some DNA is transcribed or reactive to other biological chemicals. But just becuase it is reactive or displays some "Biological Activity" does not mean this starts a chain ending in protein synthesis or anything of functioning use.It makes evolutionary sense to conserve portions of the DNA code from mutations. Even if that code is no longer being transcribed into functioning proteins. Better the devil you know the the one you don't. Any of these mutations could be the injection of harmful DNA code.I want to thank my opponent for the skiped round and for that I present no new arguments just defend the ones I have made and rebuttal his last round. Thank you.
Atheism should be taught in school

You seem to be on the defensive, but I have no intention to attack you personally or your system of beliefs. On the contrary, I am a fellow atheist but I strongly believe in separation and the teaching of atheism in schools violates that. Furthermore I understand the necessity of sparing religions the label of mythology. Atheist mega churches are sound like a work contradiction but they have become a reality and have found great success and have raised money "that will help atheists launch their pop-up congregations around the world."[1] In my youth I had thought that all religions should be taught in schools as mythology, and perhaps they still should in the future but from personal experience I've found they are a necessity to some. Perhaps this isn't the best example as his life didn't turn around while in school, but school may have closed the door if he was taught his religion is a mythology. My brother fell into a very nihilistic life, in which he would deal and sell drugs. I know that atheism offers very little if any community support where as he can turn to our local baptist church. It is very easy to see how religion has lead to bloodshed across the world for millennia. However, in this day and age in my community the worst thing that occurs is... babysitting? They offer socialization which according to any sociology student has been proven to lower suicide in individuals. [2] Without this window of support I am certain that my brother would be dead or still addicted to opiates. As atheism and a nihilistic lifestyle go hand in hand, which by definition is prone to causing self-harm by removing one's self-value. Nihilism: a viewpoint that traditional values and beliefs are unfounded and that existence is senseless and useless[3] I do however believe that google's definition is a bit less harsh and more accurate although it won't help me prove my point, nevertheless I will show the definition for the sake of fairness and showing what I believe to be true. Nihilism(from google): the rejection of all religious and moral principles, often in the belief that life is meaningless. From using the very definitions alongside common sense sprinkled with person experience I do believe religion has value to some in my community. Although that isn't the point of this debate so back to separation of church and state, we are all aware that according to the constitution "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". While separation of church and state isn't exactly mentioned, it is strongly implied and I understand from your argument we agree on this viewpoint. [1] https://www.usatoday.com... [2] http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in... [3] https://www.merriam-webster.com...
Atheism should be taught in school

Okay, let me start with, God is intentionally left out of the constitution so you should learn about something with more evidence like how you can make the same case about anything such as "There is a leprechaun in my shoes, the shoes are there so they HAVE to be there" or "I have a magical unicorn that can't be documented in any way shape or form, so you can't disprove me!" Enough said.
Cars are dumb

Thanks pro. My opponent begins by informing me that I had changed the definition that he had originally wished to engage in, but left my definition given in round 1 undisputed in his round 2 argument. The onus was on pro to contest this during his second round but did not. My opponent begins by saying that cars "infer" from information received. Infer means to deduce or conclude from evidence and reasoning rather than explicit statements. Cars cannot deduce or conclude from evidence and reasoning because reasoning is a cognitive process and cars are non-cognitive. Reasoning means "the action of thinking about something in a logical, sensible way. Cars cannot reason because cars cannot think. Cars don't have a brain and brains are necessary for this cognitive process to occur. Thus my opponent had the BoP but has been rebutted and the resolution is negated.
Cars are dumb

If you wish to change the meaning of the debate I originally wished to engage in, then fine. I will produce the definitions in this debate: Definition of 'dumb' from Round 1: slow to understand Understand: infer something from information received infer: deduce or conclude (information) from evidence and reasoning rather than from explicit statements. information: facts provided or learned about something or someone. receive: be given, presented with, or paid deduce: arrive at (a fact or a conclusion) by reasoning; draw as a logical conclusion conclude: arrive at a judgment or opinion by reasoning. reasoning: the action of thinking about something in a logical, sensible way. logical: of or according to the rules of logic or formal argument. argument: a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong. reasoning: cause (someone) to do something through reasoning or argument. cause: make (something, typically something bad) happen. unpleasant: not such as to be hoped for or desired; unpleasant or unwelcome desire: a strong feeling of wanting to have something or wishing for something to happen. feeling: an emotional state or reaction. state: the particular condition that someone or something is in at a specific time time: the indefinite continued progress of existence and events in the past, present, and future regarded as a whole My full topic is "Some cars are dumb". Some cars are slow at inferring something from information received, if they are able to at all. For example, some cars can detect how much weight is on a certain seat and will alert the driver or passenger to buckle its respective seat belt (usually with an annoying beeping sound). However, the car is unable to detect whether or not a person is sitting in this seat, so if one were to put a heavy backpack on a car seat, the driver would be alerted to buckle the backpack in. This is unnecessary. It is also inconvenient for the driver, because he will have to either move the heavy backpack to the floor or buckle it in to stop the annoying beeping sound.
Cars are dumb

My opponent leaves my round 1 arguments and definition undisputed in his round 2 rebuttal. In round 1 I said "By leaving the usage of the word 'dumb' undefined, I'll produce the definition that shall be used for the remainder of the debate." This is an acceptable practice under general rules of debate. "If the first Affirmative speaker fails to define the resolution he or she must accept any reasonable definitions proposed by the first Negative speaker. If the first and second speakers fail to define the terms, the right to define falls to the remaining speakers in turn." [1] Dumb is reasonably defined as slow to understand. I await my opponents argument affirming that cars are dumb per the definition in round 1. [1] http://www.saskdebate.com...
Cars are dumb

Ok I'll go first but I'll just start by saying that the person making the claim has the burden of proof to show that cars are dumb. So if my opponent fails to make an argument that is properly defended, the debate will go to me by default. That being said, I'll offer my own argument that negates the resolution. By leaving the usage of the word "dumb" undefined, I'll produce the definition that shall be used for the remainder of the debate. Dumb: a. slow to understand http://www.thefreedictionary.com... My rebuttal for negating the resolution is simple: Cars have no understanding because understanding is a cognitive process and cars are non-cognitive. Since cars have no understanding they cannot be slow to understand. Therefore cars cannot be dumb. Over to pro
god's existence can't be proven

God's existence can be proven, if God is defined in meaningful terms. It is common to define God so wishy-washy and in nonsensical terms to allow for agnosticism on the issue and simply equivocate the meaningless God thusly defined as a meaningful one. Such conclusions are unwarranted and unneeded. -- * If we were to define God as caring who answers prayers of devout believers we could do a very basic test of statistics to see that far fewer than 100% of prayers are answered and, in fact, no statistically significant occurrences happen with or without prayer. * If we could define God to be all-powerful and all-good then we could find a contradiction if there were suffering or evil present anywhere in this world. * If we defined God as just and punishments for non-belief strict we would expect that unbelief would be completely unreasonable, completely unjustified, and this debate would be trivially false. * If we could define God as the pantheists do, as the universe and all phenomena within it (which I contend is a meaningful definition even if I disagree with its application), then we could show that God exists as easy as we show the universe exists. * If we define God as Jesus accurately described in the Bible, who said that before everybody in a crowd of first century Israel would not perish before the second coming occurred, we could see failure in that prophecy and in that God. As the oldest individuals alive today are only as far into their second century as I am into my first, a far cry short of the several thousand years so required to hold out hope.
Be it resolved that countries be allowed to censor content for their citizens

Hello adversary! I hope we have an interesting debate, and I wish you the best of luck! I hold the view of not censoring the internet, as I believe information censorship is one of the deadliest things on the world. Let us define internet censorship: Internet censorship is the control or suppression of what can be accessed, published, or viewed on the Internet. 1) I believe that the internet is a great tool to share information and ideas with other people, like we are doing right now, and for some people to express themselves. 2) The internet is a fast way to connect to other people around the world, like we are doing now. 3) If the internet was censored, people would be cut off from the truth. Look at North Korea for example, they have no internet that is uncensored, state controlled media, and state controlled education and many people there seem brainwashed. These people are oppressed everyday and they don't realize it because they can't realize it. These are my main points as of now, but now I will refute my opponents points. My opponents says, "you can block vulgar things that poison the mind with violence, less psychopaths will be made." I disagree with my opponent because psychopaths have been around forever, even way before the internet, and violent culture is everywhere, so just censoring the internet won't do us any good, because psychopaths will be psychopaths. My adversary then says, " First, if the Internet is censored, it keeps us from things we do not wish to see." This is very opinionated, just because you don't like something, no one else does. People like different things, that is life. Second, my opponent talks about cyber bullying. This is not the internet's fault, people bully people, so censoring the internet does no good. I rest my case for round one and look forward to my opponent's response!
Be it resolved that countries be allowed to censor content for their citizens

yes because this way you can block vulgar things that poison the mind with violence, less psychopaths will be made. I think the Internet should be censored. First, if the Internet is censored, it keeps us from things we do not wish to see. Second, recently, cyber bullying is a serious problem in online society. If the internet is censored well, if can protect us from these kinds of cyber bullying.
Elderly and Bus rides

As both my opponent and i both forfeited a round it doesnt leave me with much to say, i can only say that my arguments are more valid and my oponents arguments about the relatives being able to pick up the elderly doesnt make sense for two reasons, A) Relatives might not live near the people who need to ride the bus and B) We are talking about the elderly a lot of their relatives might very well be dead. Also my oponent had no points he/she only had attacks on my points, thus my case stands. Finally, two dollars (there and back again) could be all the difference on whether or not a poor person can get their milk or eggs. For these reasons i urge a pro ballot.
Dude, you could totally score with Ashley Tisdale.

"Additional terms and questions can be posited by my opponent, in this contingency, Round 2 will be used to agree to final terms" "I should stress that my opponent no longer has leeway to introduce new contingencies to the situation, or to define/ impose infrastructure of any kind." You have just completely reversed my terms. I do not agree to these terms. There are no cyborg parts to cure my tetraplegia, it is a spinal cord condition that resulted in full paralysis of all four of my limbs. I'm not sure what this debate actually is, I thought it was kind of a joke debate. It seems now it's a hypothetical "contingency" debate. You just introduced a new contingency. I am new to this site(registered yesterday), if you do not want me to introduce new contingencies, I would hold you to the same standards. Nonetheless, this will be an interesting debate, though if it turns into the above, I'm not sure either of us could win. Good luck.
Dude, you could totally score with Ashley Tisdale.

As previously stated in my positing of the debate's infrastructure, Round 2 would be used to debate contingencies introduced by CON in round 1. Knowing CON's physical inadequacies, my boy D-Robb and have procured cyborg parts to replace CON's deficient anatomy, therefore circumventing his tetraplegia and severed penis as obstacles to "scoring" with Mrs. Tisdale. I should stress that my opponent no longer has leeway to introduce new contingencies to the situation, or to define/ impose infrastructure of any kind. Good luck.
Dude, you could totally score with Ashley Tisdale.

I will supply the infrastructure of this debate: Ashley Tisdale: . http://en.wikipedia.org... The location: A trance/dubstep rave hosted at a mutual friend's seaside villa in Barcelona. As support, CON will have the assistance of myself and my boy D-Robb who has both a goatee of the soul patch variety and Sevens jeans. "Score": Consummation. Completion of the sexual act. I will agree that the usage of "date rape" drugs is forbidden. Additional terms and questions can be posited by my opponent, in this contingency, Round 2 will be used to agree to final terms.
Dude, you could totally score with Ashley Tisdale.

Okay... Pro forfeits. I'll start with, my first arguments. I cannot move my arms or legs, and do not have the reproductive organs necessary to have sex. I'm not sure what I could do with Mrs. Tisdale that would qualify as "sex". I also do not know why she would want to have "sex" with a man lacking these organs. Which leads me to my next argument. I'm assuming "Mrs. Tisdale" is married. I would never be involved with someone who is cheating on their spouse. Nor would I want to be the guy in the "cheating". I am also married. I will not cheat on my wife. Although I guess that is subjective, since this debate is whether I "could score with ashley tisdale". Further I do not have the money to go to barcelona, nor do I have the vacation days. Maybe you're wondering how I am capable of working without function of my arms or legs. I am a political advisor to a county executive. Which, in my case, does not require any physical labor of any kind. You might also be wondering how I am typing. I'm not. I'm using a "speech-to-text" device. I'll start with those arguments, and wait to see what Pro's arguments are.
Prove you are a human.

then, I my 15month old would be cold. and I wouldn't bleed. and if my life was a stimulation was just that a stimulation., then this world is cruel to put those images inside someone's head. (or mother board. ) but humans have the utmost terrifying default. most humans don't know when to admit they are wrong or when to except that we do make mistakes. "machines" don't neither do aliens. but humans make mistakes and it takes a strong human to admitted. but even a stronger human to admit to being wrong.