BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Evolution is a lie

Counter There were people hundreds of years ago that didn't believe the studiers of science when they stated that the Earth was helio-centric or that gravity was real. You would be one of those people that would light a fire under them and shun them because you don't want to believe something you do not understand. And for the record, you know nothing about carbon dating. The easy to follow decaying pattern that you stated is taken into account every time a scientist carbon dates. You stated something that you did not fully understand, and that will do you in. Decaying is a predictable process that scientists always add into the equation. Therefore, we are able to date the the rock that the carbon is in. (1) Just shows you that decaying is something that is well known and taken into account. Do not try to discuss things that you know nothing about, and do not use wikipedia to back up your falsehoods. ConclusionEvolution is not a lie. I was not present, no. I was not there when the big bang happened, no. But there are signs and clues, written all over the historical timeline, that tell us and show us that this is so! Is evolution something so new and different that you do not want to believe it because it seems foreign to you? It shouldn't be, the facts are there to back it up. Never once have you mentioned dinosaurs. Most dinosaurs went extinct with the climate changing meteor that hit the earth some 60 million years ago. Some species of dinosaurs survived, and due to that changing of climate that was so drastic, they evolved into something very different from what they looked like pre-meteor. The birds of today closely resemble the meat eating winged creatures that inhabited the earth millions of years ago. (2) States that humans were not present when dinosaurs were around. We were in the form of small mouse sized mammals, and never got bigger than your average house cat. We were that way because the dinosarus were so big and mighty that they were driving the mammals into small size, because how were we to compete with such large creatures? After the dinosaurs were gone, that is when the mammals evolved into their prime and ulitmately became apex predators of the ecosystem, replacing the late dinosaurs. Is it that hard to believe that something you did not see, occured? You believe that the earth is several thousand years old, yet you do not have any hard facts to prove it. I have facts to back up what you call "speculation." For future reference, cold hard facts beat out speculation. Speculation is not evolution, it is what you believe without providing sound evidence.(1) http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...(2) http://www.pbs.org...
Evolution is a lie

My argument is and has been that the Earth is not billions of years old. The age of the Earth is important here because if the Earth is not billions of years old, it looks like a fatality move on Mortal Kombat. Carbon dating is not accurate, we have no idea how long the carbon14 that is tested in rocks has been decaying. If i light a candle and five minutes later i call you into the room and ask you "how long has this candle been burning" you would not have an answer. We can measure the rate the candle is burning per hour and how long the candle is, but we don't know how long it was before it started burning or how long it has been burning. The current age of the earth is based on this formula, and it is not scientific to age the Earth this way. " Some evolutions went by pretty fast, like darwins finches" This is where Darwin misunderstood what he saw, which translated into I wonder what this bird evolved from. The only observable mutations in nature are not beneficial to the organism. A two headed turtle is an example, contains no new data in the dna. It is the same information, just scrambled. An example of how the finches work in the environment is this. There is a room with 10 humans. They can only stay in the room if they are over 6 feet tall Only 2 guys and 3 girls are over 6 feet tall, the others must die. The remaining 5 reproduce and we have Darwinien Evolution. This is false, no new information was added and the gene pool has been limited. I stand by opening statement, that evolution is a lie. I apologize for expressing my personal beliefs on the bible. I would also like to thank my opponent, great debate! #pro2015
Evolution is a lie

We are not here to argue about the age of the world (a few billion years), we are here to prove or disprove evolution. Your argument almost completely strays from that topic, which leaves me nothing to criticize. I'm not using some petty theory of cross breeding hybrids to prove evolution. I am using cold hard facts, unlike our friend here with the Wikipedia sources. Judging by your reference to soup and fish, you know nothing about evolution or about humans came to be. But I do. I know that some odd billion years ago, the Big Bang happened, and our universe has been expanding ever since. I know that because even now, our universe is getting bigger at a hurtling rate. When our planet was just formed, the land we know today was made and expunged from volcanoes. The only organisms that bonded from amino acids and were able to survive during this rough period of time in our planet's creation was small single celled organisms. Through environmental and habitaual change, the organisms evolved, with sexual reproduction being a genetic mutation that was passed on from one species to the other. The apes are a perfect example of evolution. I do not believe that pigs are what makes humans humans. I believe that we were once a certain species of ape that evolved to changes in our environment to be more intelligent and an over all better organism. Do you know why that happened? Because the single celled organism we derived from was able to adapt and change to its surroundings throughout the whole timeline, giving birth to new species and organisms. Some evolutions went by pretty fast, like darwins finches. Within ONLY ONE generation, the birds had adapted to their environment. Who knows what all other organisms have done over long periods of time? People with common sense do. They know that like the birds, we just evolved at a slower rate, slowly becoming a more complex and sound organism. You might as well give up, because science is something that cannot be defied. I have not personally observed air but I know it is here. I have not personally observed evolution, but I know that it happened because there have been thousands of clues left for us to discover. You are wrong, and your ideas are not scientifically or intellectually sound. Evolution is what makes up the world around us today.
Trump made 1,950 false or misleading public statements as of yesterday. This is inexcusable.

Second off, the Obama born in Kenya thing is being investigated under the order of trump, that would make trump look accusing, yes, but one of the case's witnesses was Obama's grandma. And I have not seen any denial from her saying its not true, in fact here's some evidence supporting it: . https://www.youtube.com... but this isn't an Obama is from Kenya debate, so that's all I will leave on the subject for the round. Next. You say that he demonizes entire races, I suppose your talking about the Muslim ban right? Then why do some of our allies and enemies do the same thing, the entire Muslim religion has been painted with slander by a good amount of world leaders, including trump yes, but remember, our ally European government arguably hates Islam more than America's government does, so I'm guessing 2 things, Donald trump is joining in on the Muslim hate to get closer to Europe, and lets not forget about ISIS, Donald trump might be worried of potential terrorist attacks, especially after telling everyone he will bring them down and as for the black homicides, I can explain that, small towns that are filled with Black people due to A. Overpopulation B. Racism from their ancestor's hometowns, this place dubbed as "the hood" is where black people are supposed to survive, due to the fact that their neighbors see this as a chance to get money to move out of town, and soon, the hood became a place filled with violence and chaos, fist fights, shootings, you name it, while some hoods are more sane, having just basketball and fist fights that only end when one is unconscious, their are other types that are just messed up, and I think THIS IS DUE TO OVERPOPULATION, not race. and trump could know about stocks have you ever heard of a campaign manager? They have the inside of everything, plus, spies are a common strategy in politics, the campaign manager could easily calculate the stock loss, and the reason it its going up is because of Obama? Obama was not allowed to do almost nothing is due to most of congress being the republicans, and I did scroll down, some of these were not even showing any proof, you cant make people believe the truth without any proof. and for the part of your counter argument to my congress statement, how do you know they don't tell the president to lie at some points at time, also you contradicted yourself during your counter argument to classified info, how do you know that the president cant lie to protect the people, isn't that part of keeping a good secret? and yes, other presidents have had stupid lies, there's Obama saying he didn't bomb innocent families at times, George w. Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction, etc. I am rather interested in how you will react in the final round, so good luck to you.
Trump made 1,950 false or misleading public statements as of yesterday. This is inexcusable.

Ok so first of all, could you please organize your arguments a little better? Please?? It's very hard to follow your train of thought. I am now going to address your points one by one. I confront Trump about lying because it has gone on too long. He is averaging 5.62 false or misleading statements A DAY. And I'm not talking about failed promises. Politicians fail on their promises ALL THE TIME. I'm talking about blatant, outright, straightforward lies. I'm talking about lies that destroy his opponents, demonize entire races and countries, and inflate his ego (which was already quite too large to begin with, thank you very much!) Some examples of the more famous lies that he has made are things like "Obama was born in Kenya" and "90% of homicides are committed by blacks." Both of those are lies Trump made, that are nowhere close to the truth. Just last Saturday, he said "If the Dems (Crooked Hillary) got elected, your stocks would be down 50% from values on Election Day. Now they have a great future - and just beginning!" First of all, Trump can't make a definitive statements about how stocks would do under Hillary. Secondly, he's taking responsibility for how well the stocks are doing right now. Well the stock market isn't even doing better than normal in the first place. Also, the only reason that it is going up A LITTLE BIT is that what Obama did for the stock market is still having an effect on the economy. Trump hasn't done anything for it at all, and therefore should not be taking credit. Scroll down the list I provided in my first argument and you'll see that they are not even counting failed promises. There are some promises on the list, but when they explain why the statement was misleading, they don't talk about whether or not he followed through. They JUST talk about the truth of the statement itself. As for the part about Congress.... well, they don't tell the President to lie. Let me clarify that we are talking about pointless, stupid lies. An example is "Time Magazine called to say that I was PROBABLY going to be named "Man (Person) of the Year," like last year, but I would have to agree to an interview and a major photo shoot. I said probably is no good and took a pass. Thanks anyway!" Time Magazine does not announce any indication of who the Person of the Year is until the public announcement date, which came more than a week after that tweet. You said "when has ANY president been trustworthy?".... Well, most of them don't lie about meaningless, stupid things to inflate their egos. Yes there have been lies and scandals. There was Watergate. There was Clinton's emails. But those scandals weren't lies for the point of lying. As for your reference to "classified info," classified means that the government is withholding information to protect the citizens of America. Trump's lies don't have anything to do with "classified info."
Trump made 1,950 false or misleading public statements as of yesterday. This is inexcusable.

listen, I am not a fan of trump, but why NOW of all times do they confront him about lying? in fact, half of these "misleading" statements, is promises that he failed to keep, upsetting, I know but congress just couldn't let him, in fact, Obama had the same problem, he made all of these promises that he failed to keep due to congress plus, when has ANY president been trustworthy? they have classified info for a reason.
Trump made 1,950 false or misleading public statements as of yesterday. This is inexcusable.

According to the Washington Post, Donald J Trump has made 1,950 PUBLIC false and misleading statements over the course of 347 days. The fact checker was most recently updated January 1, 2018. This is inexcusable. The leader of the free world simply cannot lie that much and still be considered a good leader in any sense. Please note that I really want to an argument supporting the idea that Trump is still trustworthy. I genuinely do, because I honestly cannot imagine what that argument might be. Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com...
I will not break a rule

============== Violation 1 - Rule #11 ============== The probable loser (though, by some stretch of the imagination, possible winner) of this debate admits that "not using complete sentences changes...how you are allowed to punctuate." Because, by following such a rule, I would not be able to punctuate how I please in discussions of rules violations, Rules 14 & 16 have violated Rule #11 that: "All rules created by my opponent can apply to my ability to make rules, but not my ability to discuss or debate violations of rules." Because this was the first rule broken in the round, as per Foundation Rules 8, you vote PRO. ============== Violation 2 - Rule #18 ============== A Haiku must contain 5 syllables in the first line, 7 syllables in the second, and 5 syllables in the third. I even posted '5-7-5 format.' The possible winner of this debate (should voters for some reason fail to read his multiple violations) has posted 3 rules, none of which follow Haiku format. Rule 20 has 6 syllables in the second line. (Rules-in-three-lines-that-Rhyme) Rule 21 has 5 syllables in the second line. (Pro-must-use-it-in) Rule 22 has in no way followed Haiku format. A violation of Rule 18 has occured: "CON must write 2 thirds of his future rules in haiku (5-7-5) format." ============== Violation 3 - Rule #07 ============== "the probable loser of this debate states that in your original post the letters "r", "d", and "s" are present in all sentences except rules #2 and #12." Foundation Rule 7: "Rules cannot result in an auto-win...Each player should have an opportunity to not break each rule." It is impossible for me not to immediately break Rule 14#. Once this debate was accepted and Rule 14 posted, there is no way that I could go back and edit rules #2 or #12. I have had no opportunity not to break this rule, thus Foundation Rule 7 was broken and I win the debate. ======= New Rules ======= 23.) In debate, spelling and grammar rarely matter most, but as a rule to the probable winner of this debate from its host: Proper spelling and grammar must be utilized flawlessly in the proceeding post. 24.) If, while walking through the desert, I find a very sickly iguana, and it looks as if it is about to die, even though the iguana doesn't wanna, the possible winner of this debate must wanna give the iguana marijuana. 25.) If you read any of my previous debates you'll find that I'm flattered quite easily, so in the next round the possible winner of this debate must thrice compliment me, by telling me that I have a body as hot as a 100 degree temp-or-ize as blue as the sea.
I will not break a rule

The probable loser of this debate argues that not being able to argue in complete sentences hardly impedes your ability to discuss violations. Sure, the probable loser of this debate agrees with the points that you have, but not using complete sentences hardly changes how you argue, only how you are allowed to punctuate. For instance. The probable loser of this debate states that you are. Allowed to. Type like. This. The probable loser of this debate does not see how this would restrict your ability to argue. Also, the probable loser of this debate states that in your original post the letters "r", "d", and "s" are present in all sentences except rules #2 and #12. The probable loser of this debate's rule #14 simply nuisances you, it doesn't hinder your ability. 20.) PRO must state all his Rules in three lines that rhyme From here until end 21.) Temporize is word Pro must use it in Third sentence last post 22.) The probable loser of this debate states that PRO must from here on out refer to the probable loser of the debate as the possible winner of the debate.
I will not break a rule

====== Violation ====== CON's rule #14 violated my rule #11. I am either not allowed to: 1. discuss violations in complete sentences; or 2. create a complete sentence debating whether I have violated a rule without the letters r, d, and s. This means he has broken rule #11, which is that he cannot restrict my ability to discuss violations of rules. --- 17.) CON must only refer to himself as 'the probable loser of this debate.' 18.) CON must write 2 thirds of his future rules in haiku (5-7-5) format. 19.) CON shall not post the word 'a.'
I will not break a rule

This is a copy of multiple other debates I've seen with similar rules. 0. By accepting this debate, my opponent agrees to all the rules already posted. 1. Rules created hold power over all rules posted later, and no later rule can contradict an earlier rule. 2. A forfeit results in a loss. 3. A violation of a rule that is not null and void will result in the rule-breaker losing this debate. 4. With the exception of my first round, a player may only do something besides make rules to discuss whether one has broken a rule, or whether a rule is null. 5. Not counting these foundation rules, each player can only create 3 rules per turn. 6. Each player must produce 3 rules per round. 7. Rules cannot result in an auto-win. Breaking a rule cannot result in the victory of the rule-breaker. Each player should have an opportunity to not break each rule. 8. A voter must default all categories to the victor of the debate. The loser is the first person to break a rule. 9. All rules are assumed to only apply to future actions. (End Foundation Rules) 11. All rules created by my opponent can apply to my ability to make rules, but not my ability to discuss or debate violations of rules. 12. CON must refer to himself in every complete sentence that he posts. 13. None of my opponent's rules may be of exceeding difficulty for PRO. (e.g. 'PRO must write a sonnet about himself', 'PRO must write a 6,000 character essay without the letter 'e') NOTE: Obviously, what constitutes 'difficult' is up for debate.
War is said to be a rational act. Since Europe has abandoned war as a political instrument, is the c

Those are valid points, but war can also be irrational as well. Such as war over religion, in cases such as the crusades. Those were definitely irrational. And although in that case the USSR and USA did not use nuclear weapons, there are plenty of people who would do it even if resulted in mutual destruction, such as in the case of fanatics, which is why there are even such things as suicide bombers. Although this logic could work, there are plenty of madmen who would gladly kill themselves to kill their enemies. War is either one. Also, when you mention the prisoner's dilemma there are multiple solutions. You presented one, but in cases where both betray each other, it can be because, "they may betray me, so I must betray them!" It is not always so simple. War is a very complicated matter. There is no way to judge rationality of war without the details.
War is said to be a rational act. Since Europe has abandoned war as a political instrument, is the c

Resolution: Is Europe irrational for abandoning war as a political instrument? War is a rational act, but before I proceed further I would like to shed light on the definition of being rational. Although, many disciplines have different definitions for rationality all of them share the common characteristic of involving the use of reason and logic. However, in international relations being rational can be examined through the domain of rational choice model. The rational choice model in a nutshell is based on the notion of utility maximization in this case the utility being power. Prisoners dilemma is quintessential in explaining why war is a rational act since it simplifies the assumptions associated with decision making by a state. The decision to cooperate with fellow actors, or to pursue its own self interest through war. Based on the prisoners dilemma the act of waging war is simply a nation pursuing its self interest. However, any rational actor will undertake the action if his marginal net benefit is higher than the marginal cost. That is if the benefit from waging war such as access to new territory or access to precious resources is significantly higher than the cost of going to war for example the cost of weaponary,loss to life, reparation payments, but also the opportunity cost of going to war then waging the war is in a nations best interest. The Prussian military theorist Carl Von CLausewitz defined war as a continuation of politics through other means. Therefore, war is primarily a political tool to achieve the desired self interests. War can not be irrational because one does not wage wage war based on emotions, enthused sense of nationalism. From example during the missile crisis both the USSR and USA did exercise the use of their nuclear arsenal because no one benefit exceeded the cost therefore the use of nuclear weapons would have led to mutual destruction for both. Therefore, war can not be irrational since both agents engage in the utilitarian frame work whether they are realists or liberals and that is why this resolution must stand.
should schools ban junk food

I agree that schools should ban junk food in their facilities. Every state in the U. S. has more than 20% of their adults being obese. (stateofobesity. org) I know that bad eating habits don"t just happen at school and most of it happens at home, however, if you offer healthy food at the schools, you can help promote a healthier lifestyle at home. If schools just offered healthy foods we would see students have an increase in energy and health, and a decrease in fatigue, diseases and obesity. The only benefit I can see of schools offering junk food is making money for junk food companies and I don't feel that is acceptable when it comes to risking our kids health.