BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Creation

I do not have much time. I will have to make this argument shorter than I want it to be. Please give me an opportunity to elaborate in the coming rounds.Here are the basic reasons for why I am opposed to the idea of God and Creation:1. The Universe does not need a Creator. The evidence of Evolution (fossils, DNA, etc.) is sufficient enough. 2. The Bible is an unreliable source. (I am in a debate about this topic right now. The link is http://www.debate.org...;)3. One cannot prove or disprove God. But because of all the evidence against the notion, one must assume there is none. 4. Logically speaking, Creation does not make sense. However, Evolution is supported by scientific facts, unlike Creation. 5. Complexity doesn't suggest Creation. Complex things such as DNA and consciousness had to evolve. They could not have been created. 6. Christians simply assume the Bible is the truth. However, there isn't enough evidence, exluding the Bible itself, that will support the claims in it. 7. God cannot exist. Before the Universe, there was no time, thus there was no time for God to have existed. Once the Big Bang occured, time was set in motion. The Universe does not need a Creator. It can be explained with science.8. When you really think about it, if God were real, he would be a massive jerk. 9. Who deserves as much power as God? Even the perfect being - with the perfect moral code and the right personality - does not deserve the power to create and destroy worlds, life, and spacetime. Just imagine this power. When you visualize it, you yourself will realize that it doesn't work. 10. One of the sources you used was "Holy Bible, King James Version." So, there are multiple versions of the Bible? Which one is the actual true word of God? My answer to that question is the following: None of them is the word of God. 11. Evolution is science. Creation is faith. Do you see the fundamental differnece between the two? 12. Imagine heaven. Does it work? No. 13. Imagine hell. Does it work? No. 14. Imagine God. Does it work? No. 15. Imagine God creating beings and they just pop onto Earth. Imagine God producing wind when he is blowing or imagine God forming mountains when he pushes the ground. Does it work? No. Wind is the movement of air from high pressure to low pressure. Mountains form when convergent boundaries collide with one another. This is plate tectonics. You see, for everything there is on Earth, there is a scientific explanation. What do Christians say? They always say, "God did it." Does it work? No! I will elaborate on these points in the coming rounds. But as I said, I do not have much time. Therefore, the argument is short. Please do not make too many rebuttals in the next round. I still have a lot of explaining to do. Thank you.
Creation

DNA"Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is a molecule that encodes the genetic instructions used in the development and functioning of all known living organisms and many viruses." [1] I do not understand how God - or any being, in fact - could create such a complex acid. Maybe I lack imagination or maybe I have a hard time understanding God. However, I would appreciate an explanation of God's power.The Age of the EarthI would like to point out that hardcore Christians and Bible followers believe the Earth is 6,000 years old. Now, this may not be the case with you, but I would like to settle the dispute anyway: "The age of the Earth is 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years (4.54 × 109 years ± 1%)." [2] This can be proven with radiometric age dating of meteorite material and the study of rocks on Earth.Explain GodIf God made us, who made God? If God wished everything into creation, why is there evidence suggesting there is no God and that Creation does not work? These are not all of my arguments. These three points are only to introduce my larger argument, which I will state in the coming rounds. Now, I await your argument and rebuttal. References[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...;[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...;
Creation

Alright then, I suppose I'll get right to my opening statement. OS: I will be countering Con's stance that Creation is scientifically impossible, and show some evidence to support it. I believe that our world was created by an intelligent being, which I will refer to as God. I also believe that while life on this planet has changed, and can do so to a degree without outside influence, it is highly unlikely that it did so without the influence of God. I accept Con's rules, and hope for unbiased judging. I hope this will be an educational debate, and will give the floor to Con for their opening statements.
Creation

I look forward to debating anyone who does not agree with my view that Creation is scientifically impossible and there is no evidence to support it. Evolution is truth and Creation is a lie. I will begin making my arguments in the next round. Before we begin, however, I would like to implement a few crucial rules:1. Proper grammar and spelling must be used.2. Cite your sources in every single argument.3. We must respect each other's views and we must have good conduct.
Should kids under the age of 18 go to prison

First of all, when you go to a prison, you can be scared against bad people in prison so you will not do it again. For example, pretend an imaginary kid went to a prison camp. the bad kids there will treat the imaginary kid terribly and he will hate it when they always beat him up! That proves my point because the bad people were the ones who treated him badly and he probably never wants to do it again.
Should kids under the age of 18 go to prison

Let's be clear about what Pro is arguing. The resolution which Pro presented was, "Should kids under the age of 18 go to prison." The use of 'prison' is important, as this denotes a different facility than a juvenile detention facility. This means that Pro is defending a world where juveniles are incarcerated in the same facility as adult offenders. Pro never defined 'prison,' while I clarified. If Pro had meant a juvenile-only facility, then he would simply be arguing for the status quo. Juvenile detention facilities are, effectively, prison-like environments for juvenile, but ARE NOT "prisons" in the broad sense of the word. However, Pro never made this clarification, he cannot shift definitions now. Note: Pro never rebuts any of my arguments. Please extend them through. If Pro cannot rebut my points, he loses the round, because he has not shown the efficacy or the morality of his proposal. Rebuttals:1. Pro needs to cite a source which shows that prisons are an effective deterrent for children. I have shown that prisons increase recidivism and irrevocably harm children, which Pro will need to somehow outweigh. What seems more likely, as I cited earlier, is that such fears will lead only to gang membership, which increases criminal activity inside and outside prisons. 2. Purely assertion. People get sentenced to prison for marijuana possession, for example. Either way, this point is a non sequitir, as incapacitation could occur in juvenile detention. 3. What?4. Again, irrelevant. 6. What I have demonstrated (see earlier evidence) is that putting children in prisons lead to SIGNIFICANTLY higher rates of assault, rape, gang membership, and morality. You should not be subject to obscenely high levels of violence just because you committed a crime. "I think that teenagers...over the age of 15 or 16."You did not make this clear in background, and you cannot shift now. You must defend ALL children going to prison, if sentenced. This is essentially a concession.
Should kids under the age of 18 go to prison

Hello. Con. Good luck! First of all, I said it is a prison, not a detention facility, and it is criminal offenders under the age of 18. Not over the age of 18. I have many reasons why it is good to have a kid under 18 in prison or prison camp! 1. You can be scared against bad people in prison so you will not try to do an offending crime 2. Crimes warranting prison usually range from severe cases of assault and battery to drug possession of high amounts with intent to sell to much more severe crimes like grand theft, murder and rape. These are not crimes that a high school friend pressured them into doing, these are serious offenses that usually stem from smaller previous crimes, perhaps some that already got them sentenced to juvenile detention and/or jail. 3. I'd like to see evidence of contaminated food that you speak of. Reading articles about chow hall food, it is not the greatest tasting stuff, but it is still edible. 4. As stated above, mentally ill patients that commit crimes, especially those that commit those warranting prison time, are committed to a special facility. This is the reason that the "not guilty by reason of mental illness or defect" plea is admissible in court. It allows a defendant to plea that they were not responsible for their action due to mental illness and therefore are instead sentenced to special treatment instead. If a defendant refuses to plea to that extent then it is their own fault for getting put in the location they are put into. 6. As for safety, it's prison. There are officers but it is still a complex full of people that committed high level crime. If you don't want to be around them don't commit the crime. Now, all that being said. I think that teenagers, at least above the age or 15 or 16, should be able to be sent to prison if they commit crimes that are worthy of it. Bye! Good luck
Should kids under the age of 18 go to prison

Hello, Pro. Interesting topic, glad to debate it with you. For the sake of this debate, I shall assume that Pro means prisons as detention facilities for criminal offenders over the age of 18. Note that Pro makes no delineations about either age or crime. This means that Pro will have the sole BOP in defending a world where all criminal offenders under the age of 18, if sentenced to incarceration, will go to a prison like the one I delineated earlier, rather than a juvenile detention facility. With that in mind, I have two arguments. I. Incarcerating juveniles in prisons harms rehabilitation and deterrence. Juveniles incarcerated in prisons have their future economic and social prospects irrevocably harmed, and return to prisons at a significantly higher rate than those not incarcerated in prisons do. This incarceration, has also not been found to increase public safety in any material fashion [all from 1]. II. Incarcerating juveniles in prisons leads to safety risks. Due to the physical and psychological vulnerability of children, juveniles have higher prison mortality rates [2], higher rates of assault and rape [3], and higher rates of gang membership [4]. Committing a crime is not grounds for the complete revocation of autonomy and life rights; placing these children in prisons leads to safety risks far above those faced by adult inmates. The importance is that since incarceration in prison has been shown not to increase rehabilitation or deterrence, these safety risks to juveniles cannot be justified. Sources:1. http://www.justicepolicy.org...2. http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org...3. http://jjie.org...4. http://www.nytimes.com...
Big Bang cosmology supports atheism over theism.

I think I'm just going to forfeit the debate. I'm clearly out of my element here. The debate is getting too technical and frankly, I don't know how to respond appropriately to some of them. I'm not trained in physics, so I'd only be speaking as a layman trying to wiggle my way out of Pro's arguments. Rather than continue to try to speak to a topic I'm not very knowledgeable in, I'd rather just concede. If Pro wishes to debate something a little more philosophical, I'd be qualified to do so.
Big Bang cosmology supports atheism over theism.

Ave.The resolution of this debate states 'Big Bang cosmology supports atheism over theism.' I will be arguing that BB cosmology supports the conclusion that god does not exist. Con will be arguing that BB cosmology supports the conclusion that god does exist. The winner of the debate will be the person who demonstrates their case with a preponderance of the evidence.The first round is for acceptance of the debate format and rules. For the second round, both sides will present their opening statement. For the third round, both sides will rebutt their opponents opening statement. The final round will be used for further debate and closing remarks.God is defined as the personal (rational and conscious) cause of the universe, matter, space-time, and everything else that exists.Vale.
Big Bang cosmology supports atheism over theism.

AveI want to note that I'm not an expert on physics at all. I am a layman just as Con is. In fact, I'm just a fourteen year old kid, as noted by my profile.I thank Con for debating this topic with me. I've always wanted to recreate 'Theism, Atheism, and Big Bang Cosmology' in a sense. I enjoyed reading Con's rounds, and thought he did a good job.As a formality, I extend all arguments. I also want to note the number of sources I used.Vale
Weed prohibition

The topic is whether or not cannabis (weed) should be prohibited. Seeing that my opponent is arguing for cannabis, I find it strange why he chose to be Pro in this debate. To be clear, will you be arguing that weed should be prohibited, and will I be arguing for prohibition of weed, or vice-versa? Before that, let's begin with definitions:Weed: the concentrated form of the plant Cannabis sativaProhibition: a law or order that stops something from being used or done. (1)Schedule one substance: A drug defined by the United States Controlled Substances Act to have very high potential for abuse (2). I'm not sure what I'm arguing for yet, so I'll wait. I don't want to contradict myself in later rounds. Sources:(1) . http://www.merriam-webster.com...(2) . http://www.dea.gov...
Voting should be compulsory

Cheers man. My argument is centered around two points outlined below: -In western, liberal societies, rights are granted alongside responsibilities. Voting, since it is the entirety of democracy, should be a responsibility of the citizen. Such responsibilities include paying taxes, registering for the draft, jury duty, and obeying the law. Making voting compulsory would go a long way towards solving the crisis of voter apathy that affects many countries. In the U.S, overall voter participation hovers around 55%-50%(1). This means that half of the eligible population is not being participating in government, but is still being taxed to fund it and still bound by its laws. Furthermore, the voting demographics themselves incentivize policy makers to appeal to specific groups at the detriment of others. In the U.S, older individuals are much more likely to vote than younger ones(2), and women are somewhat more likely to vote than men(2), which creates both an environment that elects those that are more likely to serve these groups, and one that reinforces all elected officials to do so, so that they may remain in power. Given my above arguments, I assert that voting is not only a right, but a responsibility, as well as a necessity for a fair and functional society. -Optional voting creates a system in which fringe, hard-line voters are over-represented. To fix this, everyone must be compelled to vote. Voters that exist at the extreme edges of the political spectrum are much more likely to vote(3). This means that they are also more likely to get the politicians they want in office, which creates a large group of disenfranchised voters that believe their vote has no significance. This can very easily create a negative feedback loop, in which politics get more extreme and those that do not fall into either side becoming less and less likely to vote. This also leads to situations such as the one the U.S is currently facing, with many voters left without a choice at all. With the above arguments said, I assert that leaving voting optional will create a system in which a majority of citizens' voices are entirely unheard. Citations: (1) http://www.fairvote.org... (2) http://www.huffingtonpost.com... (3): http://www.people-press.org...
Voting should be compulsory

Thanks for accepting and I look forward to this debate! My two main arguments against compulsory voting are as follows: -Voting is a right, not a duty In nearly every Western liberal democracy, freedoms of speech and political opinions are protected by supreme laws. Since you're an American and I'm a Canadian, I'll cite as examples both the First Amendment of the US Constitution (1) and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (2). The US Constitution reads that "Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech." The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees "freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression." Freedom of speech also involves the freedom to refrain from expressing an opinion on a given subject, because having no opinion is, in itself, an opinion. Compulsory voting violates this by compelling citizens to take a position on a specific issue (the election) when they may have no opinion or they may be disenfranchised and not agree with any available options. Alternatively, someone may support a non-democratic system entirely and thus compelling them to participate in a democratic election violates their belief system. -Compulsory voting results in poorly informed or random votes that compromise the integrity of elections Compelling apathetic, uninformed, or conscientious objector voters to cast a ballot inherently means that more votes will be cast randomly or based on weak reasoning (3). Name recognition, which is already a disconcertingly powerful factor in elections, will be an even larger factor in elections with compulsory voting. In Australia, which has enforced compulsory voting, much attention has been given to the phenomenon of "donkey votes," whereby voters simply mark their preferential ballots in order from top to bottom (4). Sources: (1) http://constitution.findlaw.com... (2) http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca... (3) https://books.google.ca... (4) http://australianpolitics.com...
Voting should be compulsory

The topic of the debate is that "voting should be compulsory." I am taking the "against" side. There is no BoP on either side. Round 1 - Acceptance. Round 2 - Debaters state their case. Round 3 - Debaters rebut one another's cases made in Round 2. Round 4 - Debaters defend their cases against rebuttals made in Round 3. Round 5 - Debaters make closing statements, argue as to why voters should select them.
Voting should be compulsory

Many thanks to my opponent for engaging me in this debate. As this round is just for closing statements, I'll keep this brief: I would encourage voters to support me on the basis that I don't believe my opponent adequately addressed either of my arguments. In response to the point of rights, my opponent merely stated that objectors could spoil ballots, which doesn't address them point of them being compelled to participate on principle. In response to the issue of compulsory voting leading to inadequately thoughtful votes, my opponent again repeated the option to spoil ballots without actually addressing my point about "donkey votes" or name recognition bias (which I had backed up with citations of these being real issues in jurisdictions with compulsory voting). Thanks for reading.
Voting should be compulsory

Onward. My defense: -"Rebuttal - Voting is a Responsibility" For the sake of this argument I assume that we are considering the state legitimate. Similar to other such duties that have exceptions for certain objectors, voting could indeed have one as well. It would be better for voting to be an opt-out system rather than an opt-in one. -"Rebuttal - Lower Voter Turnout/Under-representation" I suggest that, rather than not encourage their participation in the system, we find solutions. Giving voters options and information(meaning, giving them the incentive to figure things out for themselves rather than the state teaching them) . Low voter turnout in a democratic system is self evidently a bad thing. Democracy is the rule of the people, by the people. Less people participating means that less people are a part of the ruling, but still a part of the ruled. I agree, however, that voters must also not be careless in their decision making. -"Rebuttal - Catering to Interest Groups and Specific Demographics" I would argue that appealing to the largest demographic is the best possible outcome. It means that the largest amount of people possible are affected in a positive way. -"Rebuttal - Fringe Voters Over-represented under Voluntary Voting" My point is that what is mainstream becomes more radical over time, thus making moderate views the alternatives that are ignored. Politics itself is always going to be subjective, this is unavoidable. What is considered fringe/extreme in my example is what falls outside of a given standard deviation. In a majority of cases, these beliefs are reactionary in nature and are a counter to another set of extreme beliefs, which makes them much more likely to be "bad." -"Rebuttal - "Leaving voting optional will create a system in which a majority of citizens' voices are entirely unheard." Regarding voices of voters being heard, spoiling the ballot increases the chances that they can actually be heard when there is, at the time, no viable alternative.
Voting should be compulsory

Defense: ==Voting is a Right, not a Duty== I disagree that this is invalid; the point is that there exists legal protections that, if one were to accept, should extend to the issue of compulsory voting. These legal protections are themselves based on certain principles that are central to the underpinnings of democratic societies. Since I didn't establish otherwise you're entitled to attack this as a kritik, but in the context of this debate it seems we've both accepted a democratic governmental framework as the starting point, so it would indeed be relevant. -Informed Apathy- I think this US presidential election cycle demonstrates loudly and clearly that informed voters can easily be inclined to reject available options. I would accept that those who do not wish to actively support any candidate could spoil the ballot, but then why compel them to participate in the process if it does not equate to actual participation? Why compel people to turn up at polling stations and waste an hour of their day just to spoil a ballot, when staying home would have accomplished the same thing? ==Poorly Informed or Random Votes Compromise Elections== As I demonstrated with the "donkey vote" phenomenon in Australia, it's inevitable that some people will cast random votes instead of spoiling the ballot. It is an act of protest in itself; they are deliberately derailing the integrity of the electoral process as an objection to being coerced into voting. In tight races, this can be a game-changing factor. As for "compelling them to be informed," not only is that not realistically possible, but to the marginal extent that it could be, it raises a whole host of problematic questions about how the state is going to present information to voters. Especially when incumbent candidates are already part of the government that would be tasked with this, and therefore they could and would manipulate things to give a more favourable impression of themselves and less so of opponents. This would just further expand the existing incumbent advantage. You can mandate voting but you can't mandate knowledge. People who do not care and do not want to know won't suddenly absorb information by force. And if they could, that's even more troubling a prospect.