BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Creation(Pro) vs. Evolution(Con)

OK. I"m ending this. You have not even heard of the bands and artists I listen to. Music is also something I take very seriously in which your teeny tiny sad sack of a puking plastic vomit yodeling grunge country opera twang of a piano wire brain fried on baked water doesn"t get is that originality takes a top prize, in which is something you know nothing about, nothing, because in being original, being different, unlike a schmultz like you is the most difficult thing there is, BY FAR in the music world. AND there are those that dare to be different, many who have been around for decades, unlike The Katy Perry"s and the Justin Beiber"s that you love and you play tiddlywinks in between your you know where areas passing gallstones to gain acceptance because you will never get it any other way. Bye.
Creation(Pro) vs. Evolution(Con)

Evolution is proven fact. Evolution is science. But due to the FACT that my opponent is only 15 (and probably lied about his age and is probably younger, but we'll let it fly) he doesn't know what science is. Antibiotic resistant microbes, better known as "superbugs" is 100% confirmation and certification and proven fact that evolution is taking place right here in the here and the now. Antibiotic resistant microbes are evolving every single second of every single day to become more resistant to antibiotics. Superbug 1.a pathogenic bacterium that has developed immunity to antibiotics, or an insect that has developed immunity to insecticides. (has developed means evolution is taking place) Now watch the vidies that proves evolution is taking place in the here and now) http://www.youtube.com... - Frontline - The Trouble with Antibiotics Documentary http://www.youtube.com... - Rise Of Superbugs Resistant To Antibiotics | Full Documentary http://www.youtube.com... - Antibiotics Resistance The so what nothingness god of the bible (thankfully) is not proven fact No matter which language you speak. god is NOT proven fact. My opponent cannot win the evolution argument in which was just listed and proved. So only god (creation) is left to argue in this debate in which cannot be proven because no one has proven ---ever--- the existence of god. "This is important, I really want you to understand everything about the bible, and God, and why Evolution is flase." Oh that's a good one especially when I 100% know a lot more, like probably at least 90% more than this teeny bopper 15 year old ---ever--- will about his unproved god, religion and bible AND evolution than he ---ever--- will. And he asks me to ask any questions I want? I don't NEED to ask any questions of him. This debate is an easy, in bridge terms, a laydown.
9/11 was caused by God's wrath towards gays.

I know I right, my level of rightness is unsurpassed by any being below God. Gays are horrid creatures that God cannot stand, so he attacked us on 9/11. During an exchange with Pat Robertson on the 700 Club, Jerry Falwell explained what he thought caused the September 11th attacks on the World Trade Center: "The ACLU's got to take a lot of blame for this. ... And I know that I'll hear from them for this. But, throwing God out successfully with the help of the federal court system, throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools. The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way - all of them who have tried to secularize America - I point the finger in their face and say: "You helped this happen."" Soulforce, Inc., an interfaith movement committed to ending spiritual violence perpetuated by religious policies and teachings against gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people, believes Southern Baptist teachings, policies, and inflammatory rhetoric lead to suffering and death. Dozens of Soulforce supporters were arrested during nonviolent civil disobedience at previous SBC annual meetings, and Soulforce leaders have vowed to escalate the protests this year. PRESS CONFERENCE: Tuesday, June 11, 10:45 AM - Outside the America's Center SBC President Dr. James Merritt has been invited to repudiate a "legal opinion" crafted by Southern Baptist Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, which obstinately stated, "The state must use...confinement and even execution" to prevent gays and lesbians from parenting children. If Merritt refuses to repudiate Justice Moore's statement during the 10:45am outside press conference, a delegation of Soulforce supporters will immediately carry a prepared case against anti-gay SBC teachings to the podium inside the America's Center during Merritt's opening statement. "For three years now Dr. Merritt has refused to consider the evidence that homosexuality is not a sickness or a sin," stated Rev. White, Executive Director and Co-founder of Soulforce. "So we are giving him the opportunity to take a stand against inflammatory rhetoric that convinces us that Southern Baptist teachings lead to intolerance, suffering, and even death for God's gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender children." OK, sanity again. I'm sorry these quotes are so long, but another part of my theory is that people don't read debate because they are lengthy. Bcaldwell100, I seriously doubt we'll get a bunch a crazy people who will want to kill us for our "beliefs", especially if they actually read the debate. If so, then they are just as wrong as people who agree with the topic. Ooops, that was a counter point, disregard that readers.
9/11 was caused by God's wrath towards gays.

As the con, my opponent is completely right. He states nothing but fact and presents several good sources. God was really pissed off at those people and so he brought his wrath down on America. 1) So true, just examine Leviticus 2) He's on a role 3) Bingo, you may now collect 200 dollars and pass go. The primary meaning of the word gay has changed dramatically during the 20th century—though the change evolved from earlier usages. It derives via the Old French gai, probably from a Germanic source.[1] The word originally meant "carefree", "happy", or "bright and showy" and was very commonly used with this meaning in speech and literature. For example, the title of the 1938 ballet aptly named Gaï¿½tï¿½ Parisienne ("Parisian Gaiety"), a patchwork compiled from Jacques Offenbach's operettas, illustrates this connotation, and the optimistic 1890s are still often referred to as the Gay Nineties. The word started to acquire sexual connotations in the late 17th century, being used with meaning "addicted to pleasures and dissipations". This was by extension from the primary meaning of "carefree": implying "uninhibited by moral constraints". By the late nineteenth century the term "gay life" was a well-established euphemism for prostitution and other forms of extramarital sexual behavior that were perceived as immoral. The first name Gay is still occasionally encountered, usually as a female name although the spelling is often altered to Gaye. (795th most common in the United States, according to the 1990 US census[2]). It was also used as a male first name. The first name of the popular male Irish television presenter Gabriel Byrne was always abbreviated as "Gay", as in the title of his radio show The Gay Byrne Show. It can also be used as a short form of the female name Gaynell and as a short form of the male names Gaylen and Gaylord. The "Gaiety" was also a common name for places of entertainment. One of Oscar Wilde's favourite venues in Dublin was the Gaiety Theatre. Gay was originally used purely as an adjective ("he is a gay man" or "he is gay"). Gay can also be used as a plural noun: "Gays are opposed to that policy"; although some dislike this usage, it is common particularly in the names of various organizations such as Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) and Children Of Lesbians And Gays Everywhere (COLAGE). It is sometimes used as a singular noun, as in "he is a gay", such as in its use to comic effect by the Little Britain character Dafydd Thomas. However, many find this usage offensive as it is making sexual orientation the whole of what makes a person: an actual 'noun'. OK, so I thought it best to just agree with foxman to make it clear who won the debate. Anyone who doesn't use the keyword and votes for me should be a clear marker for the test. To all who read this, I don't think either me nor foxman actually agree with this. I'm just afraid we might get a few crazies who want to kill us.
The American federal government should move its general election day to November's first Saturday.

History: In 1845, Congress had to decide when to let Americans vote. It took a very long time to travel. Farmers needed a day to get to the county seat, a day to vote, and a day to get back, without interfering with the time of worship. So they chose Tuesday. Because Wednesday was market day. In 1875 Congress extended the Tuesday date for national House elections and in 1914 for federal Senate elections. This no longer applies to American society because travel is a lot easier and nobody would travel three days to vote. Election day should be moved to the first Saturday in November. This keeps the date close to the other date and does not hurt schedules now too much. It is so inconvenient to leave work on Tuesdays or to generally get around. It would be a lot more convenient for Americans if Election Day was moved to a Saturday. Census data shows that many Americans do not vote due to the fact that it is so inconvenient or unlikely that they will be able to leave work.
The American federal government should move its general election day to November's first Saturday.

The original reasoning behind choosing Tuesday for election day no longer applies. That you have clearly demonstrated in your opening argument. However, this should not lead one to conclude changing election day to a Saturday. Although the original reasons for a Tuesday election are outdated, this does not mean that other reasons have not also come into play as times have changed. First off, many jobs give either an entire day off for election day, or extended lunch breaks on election day in order to allow employees to vote. Typically, civil service jobs and other jobs working for either the city, state, or federal government get the entire day off to vote. Corporations very rarely give workers an entire day off, but there are a great many that still give extended lunch hours to workers in order to vote. In both of these situations, the extra time that such people are given specifically to vote can definitely cause a guilt trip. I have heard plenty of people say in the past that they felt compelled to vote as a result of having the day off or having a much longer lunch break. This cannot happen if election day is a Saturday. Most people have Saturday as a regular day off anyway. This may seem like it would lead to more voting, but this is probably not true. Census data can only show what people claim are reasons for not voting. When a person doing a survey asks a non-voter why they did not go to the polls, how many of those people would be honest enough to answer that they just didn't feel like it? Those that claim that work conflicted with them being able to vote are probably looking for time from their jobs to vote. I don't think they are really trying to move election day to Saturday. That is always a problem with that type of poll. The honest answer is not given. In this census, what percentage said they simply didn't feel like voting? I'm sure the number is extremely small if that answer even appears in the data. Yet common sense and experience would tell us that the number of people that simply don't feel like voting is very high. This is something that has a lot more to do with personality than with the particular day of the week. I believe that most people that refrain from voting would do so regardless of the day of the week chosen. And as a civil servant, I'm glad to have an extra day off. I'm sure that many teachers and students also appreciate the day off when the school is used for voting. And as I mentioned earlier, when a person is given extra time to vote (and a Saturday would not fit this category since it is not extra), it can cause a guilt trip and make that person more likely to vote. But this reason is actually a minor one. There is a much bigger problem with your idea that I will present in the next round.
confusion=see

I will begin my rebuttals in Round 1. Welcome vi_spex number 2, thanks for coming :)BurdensMy opponent has the full burden of proof in this debate. My opponent has to show how confusion equals to see. I do not need to provide arguments, I only need to rebut my opponent's case. I don't need to many any constructive case. RebuttalsMy opponent says "confusion=focus" This is a bare assertion, as my opponent does not use any definitons or sources to back up his claim. The definition of confusion is, "a situation in which people are uncertain about what to do or are unable to understand something clearly [1]" The definiton of focus is, " a center of activity, attraction, or attention [2]. " When you are not able to understand anything, or is uncertain, then you are not focused. Therefore I have refuted his claim, and shown that confusion is not the same as focus. Focus can be manifold, but my opponent does not show how it can be manifold, it is a bare assertion, and he did not prove/ or give any thing how this gives an impact to the resolution. My opponent must prove this to fullfill his/her burden, and because he/she didn't do it, Vote for Con. My opponent says that destiny is confusion. This is false, and my opponent gives an bare assertion. Destiny can change, and is unpredictable, but that does not mean it is confusion. My opponent also doesn't prove how this does an impact to the resolution. My opponent then says that see is ponhot. In Merriam Webster, a very good dictionary, there is no such word [3]. See is therefore not this. My opponent doesn't prove see is ponhot, and does not say why this gives an impact to the resolution. This sentence, "turhortan. a shmiggily mog! ", does not make any sense, and does not give any impact on how see is confusion. Hence, vote for Con. My opponent gives bare assertions, no impacts, and bad arguments, which don't even make sense. Therefore, vote for Con. Sources[1] . http://www.merriam-webster.com...[2] . http://www.merriam-webster.com...[3] . http://www.merriam-webster.com...Vote Con.
European Union

Hello, this is Jacob Gibbs (jacobgibbs1) and this debate is part of my Duke of Edinburgh Award Scheme.Resolution: "The United Kingdom would be better off inside the European Union than outside of it."I will be arguing the opposite, that the UK would be better off outside the European Union than inside of it.Rules of the debate1. No abuse of semantics.2. No resorts to insults or personal attacks.3. Plus, all ToS (Terms Of uSe) apply.4. Breaking any of the rules constitutes a forfeit and the voters are then not justified in giving that person any points.Structure of this debateRound 1 - AcceptanceRound 2 - ArgumentsRound 3+4 - Rebuttals Thank you.
Sources for Disease Outbreak Debate

Round 1:[1] http://tinyurl.com...[2] http://tinyurl.com...[3] http://tinyurl.com...[4] http://tinyurl.com...[5] http://tinyurl.com...[6] http://tinyurl.com...[7] http://tinyurl.com...[8] http://tinyurl.com...[9] http://tinyurl.com...
Con will fail most of these.

I thank PsychicHarsh for continuing. Here are the answers.#1: Which flag shows no national flag?Contender's Answer: The flag on the mailbox. This is correct. There are some national flags, and then there's the one on the mailbox.#2: Touch the irrefutably oddest candy.Contender's Answer: The spider. This is incorrect. Are you sure that's candy? I'm pretty sure that's an actual spider.Correct Answer: The Candy Corn. We got 2 chocolate eggs, 4 pumpkin candy, 4 gummy bears, and 1 candy corn. "Odd" is used to address numbers like 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, etc. There's an odd number of candy corn. It took me a while to figure it out, as well.#3: Which coffee is faced backwards?Contender's Answer: Decaf. This is correct. "Decaf" is "Faced" backwards.#4: Who is head over heels in love?Contender's Answer: The man on the right. This is correct. He is literally head over heels, and in love.#5: Which photo could not have come from the telescope?Contender's Answer: The photo of the telescope itself. This is correct. You can't take a photo of a telescope with said telescope.Score Tally:The Contender got 4/5 correct. Thus, he wins. (Pictures gotten from GSN's Idiotest.)
Con will fail most of these.

Alpha online. 1st pic - Which flag shows no national pride. There are five flags in the picture if you look closely. 4 national flags. 1 mail flag. My answer - Mail flag. Because it isnt a national flag. 2nd pic - Touch the irrefutably oddest candy. All candies look tasty. But, what is th spider doing there in the picture? isnt it odd? My answer - Spider candy. 3rd pic - Which coffee is faced backwards? There are four cups there which seem to have coffee. The brown cup in the woman's hand is DECAF. What if i switch the letter and read them backwards? Its FACED. My answer - The brown cup in the woman hands. 4th pic - Who is head over heels? The man's standing straight with his head over his heels and his "Im in love." differs with the rest with the full stop rather than the exclamation mark. My answer - Its the man. 5th pic - Which photo could not have come from the telescope. There are five pics. It seems wierd for the telescope to be there. A telescope cant take its own pic, can it? My answer - Telescope.
Con will fail most of these.

I thank PsychicHarsh for accepting. Here's the 5 pictures:#1:http://idiotest.gsntv.com...#2:http://idiotest.gsntv.com...#3:http://idiotest.gsntv.com...#4:http://idiotest.gsntv.com...#5:http://gsntv-idiotest.s3.amazonaws.com...The Contender will now examine the images to find the correct answer. When you pick the answer, you must say why you chose it. You win if you got at least 3/5 correct. So what's your answers?
The Ontological Argument For God's Existence Is Sound

Well, for my first argument, I think I'll resort to the Big Bang theory. What makes life? If you say cells, what makes up cells? If you say DNA, what makes up DNA? It goes on and on until we get to atoms. What makes up atoms? Sub-atoms. But what makes up those? And what would the stuff that makes sub-atoms be made of? Science never ends, and is constantly changing. That's why I believe god created everything, because god is eternal, and since science is a thing AND eternal, which never ends because god created it. Also, how can the Big Bang have happened when there was nothing in our universe? Something had to have caused it to happen, and I believe it was God himself. You can disagree with me all you want, but in the end I'm still going to believe what I want to.
The Ontological Argument For God's Existence Is Sound

In this debate, Pro has to prove that God exists with the Ontological Argument for God's existence, and my job is to simply undermine his/her arguments sufficiently. Pro can use any version of the argument he/she wishes; the first round is for Pro's first argument. However, to make sure we get the same amount of rounds, in the last round, Pro must simply put:"No argument will be posted here as agreed."Good luck.
The Heat will 3-peat

Based on what statistics are you saying Lebron is having a career season. He has not been putting up numbers that he was earlier years and it is showing. Indiana is not cooling off in any way and they will most likely be top seed in the east. I mentioned Golden States and OKC because those are 2 premier teams in the west, however all the teams in the west are worth mentioning and are all very good competition to the heat. The Spurs for instance are still a well oiled machine just like last year. This year the Heat have a run for their money. Also Durant is a leader on OKC given the fact that he is the number 1 leading scorer and Westbrook will most likely not get injured again unless an on court physical offense occurs, again.
The Heat will 3-peat

Lebron is having one of his best seasons this year. Indiana is cooling off. They don't have to worry about Golden State or OKC unless the Heat and either one of them get to the finals. All Golden State does is shoot 3s and for that reason they will not make it to the finals. OKC will definitely not get to the finals if Russell Westbrook gets injured again. KD isn't even a leader on his own team. If both the Heat and OKC get to the finals the Heat would win because they have the experience and skill. Indiana has no consistent scorer, and the Heat have many.
The Heat will 3-peat

This is a vague opinion based on no evidence. Based on pure statistics, the heat THIS SEASON are no where even close to the best team. They do not even have the best record. Lebron is having one of his worst seasons putting up worse points per game then last season as well as other statistics. The spurs had almost beat out the heat last year and if it wasnt for Popovich the Spurs would have won. The heat are showing no signs of doing a 3-peat because there are many other stronger teams in all positions. Indiana has better defense, OKC has better scoring, Golden State has better 3, and the Heat are not even top 5 in Rebounding.
The Heat will 3-peat

Lebron James 2013-14 stats: FG% 57.2% PTS 27.0 3P% 38% FT% 75% Last Seasons stats FG% 56.5% PTS 26.8 3P% 40% FT% 75.3% The season is not over, so these numbers can obviously change. Indiana is cooling off, they lost to the Knicks. The Spurs are overrated this year. They are a combined 1-10 vs. Thunder, Heat, Blazers, Rockets, Pacers, and Clippers. Whoever in the West gets to the finals will be probably be very fatigued because there will be a lot of competition. The Heat have nothing to worry about until the Eastern conference semis. Which means they can rest their better players more. Just because KD scores a lot doesn't make him a leader. Remember last year when they played Memphis in the playoffs and Westbrook got injured and the Thunder lost 4 straight. That means KD is not a leader. Im using the playoffs because they are the only games that mean something.
Resolved: Planned Parenthood was legally unjustified in the transaction of fetal tissue.

For 1harderthanyouthink's August Beginner TournamentDefinitions:Planned Parenthood: the U.S. affiliate of the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) - and is a non-profit organization that provides reproductive health and maternal and child health services.transaction: an exchange of goods, services, or fundsjustified: show or prove to be right or reasonablelegally: of or relating to law---Set-up:1. Pro instigates, posts entire set-up (definitions, this, etc.)/Con posts acceptance *only*2. Pro opens/Con opens3. Pro rebuts/Con rebuts4. Pro closes and rebuts/Con closes and rebuts*no new contentions/arguments shall be put in the last round.
There is no present

Thank you con. First of all I do not have the burden of proof , we are discussing the exsistence of something, nothing exsists until proven otherwise. Regardless I have not claimed that there is no present, con has clearly misread important details in my argument, allow me to restate: "Present, in this debate is not defined exclusively as the moment in which an event occurs, but it (present) is refereed as the act of declaring that an (event) as occurred.". My argument was presenting that you cannot claim that any moment is the present, it offcourse exsit(s)(ed). I fear my opponent has got himself into a debate unkowningly and permit him to reregister his argument to adress the argument as it was stated.