BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The United States should invest in nuclear power.

Alternative energy is something that the United States desperately needs to look into but nuclear power should not be one of the areas. It is not cost effective. It is dangerous and is subject to terrorist attacks. Nuclear power was formerly known as "to cheap to meter." It now needs to be renamed "to expensive to produce." France invested in nuclear power in 2007, the main investor is now millions of dollars in debt. There are more effective alternative energies to invest in such as wind or solar. America has invested in nuclear power before and it just hasn't worked out. The fact that a repeat of the three mile island disaster is still prevalent should be a reason in itself on why we should not be investing. Like most energies, waste will be produced. To this day storage containers for this potentially deadly nuclear waste has not been developed. Many states have ended all research of nuclear power. It has turned into a "not in my backyard" argument. America wants to be a secure country. Investing in nuclear power only increases the chances of it becoming insecure. Of the 61 nuclear sites in the United States over half were deemed vulnerable of a terrorist attack. Some shocking news is that Al Qaeda's original 9/11 plan was to fly planes into nuclear power plants, as if the executed attack wasn't deadly enough. When making a decision on where the United States should invest it's time and money, I sincerely hope nuclear power is not considered.
Are arab people the most uncivilized people in the world

Going back to that tribe we don't know much about them because they are so secluded but we do know in 2008 a group of fishermen crashed on their island and those fishermen have not been heard from since so exicution is possible in their civilization. Yes Christianity has changed much more than Islam however not all change is good change nor is the lack of change. Personally I feel both religions have missed the correct amount of reform needed.
Are arab people the most uncivilized people in the world

I am sure that tribe in India wont kill each other so easily and don`t stone their women. I may accept that Islam has changed but as you said this change is not comparable with Christianity. Hence, we can conclude that the difference between Christianity and Islam is becoming more significant like as poor people may be poorer and rich people may be richer as time passes since the standard of living is changing over time. It means that, Islam may will has a little change in 1000 years later but still it is distancing more and more from the standards of the era that is changing dramatically. I would say that not stoning women is not a western standard but very basic human rights.
Are arab people the most uncivilized people in the world

To say that Arab nations are the most uncivilized is simply not possible. By all definitions the most uncivilized civilization must be one of the few remaining tribes who have not made contact with any other modern civilizations. A example of this is the small tribe off the coast of India that has had hostile reactions to any form of contact and is clear still in the Stone Age firing at overhead aircraft with bows or spears. Regarding Arab beliefs evidently this beliefs is Islam and it is clear that over the course of history Islam has changed not as drastic as the Christian church but notable changes have been made. A clear example off this would be the Sunni departure. I believe Arab nations by western standards are not civilized but most definitely not the most uncivilized.
Are arab people the most uncivilized people in the world

When a person rejects that "the most" is not valid, he/she should gives an example who are "the most" then. I should add that that's not just a matter of nation but also the matter of beliefs. People may say that North Korean are also uncivilized but they could change as their political system may change. But for Arabs their beliefs will remain without change even after one thousand year. Hence, they may hold the position of THE MOST forever. As one aspect of associating THE MOST to a group of people is how it is valid in various conditions such a different periods of time, ARABS can be considered as the MOST uncivilized nation in the world
Live debates are superior to written debates

"My opponent just proved my point for me" Ah, by showing that people anytime anywhere can post a debate? That, in your eyes, is cowardice. Cowardice - lack of courage or resolution [1] My opponent says that it is the lack of courage, that makes people not debate. It is inability. How could someone just start a live debate wherever he or she likes? Throughout this "debate" my opponent showed two of the same videos that have no relevance, and an argument that just doesn't make sense. [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Live debates are superior to written debates

Before I begin with my opponent's arguments, I will write my own.I negate the resolution resolved : Live debates are not superior to written debatesBenefits of written debates. Written debates, like those on debate.org, are accessible by anyone, anywhere, just with a click of a button. The reader can read whatever he or she decides and does not need to wait for buffering... buffering... buffering of a video. It does not matter where the person is. It also evens out equality in contrast to live debates. By live debates, I am inferring that my opponent means a debate that the person reflecting oppon the debate is in the audience. It usually requires money of some sort to enter one of these debates. If someone is in a financial crisis, they will not be able to enter this debate, and therefore he or she would have less of an oppertunity than those who do not have financial issues. Written debates help promote equalityWritten debates are more common, because anyone anywhere could join them. Once again, they ensure equality, in which they show that no matter what race, ethnicity, religion, or social class you are, you can still persue any debate. An example of this is: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] .... Anyone anywhere could make an account and be able to join any debate. My opponent shows two videos that show no relevance to this topic, and has information about Men being superior to women. That is an unfortunate mistake, and I hope my opponent will state a better argument next round.[1] http://www.debate.org...[2] http://www.debate.org...[3]http://www.debate.org...[4]http://www.debate.org...[5]http://www.debate.org...[6]http://www.debate.org...
On balance, Capitalism is a better system for mankind then Communism

Resolution "On balance capitalism is a better system for mankind then Communism"better for mankind - increasing the well-beingcapitalism - an economic system where the means of production are owned privatelycommunism - an economic system where the means of production are commonly owned.Debate rules: 1. No semantics.2. First Round for acceptance, and rule and definition clearification only.3. No new arguments in the last round.4. Text-only debate.5. All source material must be easily accessable
Abortion is wrong!

Ok, I agree that you should get the option if that person, is raped or has a life threatening illness. But i don't think it is right if that person was being reckless and doesn't want to deal with the actions she has made. If she doesn't want the baby she should give it up for adoption, and try to give it the best life possible! There are thousands of good parents, who want a child and would give it a good life!!
Same Sex Marriage

For most Americans, marriage is a religious sacrament or ceremony. If the definition of marriage is changed to allow SSM, some religious individuals and groups feel that they will become at risk of having to violate their beliefs by being forced to marry same-sex couples. Many religiously conservative researchers have found that children thrive best when reared in a home with a married mother and father. Boys and girls have needs that are uniquely met by parents of the opposite gender. The role of marriage in society is a major topic taught in public schools. If SSM is legalized, schools would be required to teach that same-sex marriage is equivalent to opposite-sex marriage, starting as early as Kindergarten. That would violate the beliefs of many parents. NOW THE QUESTION IS : IS SAME-SEX MARRIAGE IMMORAL?
Same Sex Marriage

Allow me to recapitulate what my opponent said: "Christianity says it's wrong." My opponent says that what she stated was a "religious prerequisite." How's it a prerequisite if you're going against it? Shouldn't it be forbidden, and not have a requirement? Furthermore, you go on to say "Jesus would be appalled by homosexuality." Impossible to prove, forget historical facts. Homosexuality is frequent in many cultures and religions. My opponent seems to think that it is exclusive to Christianity. It's not. Some ATHEISTS are homosexual. Some people who don't believe in MORALITY are homosexual. So? Does this doom them to Hell? No one knows, but it is not immoral when looking at the fact that our nation supposedly gives freedom. Since my opponent did not rebut anything I said, I suppose she agrees indeed that society would get used to growing up with homosexual marriages. I suppose she agrees that children would not be affected. I suppose she agrees that homosexuals do INDEED, DESERVE the RIGHT to marry whomever they please. Basically, my opponent agrees homosexuals have rights. Loony creationists would be the only ones with the whole religious problem. They can deal with it and learn not to be bigots. In closing, I'd like to say that homosexuals DESERVE the RIGHT to marry whomever they wish to. Even Congress agreed by repealing DADT. We're moving towards a more egalitarian society. Oh, one more thing. My opponent totally plagiarized: http://www.robgagnon.net.... Just sayin' ;). Thank you.
Iron man is better than superman

Well, at this point, let's analyze the points of the PRO and CON. My opponent's arguments are the following:1. Ironman has made a suit that is a strong competitor to Superman.2. Ironman is virtually indestructible.3. Kryptonite kills Superman.4. Ironman shoots lasers from his hands. First off, we need to make the distinction of the resolution and the observations that I've made. My opponent did not argue any of my observations or anything I made in my argument, so the judges can gladly extend every argument that I've made across the flow. This means that my opponent has failed to make a full or even partially full analysis on the character he defends because he only makes an analysis on the combat abilities of Ironman in comparison to Superman. At the point where my case makes a fuller analysis of the resolution and my opponent does not argue anything in my case, it already makes my case better than his. Then, we analyze my opponent's actual points from his case in addition to that. I've already shown my judges how exactly the powers granted to Ironman via his suit are very similar to the ones that Superman: Superman is also virtually indestructible with his invulnerability and accelerated healing, so his two points that Ironman is virtually indestructible and shoots lasers is irrelevant because Superman has those abilities (and then some), as I have explained in my case. He has pulled out the argument that Kryptonite kills Superman, but as I've argued, Kryptonite is one in a short list of weaknesses that Superman has, and with the costs of kryptonite and the availability of it thereof in the fictional DC Comics universe, it's not a weakness that Superman really has to encounter very often, in contrast to the potential weaknesses that Ironman has with the amount of resources that he requires in order to be able to do the things that he does. Because Ironman has so many weak points, it makes him a more vulnerable hero. Probably one of his biggest weaknesses is that Ironman has flaunted his heroism so heavily that one set of series (I believe the movie version), people actually know his secret identity, which means that it places him at such a place of weakness in comparison to Superman. I guess that would leave his first point about Ironman being such a strong competitor, but with the suit giving Ironman almost all the same kind of powers that Superman has and without having an actual edition where Superman and Ironman compete, there's no way to actually evaluate that, so that point is irrelevant as well. Not to mention the argument for Superman's character under the cape, which has been extended. I believe that is all the points in my opponent's case. Thank you.
Iron man is better than superman

My opponent once again fails to argue against my rebuttals and general statement, so judges, you can extend everything I've said so far across the flow. Because I've rebutted all of my opponent's points and my opponent hasn't rebutted anything in my argument, I pretty much have this debate. The only thing that my opponent is doing now is adding a brand-new point about how Ironman is smarter than Superman, and how Ironman knows what it takes to be a hero. First off, the fact that my opponent says that Ironman is smarter only adds fuel to my argument that Superman is a more efficient hero because if Ironman really is smarter than Superman in every way, that means that Superman still saves the world (and others as well) without requiring the intellect that Ironman needs in order to even exist, which only adds to my argument that Superman is a more efficient hero. My opponent states that Ironman is smarter, but provides no medium to evaluate that. .. no explanation. Therefore, he has a very weak attack when it comes to comparing the intellect between the two heroes. That would leave the argument about Ironman looking better than Superman. This point is irrelevant because not only is style a matter of subjective opinion and he has no way of determining that Ironman looks better than Superman, meaning that this is just an opinion that cannot be evaluated, but looking better does not in any way evaluate the actual characters in question in this debate. So, to come to a conclusion to this debate my arguments still stand unscathed, I have argued all of my opponent's points from top to bottom, and my case trump his because it gives a fuller analysis of the character of Superman over Ironman.
Old Earth Creationism Is Philosophically Incompatible With Sound Biblical Theology & Hermeneutics

Do you not intend to attempt to defend your accepted position, then? Keep in mind that you do not have to agree with it or believe it to do so. If you do not, I believe the votes should default to Con. As for the linked Wikipedia article, I don't see the study referenced that you mentioned in your argument. Regardless, your anecdotal evidence does not prove that only radical Christians adhere to the 24-hour day model. I don't see any reason why the 24-hour day model is any MORE incompatible with scripture, either. And regardless of how many decades the study goes back, the fact remains that virtually all significant Christian thinkers and theologians adhered to the 24-hour day model. I do not believe in the infallibility of science. People cite the geological revolution of the 70s which began the scientific discoveries we now use to disprove young earth creationism. How are we to know that another geological revolution will not happen? How do we know that the observed rates of the past 200 years are the same rates as they have been for thousands of years, or millions of years? There's only so much science can extrapolate from current data. There's really no way to test how many of today's tests remain valid over millions of years.
Old Earth Creationism Is Philosophically Incompatible With Sound Biblical Theology & Hermeneutics

I apologize for not seeing that you were con in this debate. I would point out though, that I think Christians are seeing that old earth creationism isn't imcompatiable with the bible. I would guess most go with science, and the bible. they aren't all these radical Christians. this is from my own experience. this site says less than fifty percent of Christians believe what you say... http://en.wikipedia.org... and that study is including folks since 1982, averaging it out. since then, science has come a long way, internet has spread the truth, and people just are not as likely culturally to think earth must be so young.
Old Earth Creationism Is Philosophically Incompatible With Sound Biblical Theology & Hermeneutics

However, I'd like to remind my opponent that their burden is to prove that Old Earth Creationism is INCOMPATIBLE with sound biblical interpretation. As an aside, irrelevant to the debate, literal creationism, or the "24-Hour Day View" of creationism is not radical, it IS fundamentalist, and is held by the vast majority of current Christians and historical Christian thinkers--philosophers and theologians. I assert that there is nothing in the genesis account that necessarily requires that we interpret each of the six days of creation as literal 24-hour periods, especially when for the first three days there were no sun and earth by which to judge hours or days! Again, I'd like to remind my opponent that their position is that ANY other view OTHER THAN so-called "Young Earth Creationism" is NOT compatible with the Bible.
Old Earth Creationism Is Philosophically Incompatible With Sound Biblical Theology & Hermeneutics

the only text im aware of to base the earth being a mere few thousand years old, is the geneology lists from Adam to Jesus. if you do the math, a human life span for each listed person puts earth around six or so thousand years. problem is that no one said these lists were exhaustive, and it was not uncommon for people to leave people out, just hit the high marks. plus it's possible adam didn't come along until later in man's progress, so even if the earth is really old, itdon't mean man is. and why must 'sound' biblical interpretation always lie with radical Christian views and not science? it's not like science and the bible are incompatible. rock layers, carbon dating, etc etc.... it all shows earth is billions of years old. what is more "sound" is tying to reconcile one with the other, bible and science. truth is truth. I would say why must we be "fundamentalist" but it isn't even fundamentalism that is being literal and all, it's picking a strain of Christianity that is radical and assuming it must be true. there's false dichotomies going on here, and all the time w "fundamentalism".
Old Earth Creationism Is Philosophically Incompatible With Sound Biblical Theology & Hermeneutics

Hello, this is my first debate challenge. I hope this will be a good debate. The resolution is as follows: "Old Earth Creationism Is Philosophically Incompatible With Sound Biblical Theology & Hermeneutics" I will be taking the Con position, and my opponent will argue that Old Earth Creationism is either philosophically incompatible with the Christian faith, or that it is contrary to sound Biblical interpretation. Definitions:Old Earth Creationism (OEC) - The idea that God created the Earth significantly more than 10,000 years ago. (often thought to be millions of years. Philosophically Incompatible - Contrary to accepted principles of logic and rationality, whether blatantly or through conflicting implications or conflicting necessary inferrences. Sound Biblical Theology & Hermeneutics - Interpretation of the Bible without distorting or skewing any of it for any purpose, whether personal intent, or to conform to scientific thought of the day. BoP lies with my opponent. Note that my opponent need only prove that OEC is EITHER incompatible philosophically with the Genesis account OR a product of interpreting the Bible fallaciously or subjecting interpretation to societal influences. For the purposes of this debate, we will assume that the Bible is inerrant and true, and Adam was real and was the first man. Opponent may choose version of Bible from KJV, NKJV, or ESV (preferred). (I cannot read original language texts)Accepting this debate is accepting the terms. If you would like to change any of the definitions or rules, or clarify anything, please comment first and I will edit the debate if necessary. Also, this if the first debate I have written, please comment if I am violating any conventions or best practices of the site. (Thank you! =] )5000 char. limit.
Plague inc can be beaten

Well, it is the fault of my resolution. I failed to consider the angle of hackers, but what I had tried to convey was that there is no strategy to beat Plague Inc. on Mega-brutal. "Also, Plague Inc. may have more security as they have in-built cheats which can be unlocked when all viruses are beaten on brutal." I have no clue what this means but it says betean and thats all this debate is asking for. What I mean is there are already in-built cheats which can be used after all pathogens are beaten on brutal, but those cheats are required to even beat brutal mode, so it is a dead end. Plus you said in first round it can be hacked because it is not a server-based game, then I said you can't connect to g+. I don't know much about hacking anyway.
Plague inc can be beaten

"Well, then you cannot connect with g+, and I still haven't found a hack to work in my mobile."Just because you haven't found it doesn't mean it isn't out there. Jailbreak your phone and downlaod iFile and figure it out. Also real hackers rarely reveal how they do it. For example just because you tried to shut down a government website but failed, it doesn't mean it's impossible. Look here: http://abcnews.go.com..."Plus what I meant is you can never beat it legally."End justifies the means since this debate was just if it could be beat. We could hypothetically stop overpopulation if we killed 90% of the world. This is about if it's possible, not morally or legally, or any other ethical euphemism."Also, Plague Inc. may have more security as they have in-built cheats which can be unlocked when all viruses are beaten on brutal."I have no clue what this means but it says betean and thats all this debate is asking for.Also my main and only argument about hackers hasn't been substantially replied to.
America should strive toward self dependency

1. As far as farming goes, I was trying to pass the idea that people could eat home grown oranges INSTEAD of bananas. I would encourage eating only domestic goods. 2. I am not saying to stop exportation, just importation. 3. Though inflation may occur, more people would have jobs brought in by the new industries and agriculture. I also believe that the inflation would be temporary, eventually the farmers will get new ways of producing the crops. The increase in the sophistication of these industries would cause deflation. 4. My China comment was this: We would continue exportation to China We would virtually cease all importation from China China would lose a major buyer and would start going out of business(analogy) Consider it taking out the competion, legally 5. I am not even saying that the government should create jobs, I am just saying that the government should strongly tax imports. The government should also do a variety of other things to ENCOURAGE self dependency, like allowing the keystone pipeline. I am republican, not democrat. I am a supporter of Newt Gingrich's idea of independency. 6. There will continue to be competion, not in the world market, just in the domestic. 7. I would like to look at history for this point. In the late twenties and early thirties, the world went into a depression. Never before had that happened. The reason the entire world was affected was that trade was high. With self dependency, if China fell for some reason and went into a poor economic state, America would barely feel it. Thus, it would localize depressions.