BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Humans evolved from marine mammalians

I am an established biologist in the field of marine biology. It is my understanding that humans have adaptations similar to some marine mammals. At some point during our evolutionary history. [1] There is plenty of evidence to support this claim, with first and foremost, Japan has one of the highest life expediencies out of any country in the world [A] studies have found this is due to their diet, which happens to be primarily seafood based. This suggests humans are well adapted to live on a diet that resembles the diet of known marine mammals, such as dolphins and your mother elephant seals.[2] Another prime example regards the human body. Humans compared to the Chimpanzee, have a much higher body fat percentage, lower muscle density and lower bone density. These 3 factors favour the human body when swimming, compared to the Chimpanzee. The only exception to this rule is the Negroid (Congroid) this subsect of man, has significantly higher bone density which makes them comparable to the Chimpanzee with regards to swimming capabilities, thus it is unlikely that the Congroid evolved as a marine mammal, but rather, as a relative of the land dwelling great apes. [A] https://www.independent.co.uk... Djksp is not allowed to vote on this debate. He has been barred from voting and has lost this privilege due to erratic 'vote bullying' he is to be treated as a criminal and an outcast. Join the hate campaign at www.Djskpisadick.com where we are raising money to cut his IV line. Please donate. Thank you.
Walt Disney World is better than Disneyland

I would like to let my opponent know that I will also be using online resources as well because just saying I've been to both parks isn't a good nor convincing enough resource for a debate that is online. Section 1: Disneyland is more cramped together than Disney World, which makes it easier to get to things. It takes longer to get to places at Disney World because not only are the parks spread apart, but the attractions and shops are spread apart in the individual parks as well. At Disneyland a person walks about 11.55 miles a day, while at Disney World one would walk at least 9-15 miles a day. . http://www.tripadvisor.com... . http://www.buzzfeed.com... Section 2: Disneyland adds new attractions, shops, and other things every other year or so while Disney World (as far I know) is now just adding new things. For instance, Disneyland has built Cars land and is currently starting construction of a Star Wars park. Disney World is only adding Avatar land and replacing a few attractions in Hollywood Studios and Downtown Disney with shops and restaurants. Section 3: Disneyland has better versions of attractions than Disney World, plus it has some very popular attractions that it's Floridian counter-part doesn't, like the Matterhorn and Big Thunder Mountain Railroad. Disneyland has more variety in there counter served menus than Disney World has. Their menus contain more unique options than they used to, leaving the other park with the basic menus. Disneyland has better casting opportunities than Disney World does seeing how it's close to Hollywood. So getting good actors for the stage shows isn't as much of a difficult task as one may think. Walt Disney actually walked in Disneyland. That should be the winning reason right there. Unfortunately, he died before the completion (and/or full construction) of Disney World. . http://www.wdwinfo.com...
The Big Bang Theory is More Probable Than Genesis in Explaining The Beginning of the Universe.

Well, Christianity certainly was derived from a religion within the Asia continent. Your objections, however, as irrelevant because asians have been known to excel in areas where caucasians consider their own. This, however, is irrelevant to the topic matter, because my being an asian or a Christian does not determine the accuracy or truth of the Big Bang Theory. The whole distinction of race is a genetical misnomer. There is really not any difference genetically between the races. All that differs is the genetic switch related to the production of melanin. I hope to return to this topic in the future.
Should The World Go Solar

Cost is an extremely important factor when regarding energy, and orbiting solar panels are an unnecessary expense that both public and private sectors will have to pay. Panels in space deteriorate eight times faster than on earth, and repairing/replacing them would expose the astronauts to unacceptably high amounts of radiation. Around 600 people are in Antarctica during the winter, who are we to deny them cost-efficient energy? Hydro power is the most efficient and cheapest way to generate electricity. Modern hydro turbines can convert as much as 90% of the available energy into electricity. Hydro power is the quickest and most flexible to turn on and off again when needed, and provides 9800% more energy than solar, wind, and biomass energy combined. It is a reliable way of powering homes and other buildings - Norway produces more than 99% of its electricity with hydro power. Of course, most people in desert biomes would use solar power as they lack access to water; however coastal areas should use hydro power. Still, it is clear to see that solar power should not be the main source of power for the world, being that there are many more reliable, cheaper, and powerful methods to gain energy that can be applied.
Should The World Go Solar

You should know that earth based solar panels are not the only method of solar energy. There have been designs for a bell shaped satellite that is completely made of solar panels in geosynchronous orbit. This satellite can be adjusted so that it is in sunlight for all but 44 hours each year (Either Nat Geo magazine or Scientific American). The energy that it sends to Earth is at a constant stream in the desert somewhere and is no more intense than the midday sun as to not damage anybody's eyes. Places like Antarctica are legitimate concerns, but how often is there a person there? When one region of the world is in daylight, it sends excess energy to places in darkness so there is no waste. If there is still enough energy to make a difference in how much is needed for the next day, this energy can be sold from the country that collected it to relieve deficits. Energy can also be used to repair the solar panels and steer clear of other dust and debris. I know a guy who has a model car that drives itself using gears. When the car gets a push, it uses a process that involves redundant gears to reporter itself. This is the same concept.
Should The World Go Solar

'Going solar' is most definitely not the way to go regarding the whole world's energy use, there being other ways to utilise the natural energy around us and considering different places have weather patterns. The most popular and commonly used method of energy generation is by burning oil, which produces significant air pollution, damages local environments through the oil extraction process, and is simply not sustainable, as there is a finite amount of oil in the earth. We should be using all the types of renewable energy that maximise energy production while keeping it as sustainable as possible. Which brings me to my first point; Places are unable to produce solar energy and require other energy sources for energy production. Extremely north & south regions such as Antarctica and Finland are prone to permanent darkness in winter. How is solar energy to be produced and utilised during such a long time lacking sunlight? It is best for such places to implement wind turbines, as they tend to have quite few winds and storms in those regions. Another type that would be best for those areas are tidal energies that utilise the ocean floor's movement to convert kinetic energy into electricity. Wind Turbines prove to be effective, converting 50% of the wind's energy into usable energy, whilst having minimal impact on such environmentally protected areas. It is clear that when considering renewable energy that we take into account all forms of sustainable energy production to suit different regions, not just one-size fits all, as one-size fits all is never the case, P.S. I applaud you on your positive thinking regarding renewable energy!
Should The World Go Solar

I don't want anybody to think that I am trying to destroy the world, but there are some people out there who think solar energy is evil. I can almost guarantee you that they don't live in China or Mexico. If you think this is evil and I work for the government or claim something similar like the illuminati, please don't be on the con side. Going solar is something that many people are considering as a possibility. One company on Kickstarter, Solar Freakin Roadways, is trying to solve the energy crisis by giving solar power to people. The tesla off grid generator is also something that is really cool and is supposed to create large amounts of energy from a small device. Doing some research proves that there are many skeptics, but I believe in both of those products. Most people will agree when you tell them that something is happening to Earth, but some claim it is global cooling, or something completely unrelated to climate or the weather. If the entire world went solar, we could potentially never run out of energy. The first demonstration of solar energy was at the Paris World's Fair, but oil overtook it. In the two World Wars, solar power was coming back, but coal was becoming popular and Britain needed scrap metal and what place is better for scrap metal than Egyptian solar panels? Now that we are destroying the world, we are finally deciding to maybe change to a renewable source of energy.
Nothing in the universe deserves to be worshipped

So how was life created again? I don't suppose it just happened out of nowhere. One minute there's dead, lifeless rock, or some other abiotic thing sitting there and BAM its alive, just like that. I also suppose you believe the whole universe just started from nothing when there was nothing before that, and then nothing happened to nothing to form something, perfect scientific sense. I don't see how the universe, much less INTELLIGENT LIFE was formed without the direct intervention of God. I agree that no animal or any organism should be worshipped, I do believe that humans deserve more respect than other animals, because it is the only intelligent and self-conscious being, as I believe, created by God in his own image, and to God we owe all praise and worship. Who says a God would have no wants, needs it would not, but of course the Creator would want us to have faith and trust in Him, and not go against him. I'm sure if God wanted, he could destroy the whole earth right now, as was the parable of Noah's Ark, but He gave us free will to choose, and Adam and Eve chose sin, from the Tree of Knowledge. But through Baptism we are reunited with him. Earth is like a test for humans, the good will go to Heaven and live forever with Jesus, the evil will go to Hell and burn with Satan. Purgatory will prepare those just not ready to go to Heaven. These are my beliefs which I hold true, and before stating anymore I would like to hear your counter-argument.
Nothing in the universe deserves to be worshipped

This is a simple argument against all organized religions fundamental belief. The belief that something exists that deserves every humans respect and worship. Even without evidence these religions claim there is a being above humans that we should submit to and be judged by. This is a flawed system that causes humans to second guess their own intuition and often misguides them by offering up moral codes created by other humans as a means of control. Simply stated: Humans are equal to all other species in the universe as is all other species in the universe are equal to humans, therefore no one species is above the other in deserving worship or respect as a living creature. Second statement: A "god" entity is supposedly omnipotent and all powerful yet it seems they require worship and fellowship. This need contradicts being a god as a true god would have no wants or needs. Therefor there is no god.
Resolved: Gay Marriage Should Be Legalized

Well met, opponent. Of course an activist group is going to define their agenda as a human right. Would I go to a Nazi website to find out if the Holocaust was a good thing? In order to define human rights, we ought to look to generally accepted guidelines, such as the rights listed in John Locke's Social Contract. (i.e. life, liberty, property, health, etc.) "'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion' This is stated in the Constitution." You are correct. However, my problems with gay marriage are not religious matters. This is irrelevant. Jim Crowe laws were extremely discriminatory towards blacks based only on their ethnicity. This is not the case with the gay marriage laws. ============= Contention 1 ============= "The Federal Government may not be able to directly legalize Gay Marriage on their own, but they can create a mandate for it to be voted on in each individual state. Example: There is a Federal Mandate that Abortion is "ok", but each state voted on it and therefore the laws are somewhat different in each state." Last time I checked, a voting on a matter did not guarantee a right establishment. You really didn't attack my contention. ============ Contention 2 ============ "The claim that words can never be changed is ignorant and unwarranted. The definitions of words change over time as society changes. The definition of marriage can and will change if gay marriage is legalized." I never claimed this. However, we do not make laws based on what words might become. We would not make murder illegal since someday it will have a different meaning. =========== Her contention =========== "As a nation we have a history of discrimination. If we want to move away from our tarnished history, we need to eliminate as many instances of inequality from the government as possible. It would be impossible to eradicate every single one, but we can start with the large issues. Namely, the issue of gay marriage. The lack of legalization sets lgbtq americans away from the masses which creates an environment similar to instances of inequality in the past such as the civil rights movement, and if we continue on this track, who knows how long it will take for segregation to appear again? After that, how long before the lynchings? We have to stop this spiral before it goes out of control." There is no spiral happening. We have not banned gay marriage recently. It has never been legal throughout the country. My opponent is saying that we need to rid ourselves of this crutch before be go back to lynching. This is absurd! We are not spiraling down, but rather unwinding. There has not been any kind of ban like my opponent speaks about in the last hundred years or so of the United States. I realize this is not the strongest attack, and I will attack this contention again next round. Thank you.
Resolved: Gay Marriage Should Be Legalized

I would like to add another contention to the round. As a nation we have a history of discrimination. If we want to move away from our tarnished history, we need to eliminate as many instances of inequality from the government as possible. It would be impossible to eradicate every single one, but we can start with the large issues. Namely, the issue of gay marriage. The lack of legalization sets lgbtq americans away from the masses which creates an environment similar to instances of inequality in the past such as the civil rights movement, and if we continue on this track, who knows how long it will take for segregation to appear again? After that, how long before the lynchings? We have to stop this spiral before it goes out of control.
Resolved: Gay Marriage Should Be Legalized

I respect the challenge you have given me. I will follow the order you have set up and begin with responding to your statements. "I have never heard of "the right to marry whom you choose" being a human right. Jefferson did not write about life, liberty, and the right to marry whom you choose. Nor did John Locke write about life, liberty, health, and the right to marry whom you choose. Opponent, please give me an example of where this this "right" is ever deemed a human right. " According to Amnesty International USA, "The right of adults to enter into consensual marriage is enshrined in international human rights standards. " Notice that this quote says "the right of adults", not heterosexual adults, just adults. . http://www.amnestyusa.org... "Who ever said there is supposed to be separation of church and state in the Unites States? " "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" This is stated in the Constitution. . http://www.allabouthistory.org... "If you are thinking of the first amendment, you will realize that that amendment only says that the state will not interfere with religious matters. (Unless of course others' rights are being infringed upon)" As my statement with research from Amnesty International, there is a human right to marriage. Therefore, even if the judge does not think my claim of separation of church and state is valid, the negative's own statement has proved me right. "That is quite a rash claim. Unless you give a warrant for it, it ought not be considered in the debate. " "The most common types of laws forbade intermarriage and ordered business owners and public institutions to keep their black and white clientele separated. " There were Jim Crow laws that banned marriage between whites and blacks. Similarly, the non-legalization of gay marriage banns marriage between men and men and women and women. The laws are so closely linked, which makes them closely related in severity. Now on to the contentions. ========================================================================== Contention 1- The Federal Government of the United States of America does not have the authority to legalize gay marriage in all 50 states. ========================================================================== The Federal Government may not be able to directly legalize Gay Marriage on their own, but they can create a mandate for it to be voted on in each individual state. Example: There is a Federal Mandate that Abortion is "ok", but each state voted on it and therefore the laws are somewhat different in each state. ======================================================= Contention 2- Same-sex marriage does not exist, and can therefore not be legalized. ======================================================= The claim that words can never be changed is ignorant and unwarranted. The definitions of words change over time as society changes. The definition of marriage can and will change if gay marriage is legalized.
Resolved: Gay Marriage Should Be Legalized

I believe Gay Marriage should be legalized because the right to marry whom you choose is a human right, and gays are not any less human than heterosexual Americans. Also, unless someone can prove there is a political reason for not wanting Gays to get married, i will continue believing that the only reason this right is in question is because of religious reasons, and there is supposed to be a seperation of church and state in this country. Also, banning gay marriage is just as bad as a jim crow law.
Why don't people want to believe in God when it's so obvious there's one

Hello, thank your for your arguments. However, my arguments still stand solid. There are things I shall address. First of all, your grammar and spelling is trash. All I see are run on sentences, therefore, I cannot understand much of what you're trying to tell me. You say the Bible "must" have "zero" contradictions because nobody in the comments could answer them. That is the most idiotic excuse for an argument I have ever seen in this website. Also, that is an assumption because you are saying that the Bible has "zero" contradictions, when not even God is proven. Gravity, simple. The Earth is round, so how are we standing on the floor? How is the space station floating in space? Why do objects fall down if you throw them in the air? The simple answer is gravity. It is a proven phenomenon, and you saying that gravity isn't really proven is also idiotic. My arguments were not weak, you failed to refute them. Probably because they were too solid for you. Anyways, my arguments still stand tall. Also, you are failing to read and comprehend what I'm trying to tell you through my arguments, that is why I have to repeat the same thing all over again. When your debating, be sure you are well informed of everything you actually need to know. Don't come to this website with weak prior knowledge. Well, voters should take into consideration, I had: Superior Grammar, and convincing arguments. The rest is up to you. Thank you for this debate. Although we aren't really that friends with each other, I enjoyed this debate. I will see you around soon.
Why don't people want to believe in God when it's so obvious there's one

You are twisting words I have never said God wrote the bible if anything you've misunderstood, what I meant was that God inspired man to write the bible which is is his message to us. Is it really that important that you I should specify that the bible was written by men also you didn't even refute what I said which was that the bible has no contradictions in any way. If you read the whole argument instead of skimming it you would know why I put it in. Mate I know sarcasm it's just difficult to tell if someone is using sarcasm on a written debate especially if you don't know the individual you are debating. I didn't assume there are no contradictions in the Bible I know there are no contradictions in the Bible YOU can't show me any the people in the comments can't show me any I can't find any soo it must have 0 contradictions. You haven't answered any of my arguments you pick and chose one thing out of my argument and left the rest out, also I answered all of your arguments. 1.This proves my point your arguments are weak. 2.You cannot refute my arguments you picked out one thing and left everything else out the second you saw an argument you couldn't refute. And when you say do more research be specific also you need to do more research as well I asked you to prove gravitys existence and you could you do that one thing for me please and refute one of my arguments. Thanks for the debate I love you all with the love of God including psychscientist (no homo) and have a nice day. :)
Why don't people want to believe in God when it's so obvious there's one

Hello, I thank you for your arguments. You didn't refute anything of my arguments, absolutely anything. Saying that I've been "twisting words" is not refuting an argument. You should go and mature a bit. You said that God left the Bible for us to know what he did. So yes, you are basically saying that God made the Bible, and therefore, left it for us. You never actually specified that you believed that the Bible was made by men anyway, so you must have figured that out now. I must have misunderstood about the Bible having no spelling and grammar, however, I don't know why you would even bring something so meaningless in this debate. I thought that you had assumed that the Bible had no errors, as in everything in it was true. And I did not mean God left a Book on the floor literally, you should learn about sarcasm. You should grow-up, mature. You must have come to this debate, very well informed, however, you have proven otherwise. I also recommend learning better grammar and vocabulary, because I cannot sometimes understand a thing with all the run-on sentences. "Your arguments were easy to refute." There were never "twisted words". You didn't refute my argument, therefore, my argument stands.