BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The origin of the universe being complete impossible to prove

well first evolution may still be posable your right but life did not start from evolution and if it did that meanse we are rocks and dirt and i would rather not think like that. Second macro evolution has nothing nothing at all to do with creation because there could not be evolution in seven days on that scale other wise se would long be pass human. Her is the reason it is imposible for it to be more than seven days because plants were created on the 4th day and they didnt have water till the 5th day so they would have well died off if it had been years and years and there wasnt creatures to provide them with oxygen either. so there for evolution and creation have nothing to do with each other second creationist say the earth is 6-10 years old right let me tell you right. and you say the earth is 100,000,000 - 100,000,000,000,000 years old well in 1969 we sent man to the moon. (please agree with me on that) Ok the eagle (the actual part of the ship tha landed on the moon im sure you knew this but making sure) was designed to land in 100,000,000,000 years worth of moon dust wich would be roughly six feet but how much did it actualy land in aproximatly a 1/4 of an inch wich roughly 6-10 thousand years worth of moon dust, ok the oldest living thing on earth the great barrier reef i know its technically dead but its alive was estimated to be 4,400 years old which is when the flood of Noah happened. and if the earth was 100,000,000,000 years old the sun would have had to start burning past the orbit of earth which would make us worse than just a floating cinder. i dont have much else to say besides to tell you yet once again you can not prove in any way that the univers was for sure was made from the big bang.
Abortion in the embrionic period is necessarily immoral

I thank Con again for this thought-provoking debate. While children may be thinking, felling, self-aware, with a desire to live, this is not true of infants. So again, Con must either oppose abortion or support infanticide. However, even the embryo is part of a sentient species and has the inherent capacity to perform these functions. They just haven't developed them yet. Con's argument could also be used to support killing a sleeping person or a person in a reversible coma, which most people would believe are immoral acts. Additionally, I already responded to Con's objection about being dependent on only one person, in the analogy of the swimming pool. Con has chosen not to respond as it clearly shows that being dependent on one person does not make one non-valuable. Con would still have a moral obligation to help that child, despite being the only person in the entire world it is depending on for its survival, even if it doesn't know it. As such, I extend my argument. I have shown why abortion in the embryonic period is immoral. You are killing an innocent human being with the inherent capacity to fulfill all the functions that make humans valuable.
Abortion in the embrionic period is necessarily immoral

Now some one may say the the two situations are not morally equal, I would reply, you are exactly right. You see the pregnant woman at least has the excuse in the the embryonic period to say her decision won't change whether a child lives or die (I mean real child not an embyro here) even more so, its her body that's on the line. Pro can't even have that as an excuse, as they could give up all there wealth and possessions and not put there body on the line at all, unlike a pregnant women.
Abortion in the embrionic period is necessarily immoral

I would just like to clarify one point. I do believe that abortions in the case of the mother's life being in immediate danger, and both mother and child cannot be saved (e. g. during ectopic pregnancy), are justified. In this case, it is a matter of triage, not abortion. Two patients are in mortal danger and only one can be saved, the one with the greater chance of survival (the mother) is saved. So I will be arguing that killing humans in the embryonic period of development is immoral in all other cases. As Con is making the claim that killing human embryos is not necessarily immoral, I will await his opening argument as he bears the burden of proof.
Abortion in the embrionic period is necessarily immoral

Definitions Abortion is the end (termination) of a pregnancy. A low-risk surgical procedure called suction aspiration or suction curette is generally used for first trimester abortions. Medical (non-surgical) abortions using medications such as mifepristone (RU486) are available in some clinics. [1] The embryonic period in humans begins at fertilization (penetration of the egg by the sperm) and continues until the end of the 10th week of gestation (8th week by embryonic age). [2] If you have any problems with the debate, use the comments section so we can agree to terms before we start the debate. Sources [1]http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au... [2]http://en.wikipedia.org...
PetersSmith Works for Juggle

Ok, Wylted, your arguments did not convince me that Peters Smith doesn't work for Juggle, she did, in her response to you on the comments of this debate. I no longer care if I win this debate, I care that I have harmed the reputation of someone, PetersSmith, who did nothing wrong. She is an assertive female, as I myself am. She holds a position of more authority than most members on DDO. Imabench's Movie had me speculating that an outside force was killing meaningful dialog on the forums. Some members themselves are killing the freedom of expression on the forums.@PetersSmith, I owe you a sincere apology. I no longer care if you do work for Juggle, or OneSpace, it's really none of my business. I did read many of the polls you made over a year ago when the polls were working. They were done meticulously with much thought put into them. I can see why airmax gave you the position of polls moderator. Anyone who judges this debate must consider that Wylted broke the rules of "no personal insults" that he agreed to when he accepted this debate. If you don't vote it a tie, I will report the vote. I am now convinced that my resolution is false but not through the efforts of my opponent, and my opponent broke the main rule of this debate, so the only fair ruling should be a tie.I hope anyone who reads this debate will realize that OneSpace is a company who pays freelance writers very little money for menial tasks, until they work their way into a more prestigious positions. Writers like PetersSmith could have fallen victim to their invitation, but I no longer think she works for them.
PetersSmith Works for Juggle

I accept and want to indicate that pro said the debate should be judged by persuasiveness which is not the ordinary voting standards. Normal voting would be looking at arguments from a tabula Rasa mental state and weighing arguments in a more systematic way. Persuasiveness means judges are allowed to bring prior bias and prejudice to the debate, as it is about how well my opponent can persuade. This puts pro at a disadvantage, but she created the disadvantage for herself and judges should not feel sorry for her. If she uses extremely good arguments, even better arguments than me, but they don't persuade you, than vote for me. Arguments such as nihilism are often harder to argue against, but people do not find them persuasive. In a normal debate not responding to nihilist arguments could give me a loss, but since this debate is about persuasiveness, the judges do not need to require me to respond to arguments that aren't convincing. I just wanted to educate the judges on the format real quick.
PetersSmith Works for Juggle

Should she accept, it is an automatic win for me, since she cannot bear to read a debate about her authoritative persona on DDO. I think PetersSmith works for Juggle, as a OneSpace Employee.1st round is for acceptance. Rules - no personal attacks of PetersSmith. Citing her behavior via forum postings or on the polls is allowed and encouraged. - BoP is shared - I will be presenting my theory about why I think PetersSmith works for Juggle in R2. Con should either rebutt my theory or make a counterclaim about why she doesn't work for Juggle. Voting should be on who was more persuasive in convincing you of their claims. On a side note: I have never played mafia but I understand that the object of the game is to determine who is mafia through observations and questions. Consider that the way I compiled my theory about PetersSmith working for Juggle is similar to the way a game of mafia is played.
Having a choice is not the same as being free

Thank you - I understand your argument. Friend you gave a definition of freedom that is not that bad. I have no real problem with it except in the context of which you have grounded your objection. You state that "You can't "act or speak" without making the choice to do so. While will and choice are indeed two different things, you can't have one without the other." BUT I HAVE TWO THINGS TO SAY IN REPLY. 1. I already addressed the substance of this idea when I wrote "THE ARGUMENT AGAINST THIS probably has to revolve somewhere around the will. I imagine someone will say "creating music or paintings or speeches requires all forms of choices...dilemma's- so how can you say what you have said." Thats a good point but is not an argument. The will alone is separate from choice and freedom of its own being. If you choose to create something you will perform that entire act of freedom and inspiration arriving from that choice. The will performs its functions by knowledge and instinct and while it can be overrided in some aspect - it is merely the median between choosing and freedom." THIS POINT was about distinguising the difference between the will and the choice itself. The will is the arbitor of choice in the pursuit of freedom. AGAIN CHOICE ISN'T BAD and FREEDOM IS GOOD. Both these concepts are harmonious with one another but to blend them absolutely flies in the face of the spontaneity of inspiration which leads me to: POINT 2- You can know the "qualic" (experiential) difference between being free and making a choice. ASK ANY ARTIST - WHEN THEY'RE INSPIRED ITS LIKE MAGIC. This is freedom. Maybe they use the knowledge and methods and skill of already known and chosen matters but that is not the defining of the being free. Ask any monk who has been in prison... lol or just the monastery. There are several monastic examples of extraordinary persons who, as a final choice - lay down their own choosings to superiors in their orders - yet in their deepest meditations - in their brewing, composing, painting, mosaicing, weaving, chanting, and occasionally laughing and recreating we see, in great detail, individuals who are absolutely free whether or not their choices are made for them. Finally - if you know that "will" and "choice" are not even the same - on what basis do you merge these two autonomous concepts onto "freedom." In all friendliness I see no substantiated objection to my position. Thank you.
Having a choice is not the same as being free

The negation will need to show how having or even making a choice is the same as being free. Democrat or Republican. Target or Walmart or Sears or Fred Meyers. You can have as many choices as are available. Choice could be a fancy word in reality for dilemma. Everyday our lives are distracted by so many choices. Sometimes, or if you're like me, often, it can be hard to choose between competing ideas or goods or whatever. This is not freedom. This is a crisis. By contrast - when I make music or deliver a speech or listen to music and knit - when I am in the mode of creation I feel alive and free. Freedom and creation may not be all that unrelated. I will posit that absent dilemma and in a state of creation - freedom is more substantially known and described. THE ARGUMENT AGAINST THIS probably has to revolve somewhere around the will. I imagine someone will say "creating music or paintings or speeches requires all forms of choices...dilemma's- so how can you say what you have said." Thats a good point but is not an argument. The will alone is separate from choice and freedom of its own being. If you choose to create something you will perform that entire act of freedom and inspiration arriving from that choice. The will performs its functions by knowledge and instinct and while it can be overrided in some aspect - it is merely the median between choosing and freedom. I am not saying choice is bad and freedom is good. I am simply positing that they are different experiences...phenomena.
People don't vote for solarman because he is overbearing, cocky, and rude

I cant really argue with any of your points I am polite. I just agressively assers the CONSERVATIVE POSITION, as I see it It MUST be stated, and DEFENDED If we DONT PROTECT what makes this country and the world SPECIAL the TYRANTS and DESPOTS will take over and misery will follow I am a WARNING SIREN not unlike the religion of OLD the Bible the Torah the Words of the Ancients Disobey truth at your own PERIL SOLARMAN
People don't vote for solarman because he is overbearing, cocky, and rude

YAY!!! I am totally excited to be debating you Mr. Solardude! I have seen your debate and am happy that you have accepted one of mine. I really want you to win more and I know that deep down you have a warm and soft heart. You just need to find it. Being angry about everything in the world can sometimes cloud ones vision. I do want the votes. To beat you would be an honor! But I do disagree. I don't think this site is absolutely permanent and I am sure that in 50 years people won't care about us. We are just withering stars in a vast space. Someday we will all be part of mother nature once again. Then I can nestle myself in her bosom. Oh what joys the world can bring to me! But now to the actual debate. You are an arrogant, overbearing, rude person who should not win any debates because of that. I think you make intelligible points that provide you with some credibility. But you must remember the lyrics to the song. Risin' up, back on the street Did my time, took my chances Went the distance, now I'm back on my feet Just a man and his will to survive So many times, it happens too fast You change your passion for glory Don't lose your grip on the dreams of the past You must fight just to keep them alive It's the eye of the tiger, it's the cream of the fight Risin' up to the challenge of our rival And the last known survivor stalks his prey in the night And he's watchin' us all in the eye of the tiger Just believe in yourself and all things can become possible. But really young padwan, eat much and grow strong. Only way to make brain grow big and strong. So remember that you can win debates and get your voice heard only if you are nice and polite to people! Cheers! - Cheeks
People don't vote for solarman because he is overbearing, cocky, and rude

you are correct I am cocky , with reason I am rude, always have been. It is my English thug/punk heritage Get over it. Overbearing is not really sufficient- too much sounding like a Jewish mother, of which about 59% fit that term- Gotta love them- I have like 8 extra moms as a result ! I am WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAy more rude than "overbearing" - Do you think I give a F*** what the votes are? ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ! you make me laugh Here is what you have to remember, kid This is a PERMANENT RECORD. Everything you type in an argument or a comment is part of a PERMANENT RECORD that ANYONE in the world can read Think about it, comments that we make right now wil be able to be viewed maybe 50 YEARS later Think I will still have lost all the "votes" then? when the votes are maybe in the MILLIONS? and ALOT MORE HISTORY has gone down? Think my comments on Islam will be seen as far right out there then ? Think my positions will have changed? Think YOURS will ? Alot to think about isnt it? Good luck "winning the vote" Hope that makes you happy SOLARMAN remember that
CRYPTIDS: They're real.

Alright, Nessie. So far there has only been photos of Nessie or documentaries talking about "mysterious shadows in the Lake". Maybe some of the people who claimed to Nessie are liars and maybe they aren't. But it's not like there's some secret organization to make up animals and spread them across the world to entertain or irritate the people. There are also carcasses found around the world of what looks to be a Mokele Mbembe which is another cryptid. If we find bodies and we find proof then who's to say that Nessie isn't real?
CRYPTIDS: They're real.

Cryptids are basically creatures that are known to either be fake or real. Examples of a cryptid would be BigFoot,the Jersey Devil and Thunderbird. In my opinion, they're real...they just don't want to be found. In this debate, you can either choose a cryptid to battle on and start right away or battle right from the start on any crypid that comes into your mind. I actually want to be a cryptozoologist when I grow up so I know a couple things or two. Don' tbe a WUSS. I promise that I will debate fair and good.
Which is better? 0.7 (pro) or 0.5 (con) lead/graphite

"you will be able to fit more lead into the pencil meaning that it takes longer for you to find it" That does not make sense. "way more common therefore makes its value less" There a limited amount of rocks in an office. Does that make rocks more valuable? No. Merely having a limited supply of something does not guarantee it to be more valuable. If there were a choice between $5 of 0.5 lead and $5 of 0.7, but since the 0.5 is more valuable you are given less overall lead/dollar than 0.7, I would choose the 0.7 lead to get more bang for my buck. In any light, even if I were getting the same amount of overall lead/graphite, I would still prefer 0.7 between the two for my reasons in round 2.
Which is better? 0.7 (pro) or 0.5 (con) lead/graphite

That's a decent argument. BUT NOOOOO you see 0.5 lead is much better first of all when having a pencil with 0.5 lead that means that you will be able to fit more lead into the pencil meaning that it takes longer for you to find it. Whenever i'm in school and take any lead pencil its always 0.7 lead meaning that is is way more common therefore makes its value less. Now but 0.5 lead is much more scarce meaning that it is more valuable.
Which is better? 0.7 (pro) or 0.5 (con) lead/graphite

I posit the following reasons as my first arguments for 0.7's superiority: - It does not break as easily as a thinner 0.5 mm, this both saves overall product and allows for darker writing. - It is so close in price and widely manufactured in a nearly perfectly competitive industry that prices hardly differ between the two choices, yet you receive more usage per piece of 0.7 than 0.5. - To my subjective experience, when I find mechanical pencils on the ground I seem to receive more 0.7-capable than 0.5-capable. If one receives more pencils for free (on the ground) it would make sense to carry the size more suited to those on the ground so that they may be used. - 0.7 is already sharp enough to cause accurate writing, deeming the additional increase of sharpness of 0.5 unnecessary for that task.
Give a speech

Every single day of our lives we claim to be living. But are? Really? following the same schedule over and over again, are we really accomplishing anything worthy of saying that we're truly living? In order for us to enjoy the full effects of happiness that life really has to offer, we absolutely must change our attitudes accordingly such that we can see all the glorious things! What's life without enjoyment? What's anything unless you can feel happy doing it? I'm not saying that we should all be "happy go-lucky" all the time. It's okay to feel hurt, and to be sad when things happen. But It's up to us on whether we choose to hold on to them or not! Yes, each and every one of you really are that powerful! Let's not hold on to our grungies and get things done! Let's apply for that job you've always wanted. Let's go on that vacation you've been waiting to go on for years! Let's see places and do things that you thought un-imaginable! Let's live! So many of us choose to live life as zombies, lifeless, dull, meaningless. Let's put that meaning back into our lives again. Because the meaning of life to me, is to enjoy it. Thankyou.
Give a speech

That where wonderful extensions and clarifications from my opponent! So now I will, I will give my closing points. You, whomever you might be have more likely than not read all of the prior of this debate, otherwise you would not be reading this. So I am not going to waste your time by attempting to re-iterate every part of my oratory. instead this will be short and sweet. Santa Clause is very much so real, in our hearts and in our minds. We tend to get so caught up in what is and what is not, that we forget to dream; we forget to lose ourselves in the childhood innocence of yesteryear. But I urge you all, for just a moment do not worry about being an Adult/ a Teen/ a Parent. I ask you to take a moment to be a child again. to relive a moment, when everything was possible, and everything was real. Because even now, that is true. all things are possible- we can dream and we can believe So while I feel I have shown how Santa Clause is real, I feel the purpose here runs much deeper than that. Because in our hearts we still pine for these childish wonders, and we still hold them close as precious memories and joyous times near forgotten. But I plead, don't forget to dream; Never Grow up. Santa Clause, is real.
Give a speech

*Off the record*Like-wise to the beginning of my opponent's last speech, I offer a big fat ditto! While I disagree with a few mute points about my opponent's oratory, it was none-the-less a very much enjoyable experience reading it. So now going on to my own speech, I am thankful to say that I feel clarifications are not necessary, so I will use all of my time expanding upon, and extending my prior points. so I can show you, that Santa Clause is indeed real. So first, reality is subjective. As I stated before there are many many times in our lives that we get that (Ah-Ha!) epiphany moment, in which we feel we have it all figured out. Life is one way, and one way alone. However these (are as opposed to the assumed freedom) restricting chains that bind our minds to an empty world. Mankind can never know for certain; that they know anything for certain. to say Santa clause does not exist would be an assumption of fact, wherein this cannot known as fact. To one person he may not exist, but to another (i.e. me) he is as alive as can be. And moving the extensions right along, beliefs can go beyond reality. So lets assume for a moment that the tangibility we inhabit is fact reality. (A leap I know, but bare with me) the thing we believe, or believe in can go beyond this tangibility. Are Ideas Tangible? Are thoughts Tangible? Unless you had backstage passes to the preview of Inception; the answer is no. but that doesn't mean we have to believe them any less. Au Contrair, that makes them all the more appealing to believe, all the more appealing to be real. So maybe you will to deny that Saint Nickolas never existed? He still exists at the bare minimum in the ideological realm of thought an emotion. but more than that, we can finish by reviewing that Santa Clause is intertwined with the very spirit of Christmas itself. I defy you to leave your home during the month of January, and not see this man's merchandise everywhere. His face will be plastered everywhere, his cartoon special will invade you T.V. and your heart will grow warm with the though of his elves in the north. You see even though the commercialism of Old Saint Nick is present, it's his spirit does not die. It's the symbolism he holds, and the memories he makes. Whether you believe in Santa, whether you do not. Our very innate nature calls us to believe in something, anything! I believe in Santa, Santa is real; at the very least to me.