BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Population is a Concern

This debate seems to have sunk, as you did not post any main arguments. I will still answer your question though.I am concerned about the population because it will affect me during my life span. I still have a good 60 years to go, and I will witness about 11 billion people. I don't want to live in a world where everything is smushed together and there are very limited recourses. If I was older, like 70, it would not concern me.I am also concerned for the children, who will have to suffer due to the population rise. I can be concerned about other things than myself and the population growth.True, we will not remember having this debate when we are dead, but it still concerns me not because of the reasons above.People in the future will also be concerned about the population, so when we die, concern will still be going on.
Population is a Concern

I may as well have fun.This is why overpopulation is not a cause for concern. The futility of life. Life is with out meaning, it is futile, and population growth is not a concern because it wont matter when we are gone. We will not remember having this debate when we are dead. How could population growth possibly concern you? There are people now concerned about population, everyone who is concerned about population now will be dead, therefore population will not be a concern/is not a concern. I hope this helped.
Population is a Concern

Round 1) AcceptanceRound 2) Arguments onlyRound 3) Rebuttals onlyRound 4) Polishing up onlyBy "population is a concern," I mean the EARTH's population of humans is a problem. This concern could vary from the smallest concern to the biggest concern. Population in the present or future may be stated, population in the past may be used as examples to prove points. EX: The U. S population has risen from 90 million in the 1900's to 300 million today. NOT OKAY: We have gotten through a population scare so we'll be fine, thus your point is disproven. Upon agreeing, you also agree to these terms and rules:Forfeit in any round will be treated as a full 7-point vote for the opposing side (the person who did not forfeit)Swearing will result in a loss of a conduct point. Personal attacks will result in a loss of a conduct point. Plagiarism will result in a loss of sources (misused sources), arguments, and conduct. Changing the terms agreed upon will result in a loss of conduct point and possibly arguments. Not following the outline of the rounds will be treated as a loss of a conduct point. The resolution I will meet is the population is indeed a concern to any extent. Good luck to any who accepts.
Atheism is more probable than Theism

I don’t have much time to compose arguments, so I’ll just quickly summarize the debate. As it stands, Pro does not expand on my refutation for his “argument for strong atheism” because he is “out of room”. Therefore, Pro only presents one argument, the “case for weak atheism”. His argument is essentially thus- “if there is no evidence for something extraordinary, it is logical to assume it does not exist”. Essentially, it’s an attempt to shift burden of proof. To support this argument, he brings up the argument from non belief. However, the argument from non belief is flawed because its premise is that god is benevolent and all loving- it’s an argument against the existence of an omnibenevolent god, not all gods or deities in general. Therefore, as it stands, Pro has brought up no arguments or no evidence against the existence of a non benevolent deity, he has only pointed out a lack of evidence. However, I also have no arguments for the existence of a deity because the only argument I raised during round 2 has been refuted and all further arguments I brought up has been rejected and denied by my opponent. As I am not allowed to bring up further arguments or expand on any of the arguments I made during round 3, I concede this debate.
Atheism is more probable than Theism

I was also not previously aware of the restriction on when arguments can be presented, so I apologize and offer conduct to Pro if necessary. ===Con’s Case===A. Argument from ImprobabilityMy opponent is correct in pointing out that the appearance of human life more closely resembles a lottery win than a planned occurrence. Therefore, I would like to shift my argument from the creation of life on earth to the creation of the universe. I think my opponent would agree that there is only one universe; therefore, the argument that I deliver more closely mirrors the example that Richard Carrier presents. I would also like to rename the argument; I believe that it is more of an argument from improbability than argument from design. In summary:1. Pro concedes that “if the game was played a billion times, and each time only one ticket was sold and yet every single time that ticket happened to be the winner, then you would be quite certain someone was cheating“, or in other words, if something extremely unlikely occurs, it is reasonable to suspect outside interference by a greater power rather than random chance.2. The creation of the universe mirrors the situation where an extremely unlikely event occurred with no prior trials.3. Therefore, it is reasonable to suspect that outside interference by a greater power other than chance influenced the creation of the universe. B. Cosmological ArgumentThe Cosmological argument is as follows:1. Finite things cannot be caused by infinite regress.2. All existing things that came into existence (began existing) must have a cause.3. The universe began, and therefore must have a cause.4. The cause must have been a theistic power. While I’m not sure if my opponent will accept my assertion, I believe that points 1 and 2 can be accepted purely based on empirical evidence- only infinite things (such as numbers) can have infinite regress, finite things, such as rocks cannot. I will expand on these points further if needed. We know that the universe is finite, therefore, it couldn’t have been caused by an unending chain of events, there must have been an uncaused cause, which leads to point 4. Why must there be a theistic power? Pro touches upon this by pointing out that even if the cosmological argument and the argument from improbability were valid, there is still not enough evidence implicating a god that is faultless or there is only one designer, etc. He states that the argument does not show:1. The designer has infinite attributes2. The designer is faultless3. There is only one designer4. That the designer(s) is (are) still alive (Tobin, 2006). I will dismiss the second and third points; I’m not defending a specific god, I’m defending the probability of theism in general. I believe that the arguments I have provided do show that the designer has infinite attributes and is/are still alive; the cause of the universe must necessarily be uncaused so the first cause would transcend time and matter. Only an incredibly powerful being could cause the existence, a supreme diety. I apologize for the delayed response. I hand the stage back to Pro.
Atheism is more probable than Theism

I also wish to put forth the following definitions- Atheism: The doctrine or belief that there is no god. [1]Theism: Belief in the existence of a god or gods (as opposed to Atheism) [2]It is interesting to note that these definitions make Pro's definition of "god" obsolete. I believe this is justifiable; under Pro's definition, muslims would not be considered theists. Therefore, Pro should win if he can demonstrate that the odds of any and every god existing is under 50%, and I should win should I demonstrate the opposite. ===Sources===[1] . http://dictionary.reference.com...[2] . http://dictionary.reference.com...
The ruling in Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co should be in favor of Williams.

According to pro, "the evidence in Williams not understanding the contract is within the Court of Appeals remanding the case back to the lower court, they sought the contract unenforceable and needed more law". But if this the case the Court of Appeals would have applied what according to pro was correct and rule for Williams, at the end of the day the Cou9rt of Appeals" job is to make corrections within the law; but in this case they only sent it back to be reanalyzed, it does not specifies that the lower court should change their ruling, if that was the case then the Court of Appeals would have done it themselves. According to pro, "there are many cases where contracts are agreed upon but never fully read". It is not Walker-Thomas Furniture responsibility, it was the appellant Williams responsibility to make sure she read the contract and was sure of the purchase she was making; pro said himself "each contract must be read entirely"" According to pro, "the appellee had all the bargaining power to take advantage of the appellant whose financial standing was absolutely clear to the appellee". This is incorrect because the appellant Williams had the power to simply not purchase any items from the appellee Walker-Thomas Furniture, it does not seem like her financial standings got in the way before when she made the first purchases for which she almost paid in full. So how is it that on her previous purchases she was able to pay but she allegedly had financial problems? According to pro, "there is no evidence of Williams" financial situation before the stereo", but if Williams was not able to afford the stereo set on her $218 government stipend why would she buy it anyways? Walker-Thomas Furniture is merely a retail store not a financial advisor. According to pro, is it Walker-Thomas Furniture place to see that there might be issue with repayment"" I doubt that Walker-Thomas Furniture can foresee the future, it appears that Walker-Thomas Furniture based the new purchase on the fact that the appellant was able to pay before, therefore there is not expressed intention to defraud the appellant which entails that the contract is not unconscionable. Another piece of this case that pro did not take into consideration is the fact that for the contract to be unconscionable there must have been a law that stated that it was unconscionable, and at the time of the contract there was not any law stating the above mentioned.
Is literary bestiality if both parties are intelligent, can, and do consent verbally, etc.

However, Eragon is still very much a human mentally. With that addressed on to the counterpoints. The first point, real world action. This I will agree with as far as the fact that what you read effects your act. The key part of why this argument is invalid is in the core of the debate. The can and DO render consent. If used corectly this type of bestialitic literature can reinforce positive behaviors such as" No means no. " For example, if a teenage boy reads a story wherein there is a buff/ripped male human and a female Pok"mon that is a psychic type which is slight in stature and can only use telepathy as far as psychic goes. The human asks if the Pok"mon would have sex with him and she refuses. Even though he could easily overpower and force her, he accepts her answer, then a few years later the situation is repeated, a few more years later he asks again but this time the Pok"mon accepts. This would reinforce the idea of no means no because most people would consider her sub-human and the fact that he could force her but he still asked and respected her decision. Second, the issue of cross-breeding. I would like to ask pro, why is it wrong for humans to crossbreed but not for other animals? A perfect example is a mule, a mule is a cross between a donkey and a horse, yet that is perfectly acceptable, so why not humans? The answer to that is that the mule is useful to us. Finally, human degradation. This one I take issue with because sometimes the "animal" or "demon" acts more human than the humans. For example any Narutoxfemkyuubi fanfic. For the purpose of this debate I will cite only two. The for example I would like to present is My Loving Demons by Elder Predator. In the first chapter a civilian women disembowels the "'demon'" (a young Naruto) for killing her newborn son during the kyuubi's attack a few years prior then the bijuu commences to heal him. Some years later the kyuubi essentially sells her soul to him on the conditions that he lets her out and she finds him a girlfriend. One thing leads to another and Naruto is unofficially maried to the kitsune with a child on the way. My seccond example I would like to present is A Loving Heart, A Body of Steel by renegadeofficer89. Again at the beginning of the story Naruto is tortured to the brink of death and then is pulled back by the "demon" later Naruto, in order to free the kitsune from the juubi's rage Naruto mates with her knowing full well that he will either lose his humanity or be killed purifying the youki of the reason that he got tortured to the brink of death for year after year. And the villagers call her a demon?
Is literary bestiality if both parties are intelligent, can, and do consent verbally, etc.

Literary beastiality wherein all parties are intelligent beings, that can and do express consent verbally, etc. is not wrong because both parties have said that they want to mate with the other party specifically and are not just doing it on instinct. In literature it is possible that the bond between human and "animal" is closer than any two people in the Inheritance Cycle fanfiction "The Uncertain Future" by Dragonknight - Beta 26, Eragon and his dragoness, Saphira mates which brings them even closer than before when they are literally part of each other's soul. http://www.fanfiction.net...
Marriage is bad.

The right person is not always easy to find. 10% of people are 100% straight and only 10% of people are 100% gay about 80% of the population are somewhere in-between. This makes the perfect person very hard to find, you may only have one shot and getting with the perfect person and at the time where you briefly meet your perfect match you may already be married. When you are married it makes splitting up harder and emotionally worse, if you were only in a boyfriend-girlfriend situation then splitting up far easier therefore finding your perfect match much easier to get with. The way society is going a quarter of deaths will be suicide. Society is making things far easier to break promises, and marriage is a promise. Marriage isn't the soul cause of suicide though it is a prime factor in the suicide rates. Society is currently breaking, with half of the east on verge of war, do you really think if things kick off over there we will have time for petty promises like marriage? You are thirteen, you shouldn't be worrying about your sex life just yet... Anyway I'm sure you realize that sex isn't everything and most of the time the happiest people don't have a very busy sex life. Not to say those who do aren't happy, you gave the statistics for singles and married people, people who are in non-married relationships with others have the busiest sex lives of all, if you're really that worried!
Marriage is bad.

A recent study from a University in Australia shows that married men are happier than single men. Also they have more sex than single people do, according to another study in Kinsey Institute. Facts: 23% if non married men have sex every12 months 1% Of allMarried men have sex every 12 months 19% of singles have sex every 2-3 weeks, and 36% of married men do as we'll. In fact, pros arguments are saying that a person who gets a divorce will be sad. Duh. 50% of all marrages end in a divorce. Furthermore around 50% of the US population (18 and up) are married. Does a quarter of the population kill themselves? No. If you marry the right person will you be happy? Yes.
Marriage is bad.

Marriage is supposedly the best day of people's lives however the money required to put on this extravagant affair is immense. People spend more than they can afford on what is essentially a relationship status in modern society. 100 years ago a marriage mean't something now no-one can stop you ending your marriage and this, I believe is one of the primary factors of suicide. The average age in Britain for a divorce is around 45 and the average age for suicide is from 44-46, see any links? If marriage was not a thing a break up would be far less devastating for you wouldn't have to go through legal procedures with the person who has made you feel quite horrid. When marriage was first invented it was an unbreakable promise and as with everything in our society it is quite easy to undo this bond. If the promise of marriage is not a promise then it rather defeats the purpose of marriage so we should soon be done with the whole thing. Gay marriage is currently one of the world's most controversial and sensitive issues. Before I move onto this subject I would like to point out that I am strongly in favor of equal rights for gay people as the majority of my friendship circle are in fact gay. Everyone should have equal opportunity in our world, there is no reason why someones natural sexual orientation should ever hold them back. This would not happen if the snobs who happen to run our world educated people from an early age on homosexuality but they fear them they fear the gay community and if we get rid of marriage we also rid the world of one of it's most controversial subjects and we would more than half suicide rates. Thank-you for considering my opinion, I hope you agree.
does protecting environment hiders progress

"In canda there are" is a typo so pelase ignore that. This goes back to what I said. We don't need to protect water, we need to move along with research. Lower the population. It is the POPULATION that requires thinning. Governments are trying to be politically corrrect by letting the population continue to grow. Earth is on the verge of collapse because there are not enough resources to go around. By lowering the population we can continue to harvest nature as we see fit and still stay alive as a species. That's all I have to say.
does protecting environment hiders progress

well, well - i don't think environment is just about planting trees and grass or vegetation . it also includes WATER. The technology of the present world does not extract salt from ocean water ant only 1% of the total water on earth is drinkable. Sadly, even my country is going to suffer from water shortage in next 10 years. Even the water conservation is not noticeable in this devoloping world. I still doubt if humans are going to survive for long.
does protecting environment hiders progress

Thank you for this debate.Let me just say, I like nature as much as the next guy. Nature is beautiful . Going hiking in Canada is amazing. However, nature isn't as important as you think. Trees themselves can be replanted. Lakes can be man made, and so can rivers. Trees can be planted on top of skyscrapers and on top of apartments, in the flat section of the roof. Nature is expendable, and in today's society, think about how many people DONT care about nature. Technology is influencing society down a more virtual road. The future of humanity is not nature, but virtual reality. If you're upset about animals, think about how many of these animals are hostile towards humans. Bears, wolves, lions, vultures, and think about what would happen if dinosaurs were still about. Animals are by default, either hostile towards us or afraid of us. They serve no purpose other than either being part of our families as pets, or as resources.Bushes, grass, shrubs, all can be recreated, especially so in a virtual reality. "By the 2030s, the nonbiological portion of our intelligence will predominate." -Ray Kurzweilhttp://www.brainyquote.com...;Protecting the environment does hinder progress, because trees and vegetation itself can be recreated, and factories and research must come first. At the height of technological progress, answeres to all these questions will come, but first we must get there. In Canada, there areA country should have designated zones that will remain as parks and vegetation forever, never to be disturbed, and should use the environment as necesssasry everywhere else.Example: http://www.trailcanada.com...Canada protects the nature in the red marked areas. The rest is up for grabs as they see fit. I rather like this idea because most of the trees scattered around Canada that have no use are being taken and used.In the future, if we so wanted we could replant an entire forest. Nature is not under threat, the more we protect the enviornment, the more it will hinder our progress.
does protecting environment hiders progress

Development would have no meaning if our very existence is being threatened!! In fact, it is the development that hinders our environment. At present, environment is the only thing keeping us alive. Since the earliest times, humans have needed nature for its basic everyday life resources such as wood, food, medicines and many more.As we known, humans are resourceful and capable of intelligence. Taking time to think through this problem is not much to ask. In turn, the resources we save today will help us to create a better world tomorrow. We can use the resources we are using today in our future without affecting much to the environment. We are aware of the effects industries have on this planet. Our awareness make us responsible.
Steve Young is a Better Quarterback than Joe Montana

Joe Montana: 3,409 of 5,391 (63.2 percent) for 40,551 yards (7.5 YPA), 273 touchdowns, and 139 interceptions. Quarterback Rating of 92.3. Steve Young: 2,667 of 4,149 (64.3 percent) for 33,124 yards (8.0 YPA), 232 touchdowns and 107 interceptions. Quarterback Rating of 96.8. http://bleacherreport.com...
Amelia Earhart crashed into the ocean off the coast of Gardner Island

I feel like i can't do anymore since there is no way for me to fight against this without evidence. Due to the fact that this is a school assignment i would like to say that this theory is not true and is not one of the theories I've heard until now. So i do not and will not believe this debate and i will stick with my side of the argument. Unless of course you can find a way to make me believe your side of this argument.