BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
U.S. Citizens have the right to Rebel (But Won't)

I wasn't posting anything more than my idea for the argument. It was just a way that my contender would have a better Idea of what I was talking about. That's why I said I believe. Ill start it now. Sorry for the confusion I don't start many arguments. I agree with your Definition. The end result is hoped for not guaranteed but the act of doing so is what we are talking about. 1)U.S. Citizens have the right to rebel because the Declaration of Independence says so. Paragraph 2 Directly from the Declaration of Independence "That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, IT IS THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE TO ALTER OR TO ABOLISH IT AND TO INSTITUTE NEW GOVERNMENT, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Forms, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness" By rights they mean the ones that are given to us by the Creator and are unalienable like Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness So if the MAJORITY of people feel as if the Government is being destructive and or taking away their unalienable rights they have the right to rebel. I'm not saying that we can rebel whenever we want about anything we so desire and I'm not saying as of right now we have the justification to do so I am just saying that we do have the right. Whether we have the right to now is another argument. The 2nd Amendment Grants us these rights as well "A well regulated militia, BEING NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed Thomas Jefferson understood what the British were doing but he believed we should rebel quite often. " And can history produce an instance of rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion"[1] You may bring up Shay's rebellion or other rebellions that were, for lack of a better term, squashed. These feelings of dissent were not felt by the majority of the colonies though. Also I am not arguing that the U.S. is allowing us this right I am arguing we do have the right (unalienable). (The government probably would squash it) [1]http://www.let.rug.nl... Thank You for accepting and good debating too ya!
U.S. Citizens have the right to Rebel (But Won't)

So. Rebel: a person or group that rises up against an established government to overthrow it. ( note that success is not in the definition. That is simply their objective) I would like my opponent to note that if he does not argue against these definitions in the next round, he has greed to them. Since my opponent is pro, he has the burden of proof However, since my opponent has posted up supporting arguments for his side, I will rebut them. "I believe U. S. Citizens have the right to Rebel even though we can go to jail for trying and we get prosecuted. We shouldn't because it is one of our rights! " Evidence. .. . and "we shouldn't because of our rights" is flawed logic. "If we believe the Government isn't doing their job we should overthrow it and restart. In fact I believe our Founding Fathers expected it out of us. " Question is. .. are they not doing their job? And Evidence for the founding fathers.
U.S. Citizens have the right to Rebel (But Won't)

1- Acceptance (state any rules) Last- Rebuttal ONLY I believe U.S. Citizens have the right to Rebel even though we can go to jail for trying and we get prosecuted. We shouldn't because it is one of our rights! If we believe the Government isn't doing their job we should overthrow it and restart. In fact I believe our Founding Fathers expected it out of us. Rebel= Overthrowing of a Government with peace or force. (sorry if that isn't the exact definition I didn't want a long title)
Evolution is a Real Thing

DO NOT WATCH VIDEO UNTIL YOU READ EVERYTHING PLEASE>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>How do you explain living fossils that remained the same through millions of years?That question has a very simple, but true answer. NOT EVERYTHING EVOLVES. Things only evolve is they need too. Such as the finches I mentioned earlier. That finch did not grow a longer beak for fun, it evolved because it NEEDED a longer beak in order to catch food.To show you how they are mocking our intelligence:Here is a picture of a biology book:http://i479.photobucket.com......It is a 2002 print:http://i479.photobucket.com......They are using Ernst Haeckel's embryology as proof!http://i479.photobucket.com......Better yet.They credited Micheal Richardson, the man who EXPOSED the scam, lol.I fail to see your point in this argument..... These men scamed people about certain small aspects of evolution as a whole. This argument does not in any way show that evolution is a false cause. It merely shows the stupidity of a select few. Don't judge people as a whole because one of them was stupid.I don't like games evolutionists play. So please do not avoid arguments. Thank you.This is not an argument at all!! However it IS a stab at the beliefs of many people. You seem to be saying that evolutionists in particular "avoid arguments".....Forgive me for failing to see the logic in this statement.BTW, Darwin never conducted an experiment or even noticed their different beaks, nor did he discover the bird. So calling them Darwin's flinches is a myth.......I never called them "Darwin's finches". I also did not say he discovered Finches, I said he discovered a "Certain kind of Finch". Charles Darwin didn't 'discover' evolution, he theorized it, hence "The Theory Of Evolution" He used research and facts to support his theory and put his findings and evidence from the Galapagos islands in his book "On the Origin of Species".There is no single transnational fossil. I would like YOU to present evidence of their existence.OK http://en.wikipedia.org...Nobel prize winner Werner Arber 45 years of his life documenting the cumulative effects of mutations on thousands upon thousands of generations of single-cell organisms. He has found absolutely no mechanism that would enable a single-cell organism to evolve into a multi-cell organism.Eearlier in the debate, you argued how spontaneous generation is impossible. I said I agreed with you. In this statement above, Werner Arber is talking about an organism such as bacteria suddenly having more cells appear into existence. That is along the lines of spontaneous generation. Therefore it is no wonder he found no mechanism that would allow such things. Things don't evolve instantly. They evolve over time>>>>>>>>watch the video http://www.youtube.com...
Evolution is a Real Thing

"Lets go over the theories one by one.The first one was spontaneous generation, that non-living matter can produce living things. A popular example was maggot appearing spontaneously in rotting meat, but scientists later learned that flies carry the larvas which grow into maggots."I do not believe that spontaneous generation is possible, I am merely saying that it is similar to evolution its self. The only difference between the two is that in evolution beings change over a period of time. Were as in spontaneous generation, living things seem to be created instantly, usually out of non living things. That is of course impossible.Examples of evolution are all around you. Have you ever come across the details within Darwin's Theory of Evolution. It shows an experiment that he conducted on a tropical island. He noticed that there were several different species of finches living on different parts of the island. Each type of finch had a unique bodily structure based on their surroundings. For example, one finch had an abnormally long beak compared to the other types of finches. It had gotten the beak over time, because the bugs in that area of the island burrowed in logs, and in order for that species of finch to survive, it had to adapt and grow a longer beak in order to reach deeper into the trees, and get food. Not only does this video support my arguments, but it also has quotes from people that agree with me.
Evolution is a Real Thing

I am going to challenge this statement. "When it comes to the origin of life, we have only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility"spontaneous generation was scientifically disproved one hundered years ago by Louis Pasteur, Spellanzani, Reddi, and others. That leads us scientifically to only one conclusion- that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God"I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution." (Dr. George Wall, winner of Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine) I expect it to be a logical debate, there is no need for religion to be in the debate. Good luck.
Evolution is a Real Thing

When comparing the two sides, it is quite clear that the burden of proof was on my side, as my opponet have failed to address my points or conjure reasonable argument.Furthermore, Evolution have failed to solidify it's position as a theory. How can a theory be based on proofless assumptions? Is this really science? Did it turn into propaganda? Did pride take them too far? Did the theory become more important than the evidence?We should never allow our minds to lose it's ability to think for itself you are following a shepard you are still a sheep. Sadly, some very educated people believe that evolution is a fact. Although logically and scientifically, no theory can be a fact, let alone unscientific method used.I thank my opponent for starting this debate and getting through it all.I do believe this quote sums evolution quite well:"You can be a thorough-going Neo-Darwinian without imagination, metaphysics, poetry, conscience, or decency. For 'Natural Selection' has no moral significance: it deals with that part of evolution which has no purpose, no intelligence, and might more appropriately be called accidental selection, or better still, Unnatural Selection, since nothing is more unnatural than an accident. If it could be proved that the whole universe had been produced by such Selection, only fools and rascals could bear to live." -George Bernard Shaw
Evolution is a Real Thing

No more arguments during the last round please. Only closing statements.(short and sweet)This debate has been very eye opening for me. I feel as though me and my opponent both had great thoughts to share. I also feel like me and my opponent have already said all that there is to say, and that is we argued any more, we would sound quite redundant. You(the voters) are already aware of what I stand for, therefore I don't feel the need to repeat myself.This debate has been a pleasure.JDoG
The United States federal government should provide universal health care to its citizens.

First, parameters. Universal Health care: any system of health care that the federal government pays for for all citizens Other than that, I think we're fine. If you feel other parameters are necessary, let me know. My case: The question that is important in this situation is: "What is the purpose of a government?" The answer to this question is that a government is supposed to protect the rights of the people. The people form governments to escape the so-called state of nature, in which they are completely free, but their rights have no protection. In a state of nature, one would have all the rights in the world, but they would have no protection. One's right to own property becomes useless when it can easily be taken away by a corrupt individual. So, governments are instituted to protect people's basic rights, limiting freedom as necessary so that the government can ensure that the people have basic rights. With this in mind, it becomes very clear that in no way is the federal government obligated to provide universal health care. Universal health care is in no way necessary in order for us to protect rights, and funding it requires raising taxes, and unnecessary restriction on our freedoms. Because of this, I have but one contention. Contention 1: Government health care is not necessary for the protection of rights, and therefore should not be provided. The purpose of universal health care is to help those who cannot afford health insurance pay for health care. People obviously do have the right to live healthily, and the government must ensure that they can exercise this right, sure. But, universal health care goes far beyond this point. There is no need to give the 90% who can afford health insurance the benefits, nor is it necessary to foot the whole health bill for those who can pay for at least some of the costs. Paying for health care in the form of welfare, that is, only giving people what they need is much more appropriate, so, in short, universal health care is the wrong idea.
The God Hypothesis is a supported Scientific theory

ALTERNATIVE HYPOTHESIS let me explain the data based on the results. With a simple thought, this personal absolute mind must have freely created and manifested itself in reality with the intention of having a relationship with its human creation. This would explain why we observe a life-permitting universe with a habitable planet. Drawing from experience, this would be similar to human minds acting as agents and manifesting in the physical world through our bodies. Then, as humans, we have the emotional thought to have offspring and create a suitable house with the intention to also have a relationship with our offspring. NULL HYPOTHESIS Well first off, Quantum fluctuations would not explain how we as humans came to be or the fine-tuning of the universe since there is no evidence that the fine-tuning laws came into being by chance. Second, Just because scientists cannot presently find a cause for some quantum events does not mean its evidence that some things don't have to have a cause. There are at least 10 different interpretations of quantum mechanics and some of them are fully deterministic. As physicist David Bohm, has pointed out, there are many "hidden variables" at the quantum level of reality, of which anyone could contain the sufficient reason for a certain quantum event [1]. We cannot make conclusions like this with any kind of confidence especially when we don't fully understand quantum mechanics in the first place since its still in its infancy. Lastly, Quantum events do not take place in "absolute" nothingness. It actually takes place out of a larger quantum field ,which is a part of physical reality, that enables particles to come in and out of existence. Without this field there would be no quantum events [1]. This is another reason why its not accurate to say that a particular quantum outcome is "uncaused". Therefore, there is no reason to think that not every cause precedes an effect and , as such, we can reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternative hypothesis.
The God Hypothesis is a supported Scientific theory

I am arguing that the God Hypothesis is a supported scientific theory. The burden of proof is not all on me though I expect CON to debate and argue under this context. This means my opponent will have to try and show how my hypothesis fails to better explain the data compared to the Null hypothesis and how it does not reach the essential criteria of being a theory: Essential criteria "The defining characteristic of all scientific knowledge, including theories, is the ability to make falsifiable or testable predictions. The relevance and specificity of those predictions determine how potentially useful the theory is. .. .. .. A body of descriptions of knowledge is usually only called a theory if it has fulfilled these criteria: 1. It makes falsifiable predictions with consistent accuracy across a broad area of scientific inquiry (such as mechanics). 2. It is well-supported by many independent strands of evidence, rather than a single foundation. This ensures that it is probably a good approximation, if not completely correct. 3. It is consistent with pre-existing theories and other experimental results. (Its predictions may differ slightly from pre-existing theories in cases where they are more accurate than before. )"[1] Moreover, since my approach is scientific in nature, It needs to be five rounds for me to have enough ground to work under, and so I can adequately respond and address my opponents objections. [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org...
Resolved: The state of Georgia ought legalize the recreational use/possession of marijuana.

Link of Marijuana Use to Increased Risk of Auto Accident Fatalies and Injuries. It is true that my sources did not elaborate on the methodology for accounting for lurking variables. However, the source is the National Institutes of Health, a respected scientific governmental organization, a source that certainly knows the proper methodology, even if they don't expand on it in the article. The purpose of the article was to report the findings of the study, not to describe the precise methodology.Lack of an objective acute intoxication test. Without an objective test for the acute intoxication level of marijuana, any DUI enforcement on marijuana is impossible. My opponent states that "If there is no objective test as it stands now, the state could certainly attain sufficient funds in order to be able to do so with the revenue that it attains from the legalization of marijuana." However, my opponent offers no timetable on how long this might take. In other words, how many children die on the scorching pavement of the State of Georgia before we can develope this test?Inability to Legalize Marijuana. My opponent says that Georgia should legalize marijuana quickly while there is an administration that will not enforce federal law. But what then? Regardless of when the law takes effect the Federal Government can, at any time in the future, decide to begin enforcement.
Resolved: The state of Georgia ought legalize the recreational use/possession of marijuana.

My opponent correctly asserts that I have failed in the previous round to state a reason way Marijuana should not be legalized. So, before I return to refuting my opponents arguments in favor, I shall introduce a major argument against. Georgia is incapable of legalizing marijuana because it is banned on the federal level. Furthermore, if the state itself is actually involved in the sale and distribution, it only adds the risk of state employees being arrested and prosecuted under federal law. Back to my opponent's arguments. My opponent states that my sources are contradictory, they are not. A careful reading of the sources shows that while acute use does not necessarily raise the risk of an accident, acute use by a habitual user does. My opponent stated that "suspending a drunk driver's license immediately at the time of arrest reduces alcohol-related fatal crash involvement by 5%, which translates to at least 800 lives being spared in the U.S. per year". However, my opponent fail to even address the fact that there is no objective test to determine a persons acute marijuana intoxication level as there is with alcohol. Therefore, attempting to enforce DUI laws with marijuana would be a nightmare.
Resolved: The state of Georgia ought legalize the recreational use/possession of marijuana.

My opponent makes three points to support their contention: 1. Legalizing marijuana could provide monetary benefits to the state of Georgia; 2. Legalizing marijuana provides a better deterrent from use by adolescents; and 3. Legalizing marijuana curbs crime. I will refute these points in order. 1, Certainly the legalization of marijuana, if accompanied by a tax on marijuana, could bring money into the state coffers. However, the question becomes will this pay for the increase of fatal and injurious motor vehicle accidents caused by marijuana use? [1][2] Or the cost of developing an objective test to measure the precise level of intoxication? Or the cost of the enforcement of the regulations? 2. I concede a portion of my opponent's second argument. I agree that legalizing marijuana for use by adults will not increase adolescent use. I disagree that it would provide a better deterrent, and my opponent cited no evidence for this argument. 3. Legalization does not curb crime and my opponent proved it. Citing my opponent's source "The 1976 reform simply transferred a few thousand marijuana arrests from felonies to misdemeanors, affecting these categories but not overall or drug arrest totals."[3] Also, the estimate that cartels would loose 30% of their revenue is only a best guess, and one that is challenged by history. The Mob in the United States did not disappear after prohibition, they only changed revenue sources from alcohol smuggling, to other illicit activities. Sources 1.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 2. http://news.bbc.co.uk... 3. http://www.cjcj.org...
Resolved: The state of Georgia ought legalize the recreational use/possession of marijuana.

I’m not too draconian with who may or may not accept the debates I make. Anyone can accept this if he/she wants, although it would be a lot more fun if someone from the state of Georgia were to accept this debate. However, I’m not too picky. The terms and conditions of the debate are the following: Terms and Conditions: (1) The first round of the debate will only be to state the acceptance of the resolution and the terms and conditions. The succeeding rounds will be to debate the resolution, starting with initial arguments on the second round of the debate. (2) The term “state of Georgia” applies only to the US state of Georgia and not the nation-state of Georgia. (3) Forfeiting rounds does not constitute a loss of the debate entirely, but any arguments that are not argued against will be extended to the next round and cannot be argued again. Any argument that is not argued against counts as automatic concession to it.
We should all smile at one point in our adult life.

Thank you for starting this debate. Remember the time limit is only ten minutes. My opponent thinks that everyone should smile because they are alive. There are many people in the world today who are going through living hell. They have cancer, they are seeing their children dying, they have a disease that is slowly killing them, ect… There are people who go through so much pain and suffering who do not want to live. Some people want to die but can't, simply saying that we should smile because we are alive is quiet foolish. Thank you very much. Sources: (1). http://www.cancer.org... (2). http://www.cancer.org... (3). http://dictionary.reference.com...
We should all smile at one point in our adult life.

Since this is a policy debate, if I give one reason why it should happen, then it should happen. And this is everyday situations for everyday people, not James Bond stuff where you might die in one second if this or that goes wrong. So, lets begin. 1) We're alive. This is irrefutable, and, in my personal opinion, is enough to smile about. Especially if the walls of your life aren't falling apart or getting ripped out at the seams...like some peoples.
The U.S. should intervene in Darfur.

The resolution reads "The U. S. should intervene in Darfur. " Therefore, Pro may advocate any form of intervention, it is not necessary for Pro to defend every form of intervention. I am choosing to support the imposition of full military trade sanctions, and no other form of intervention. Therefore, my opponent's 8 contentions do not support his case, as they do not oppose military sanctions. 1. This is no reason why the United States should not impose full sanctions. 2. The United States does not involve itself in a civil war merely by imposing full military sanctions. Government-backed militias have undeniably committed unnecessary acts of violence against innocent Sudanese civilians, and therefore, it is the duty of the United States to impose these sanctions, condemning Sudan, and protecting its citizens. Thanks for the debate, and thanks for reading.