BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Does God exist

In conclusion, Pros only arguments were the mathematical structures in nature and the argument of fine tuning. I tried to refute Pros argument of natures mathematical processes by using evolutionary theory as a well proven explanation for how it occurred, along with detailed analogies simple enough to understand. However, Pro also shows a slight cherry picking fallacy when dealing with complex examples in nature. As I have stated before, organisms today are the product of 3.5 billion years worth of refinement, with over 99% of species dead as a result. Nonetheless, Pro still ignores this fact and instead emphasises the beast examples of complex "design", rather than accepting my perfectly reasonable explanation. Furthermore, Pro focuses on the one random part of evolution, namely, genetic mutation to prove that complex mechanisms can come about by evolution, which I have stated several times is not how evolution goes (similar to finding a heap of gold next to a river bed, which is absurd). Once again, trial and error. Pro also brings up at the last minute the improbability of Abiogenesis (life coming from non-life). I must remind him that the theory of evolution is different to Abiogenesis. I must also remind the voters and readers that Pro wasn't supposed to add this extra argument, as the structure of Round 3, argument 6 was: "Turn 6: Answer questions and rebuttals (Pro)" No new arguments. Furthermore, I am unable to rebut this new argument since this is the conclusion. Therefore, it would be appreciated if all voters ignore this extra argument during the voting period. Thank you. Anyway, Pro finally says that I (Con) should conclude that a broken down home was created by a designer, even though it seemed horrible for life to inhabit. I agree, but that was not the propose of my previous refutation, which I clearly stated: "I'm not arguing that's the universe wasn't designed. I'm arguing that the universe wasn't designed for life as you propose" It was to address Pro's fine-tuning argument, not the "In Esse" cosmological argument (which is different). Therefore, my refutations seem untouched. Pro merely repeats the same arguments from before in response to his refutation. Pro also accuses me of bringing up the bible in the comments section, which I did. This seems a hypocritical anyway, since he brought it up. He even contradicts himself when he says "No, the earth really is forever". Before, he said "Not even Christians believe that this earth is forever" Repeating refuted arguments, poor refutations and blatant contradictions.
Crumple or Fold

Well, if you believe it is ridiculous, then you probably shouldn't have accepted. Nevertheless, if you are willing to keep going, this can still be a good debate. Ok, fair enough, I will concede that it saves paper and trees. But at what cost? 1: Folding wastes precious time. While you're sitting there having a nice little toilet-paper-tea-party, I'm already done because I just grabbed it and went. Ain't no shame in that. 2: Crumpling provides a better cushion for your fingers. The extra paper used in crumpling creates a bigger barrier between your fingers and the hazardous waste zone, making the whole process more comfortable, and reducing the risk of what I call "finger poisoning" if you know what I mean. A lot of people would say you could just fold extra toilet paper and get the same results, but that would first of all negate the argument about saving paper, and second of all, even so, the extra air space in between the crumples that you get from crumpling provides even more of a cushion and sort of acts as a stabilizer. Those are my arguments so far as to the benefits of crumple over fold. I pose the question, are there even any benefits at all to folding? I really see no point. Many people that I know who fold say they do it because it is "more enjoyable." Honestly, that's just weird. The enjoyable part of pooping should be getting the stuff out of you. If you find enjoyment from cleaning up afterwards, you are just sick. I patiently await Con's response.
Crumple or Fold

Anyone who has ever wiped their butt knows what I mean when I say Crumple or Fold. It's simple: Crumple: "Ripping off toilet paper and just sticking it up there and wiping, often using obscene amounts of paper and just going for it." Fold: "Neatly tearing off a few pieces of toilet paper, folding it up really nice and proper, and delicately wiping." The Burden of Proof will be shared. I am Pro, in favor of the crumple, and Con will be in favor of folding. You must show the benefits of folding and why it is better than crumpling to win. I hope this debate isn't too "crappy". ;)
Children should do chores at home.

Thank you for your enthusiasm on this topic of "children should do chores at home". In my opinion, it is not children's obligation to do "chores at home". As we all know, today's society is a society with its foundation on knowledge instead of labor. It is children's responsibility and obligation to fulfill their school work and further develop on their academic achievements. Although social behavior is also a significant element involved in individuals' development as a whole, however, "chores" are not involved in this category because children should spend their time helping each other with schoolwork and thus achieving the goal of social interaction with academic purposes. That, in my personal view, is one of the reasons why children should not do chores at home. Secondly, the noun "children" is specifically referring to kids under the age of 18. Children's perspective of the world and attitude towards others are at growth at that age range. Doing chores has the possibility of leaving some antilabor opinions or deviate their perspective of the world. If doing chores has already become a habit of that children, what will he think when seeing other children at the same age who are not doing chores? Will he feel unfair, angry, thus rebellious? The comparison between children is an important factor of children being disgraced or laughed at, at school. Furthermore, the competition between children is fierce and violent these days. They have to work harder and harder in order to get into a good university which can help them achieve the most, both academically and characteristically. If they cannot even make it into a university, or into a bad one, how can they learn both academic knowledge and character education well there? If they put their time on chores, and fail on the long-term development (college), will their parents (family) feel proud? Although I do think that doing chores is, theoretically, good for the corporeal growth of children, it does not necessarily need to take place during the age under 18. In college, I believe, there is plenty of challenges for teenagers to face, including those chores. Therefore, I strongly support the notion that children should not do chores at home. Thank you.
"Hopefully we'll make it to Athens before nightfall" is bad grammar.

My Opponent's MisconceptionBeing a writer myself, I share my opponent's passion for grammar; I do not, however, share his misapprehensions about the usage of adverbs. Pro seems to think that adverbs cannot begin a sentence or that they can't precede the word they are modifying, but neither of these misconceptions are true.Just look at his very first sentence: "Technically, this word is an adverb[...]""Technically" is an adverb as well and is used validly in this case."Hopefully""Hopefully" is an adverb meaning "in a hopeful manner" or "it is hoped; if all goes well"[1] and it is perfectly correct to use it as such at the very beginning of a sentence, such as "Hopefully, we'll make it to Athens before nightfall." Dictionary.com even uses the word in a very similar manner in its example sentence: "Hopefully, we will get to the store on time."[1]In both sentences (my opponent's example and Dictionary.com's example), "Hopefully" is modifying the verb "will".That being said...The original sentence is still grammatically incorrect; there is a comma missing after "Hopefully" and there is no punctuation at the end of the sentence. However, the reason my opponent mentioned is, of course, incorrect.Source[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...
"Hopefully we'll make it to Athens before nightfall" is bad grammar.

Technically, this word is an adverb meaning "in a hopeful way." Therefore, "Gabrielle looked hopefully at Xena" is correct while "Hopefully we'll make it to Athens before nightfall" is incorrect. Even though the usage of this word has changed, it is still incorrect to use it in a state other than an adverb. "He played piano good." I hear this a lot... Does that mean it's correct if it is used a bunch? NO.. The correct way of saying that sentence is "He played the piano well" or "He ihass gotten good at playing piano."
Chewing gum in class

Accepted. This round shall be judged (in terms of arguments) based on whether or not the Aff can show that chewing gums promotes the purpose of school. First, definitions. Although there are quite a few purposes of school, they all surround development, physically, emotionally, and socially [1]. For this reason, the purpose of school will be defined as follows: To develop students into the best adults they can be. Best will be defined as "offering or producing the greatest advantage"[2]. This means that a school should do whatever will give the students the greatest advantage in life. Argument 1: Harms of chewing gum. There are a variety of harms that come from chewing gum that give the children a disadvantage in life. a: fast food. Chewing a lot of gum is shown to encourage the eating of fast food. This can lead to problems later in life such as diabetes and obesity. b: temporomandibular joint disorder. Chewing too much gum, especially if it is chewed more heavily on one side of the mouth, can lead to temporomandibular joint disorder. This can lead to a variety of pains ranging from headaches to toothaches. c: gastrointestinal problems. Chewing gum can cause a variety of gastrointestinal problems ranging from irritable bowel syndrome to regular abdominal pain. d: tooth problems. Chewing gum, even sugar free gum, leads to teeth issues. Regular gum essentially bathes one's teeth in sugar while sugar-free gum can surround the teeth with harmful acids. [3] Argument 2: Even sugar-free gum has many health risks. Despite the fact that some doctors recommend it, sugar-free gum has been found to have a strong negative effect on teeth. Sugar-free gum contains within it acid that is very problematic to the teeth. This supposedly-safe sugar-free gum can often cause dental erosion, disadvantaging the child who chews it. [4]. Overall, gum, whether sugar-free or not, causes massive detriments to health that set the kids who chew it at a disadvantage in life. This doesn't meet the purpose of school and chewing gum should thus not be allowed. [1]http://www.purposeofschool.com... [2]http://www.merriam-webster.com... [3]http://articles.mercola.com... [4]http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
Debate.org voting prerequisite of three completed debates

Alrighty then.First argument conceded.I will defend my second argument just because there's still one round left, and I might as well continue.Rebuttals:Con writes "They should not be barred from voting because they do not choose to partake in debate themselves."The problem is, it ranges from exceptionally difficult to impossible to judge the ability of a random member who has never engaged in a debate. While I agree that some people may, without debating here, have good judgement when it comes to voting, no one can be sure without seeing them in action.Vote for me, but give Con CONduct.
Debate.org voting prerequisite of three completed debates

Thank you for the welcome. I appreciate it.The legitimacy of voters argument is persuasive. What does Debate.org gain from having the requirement in place? The defense against voter fraud. What does it lose? More input and the ability of some to participate in the voting process. In the end, I think the pro outweighs the con and I come to agree that there should be a completed debates requirement. I also agree that taken holistically, a community of devoted debaters is less biased than those outside the community. Debaters are accustomed to evaluating the merits of arguments and thus, would be less likely to pick a side unconditionally. I disagree with your second contention, though.You wrote, "If you intend to be a member on this site, it stands to reason that you will debate." There is certainly a high chance that the member would debate. However, there may be some who would just read and evaluate debates. They should not be barred from voting because they do not choose to partake in debate themselves.I forfeit this debate because I came to agree that there should be a completed debates requirement to protect against voter fraud.
Debate.org voting prerequisite of three completed debates

For starters, I would like to welcome my opponent to DDO. Welcome!I will be arguing that at least five debates should be completed for voting.Rebuttals:Con writes "Simply, one does not have to have debated to evaluate a debate."I agree.Arguments:Contention One: Legitimacy of VotersI could right now make a phony account for this site, get it verified, and vote for myself on every debate. The only obstacle is that I would have to complete three debates first.Those three debates would require at least some investment of time on my behalf. I could just make three one-round debates where I make one-line arguments, but that would immediately draw suspicion to me.The three debates requirement helps deter illegitimate accounts, and while it does not do that perfectly, it does help.This also applies to people who show up for a day, start an account, and then never come back. If they could immediately verify their account, it is not improbable that some of them would vote, and that their votes would be very biased. Not everyone who visits DDO is automatically an expert on debate, and it stands to reason that letting everyone and their grandma vote with every new account they make would lead to some very unfair votes.Contention Two: DEBATE.orgThis site is debate.org. If you intend to be a member on this site, it stands to reason that you will debate. If all you want to do is read debates, you don't need to be a member on this site. If you want to be a full-fledged member, you should debate.At any rate, while you don't have to have debated to evaluate a debate, having debated helps educate you on how debates work. It helps you notice things like dropped arguments, concessions, strawmen, etc. etc.Since a brand new account could be a master debater or it could be a twelve year old boy who stumbled across this site, it makes sense to force everyone to debate a few debates before voting. That way, it can be insured that everyone has at least a very basic understanding of debate. Thank you.
Debate.org voting prerequisite of three completed debates

In order to vote in a debate on this site, one needs to have had three debates himself or herself. I am arguing that this requirement should not exist. The contender needs to argue that there should be a requirement of completed debates (the number does not matter) for voting. Simply, one does not have to have debated to evaluate a debate. In the American presidential debates, the public is polled on the victors of each contest. This makes sense. As logical beings, people can analyze and make determinations of the arguments set before them. One does not need debate experience to do this.
Resolved, that English should be made the official language of the United States

Props to Danielle, she made some quite challenging points that I'll try to address. The entire purpose of this policy would be to prevent xenophobia and alienation. People, when emigrating to the United States, come here because they have a dream of being the kind of success here that they could never have had in their native countries. When they arrive, however, they're often found toiling away, not able to make advances because of their lack of ability to communicate with people. Many say that they key to success is having connections, but how can these non-English speakers ever make connections through that language barrier? Proponents of immigration say that immigrants are important because they take jobs that other Americans are not willing to take, and while I don't disagree with that, that should not be all that new immigrants are relegated to. Xenophobia is a huge problem in the United States, and immigration can be used as an asset against that, to bring back the melting pot image that the United States has been associated with for so long. But that process can't even start if immigrants can't speak English. That will only further scare native born Americans away from immigrants, and it will deny both groups the opportunity for cultural exchange that otherwise they would be generously afforded. I'm also not advocating for any languages to be lost, and I don't think that this policy would make that happen. I'm arguing that English be made the official language, not the only language. It would just be the language the government uses, and that would encourage everybody to learn the language. People would still be free to use whatever language they prefer in their day-to-day life, so they would be free to preserve as much of their tradition and family heritage as they choose. As for people on waiting lists for English language classes, the government could easily offer additional classes themselves to support the new policy. Have fun with these points, this is looking like an excellent debate.
Right and wrong is perception

I believe that right and wrong is a perception. If someone disagrees then I hope to have fun with them.1-acceptance2-posistions3-rebuttals4-summarization/rebuttalsRight-in accordance with what is good, proper, or justWrong-not proper or usual; not in accordance with requirements or recommended practicePerception-immediate or intuitive recognition or appreciation, as of moral, psychological, or aesthetic qualities
Right and wrong is perception

1. Morality Morality was given to us by God. He created this world for us to live in harmony together, and gave us the [1] Ten Commandments as a basis for how we should live. He also instilled in our human nature, the natural inclination to do "good". Not only good in our eyes, but in his. He created "good" and "bad". "Right" and "wrong". So, whether or not we decide to see it that way, it is still the truth. Even if we decide to see murder, robbery, or rape as good things, God made it otherwise. You don't have to agree with it, to see that it is true. Murder is wrong, even if some believe it to be otherwise. Same for robbery and rape. We have a natural inclination to be good moral people, and so I argue that morals have been instilled to us, by God, and that while some may believe opposite, it is still true.2. Opinions vs Morality "Even if some how my opponent proves morality is objective, right and wrong had to have been based on how we see things in a moral sense." What this comes down to is, is right and wrong an opinion, or natural law. My examples of murder, rape, and robbery, are natural laws, that is, it is naturally immoral to commit either, while it is naturally moral to give life, and to look out for your neighbors, and to give to your neighbors. But if, lets say, you argue it is right to like baseball, but wrong to like basketball, that is a matter of opinion, not morals. So, my point is, yes opinions are perceptive, but, right and wrong, in the form of moral and immoral, are naturally instilled in us, in our human nature, and so certain things are naturally moral or immoral, regardless of your point of view. You can argue whether it is right or wrong to like a sport, a genre of music, or have a certain form of government. But you cannot argue what is moral, is immoral, or vice versa.Conclusion I argue that Morality is not subjective, but that it is naturally instilled upon us by God, in our human nature. Good and bad can be perceptive, in the form of many different things, but morality is not. Morality is certain, undeniable. No matter what your point of view is, it is morally wrong to kill, rape, or steal. So my conclusion is, morality is certain, "right" and "wrong", can come in many different forms, but in the form of "moral" and "immoral", they are certian, no matter your point of view. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
ISIL is more powerful than America

First off, they call themselves ISIS now, not ISIL. Secondly, America as a country has more citizens, army men and firepower compared to ISIS. America isn't winning as they don't want to be fully involved in a conflict that is not there own, and leaving their country defenceless would be catastrophic. American troops have problems in attack, but will be good in defence, as they can establish bunkers and turrets and know their territory.
Music has Crossed its Boundaries

Okay, so ConservativeLiberal01, copying and pasting does not make your argument effective, it just makes you look stupid. It seems like my opponent has dropped everything that I had mentioned in round 2. She had nothing to say about freedom in America. She had nothing to say about questioning America's amendments. She had nothing to say about her purification mistakes. She had nothing to say about promoting free speech over other forms of free speech. She had nothing to say about how her logic works for none of the other amendments, and if her "bill" passes. than other amendments can be questioned too, and those questions will be passed. It seems like she has not even tried to defend her argument against my arguments which means that either my arguments are too superior for her to handle, or that she agrees with my arguments, or she didn't read them. If my arguments were to superior to handle, than that means that I win this debate because even my opponent can't handle them. If she agrees with my arguments, than I win overall because she basically forfeited. If she didn't read my arguments, than she must either have too much pride, or just too lazy to read them, therefor I win.