BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
"Conservative politicians", as in Respublicans, are not conservative.

I'm libertarian so it really, for lack of a better word, bothers me when Republican politicians say their small-government, especially given recent trends. Thus this debate. Definition of "conservative" :A political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change; specifically : such a philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs (as retirement income or health-care coverage) . http://www.merriam-webster.com...Definition of "liars" :A person who tells lies. . http://www.google.com...No semantics.
Creation(Pro) v. Evolution(Con)

Oof! My bad! That was my fault, I totally forgot about you until today!! Sorry to keep you waiting! That was a pretty short argument but somewhat strong! I have never heard of that story! So, I researched a little and found out something interesting. You said, " Another example of a species changing is the cucumber..." I'm not so sure what you mean here, are you saying "one species changing to another" or just a species change in general. If you are talking about the second one, you are right, but that doesn't prove evolution happens. You show a carrot becoming a carrot, you see a cucumber becoming another edible cucumber. How does this prove evolution? It is a variation of a cucumber, a cucumber evolved to another cucumber?? Sorry if this seems rushed, well it was so if you have any questions you can contact me at my email on my profile!
Creation(Pro) v. Evolution(Con)

Ok, but let's keep it scientific please. further more I believe that if magic can be considered in the running for our origin then something that can be explained through natural processes. , you have probably already seen the video but it reigns true that's why the scientists are telling us not to use anti-biotics because they build up immunity which is changing. Have you heard the story of the carrot? Well I'll tell you, the carrot was originally a small thin WHITE tuber, but if you notice that the ones you buy at the store isn't so? Simple it changed an example of selective breeding and natural selection, in fact the only reason they are orange is because of that selective breeding. Another example of a species changing is the cucumber, in the wild it is a small 5cm fruit (yes a cucumber is a fruit, the more you know) cover in spines, and on top of that it will make you sick. However the "domestic" variety won't can't wait for your responce
Creation(Pro) v. Evolution(Con)

READ ALL!! Hey! Hopefully this goes as planned. My first debate was with @backwardeden, and it didn't go as planned, I look for smart people to debate with, and I think you're pretty smart, right? I just want to start off by saying this isn't a debate, it's a lesson, you can learn about my side as I learn about yours. I also want to say I respect your beliefs and that I'm not against science. God loves you no matter what you do, and he wants to spent eternity with you, think about that. There was a quote by a rapper named LeCrae and he says, " If I'm wrong about God, I wasted my life, If you're wrong about God, you wasted eternity." I don't know you but I certainty don't want you to burn in hell. So, this is important. I know science proves DNA has no mind of its own, science also proves that one species cannot change to another, the same science proves that there is no known observable process by which new genetic information can be added to an organisms genetic code. NONE. So, that basically contradicts evolution because it is impossible for a fish to become a mammal without adding new genetic code. The law of biogenesis proves life cannot come from non-life. But evolution says ALL life sprung from non-life, so if you can, answer- How did the world begin? Do you believe in spontaneous generation? So if a living organism can't produce new information how can one gradually change? IT CAN'T, SIMPLE. Beer is often sold in football games, beer has NOTHING to do with football, it doesn't make you buff or stronger. It is similar to Evolution. Evolution is found in science textbooks, but have nothing to do with science. You call it science and put it in a science textbook, I call it a fairy tale and put it in the garbage. Evolution is a dying theory that's only supported on tax dollars. The Bible is scientifically and historically accurate, and a book of prophesies. I can prove it if you want! The English language comes from Latin, the word "Universe" is two separate words in latin, "uni-" being single or one, and "-verse" being spoken sentence, and God said, "Let there be...." and here we are! There are plenty of more pieces proofing existence of God, and sources that debunk Evolution, ask any questions you want, I will answer them. This is important, I really want you to understand everything about the bible, and God, and why Evolution is false.
Rap battles take skills to win

Yeah, try rushing into a battle with no practice, no flow, and no lyrics on the spot in real life and I guarantee you will lose. If you think freestyle is so easy, do it on video without stuttering or having your mind go blank. That's how we know that there's a difference between skilled and unskilled rappers. Even on DDO, there's some rappers who cannot even diss their opponent. Even if they could, it sounds dull.
Modern Day Feminism Has No Legitimacy.

1) I'd like to know whether my opponent lives in the Middle East, or if the vast majority of feminists he/she comes across are of the 'first world' variety and hs/her references to Islamic feminism were a clever red herring to distract from the real point of this debate. Since I made specific allusions to the legitimate patriarchy in the Muslim world, and denounced what you refer to as 'first world' feminism (as you yourself say, the variety that is by far the more prominent) why make a point you knew I would agree with if you weren't intentionally trying to distract? 2) Con uses the term 'modern' to refer to every sect of feminism from across the globe. I'd like to know if he uses the term 'modern art' in a similar fashion. Does 'modern art' refer to current presidential portraits and also Amazonian cave paintings and also to the crayon scribblings of my nephew, or do we all assume that the term 'modern art' refers to that specific breed of convoluted shapes favored by western intelligentsia? If Con prefers this latter definition, why do the rules suddenly change with feminism? 3) What else in the Muslim world besides feminism do you consider to be 'modern' ? Do they have a 'modern' culture, or 'modern' rules of law? If they have nothing else that we in the west would consider 'modern', on what grounds can you say that their feminism is modern? Isn't it safe to say that their campaigns to not be tortured and raped are a few centuries of progression behind the feminism we see in the US, Canada, Great Britain, and Europe? 4) If, by your own admission, the vast majority of feminists are illegitimate, how can you group them together with a minority of feminists we both acknowledge to be fully legitimate? Isn't this a little unfair? Notice how the title of this debate is not "All Feminists Have No Legitimacy", but rather "Modern Day Feminism Has No Legitimacy." I will offer the sources for my arguments in the final round. Thank you for your attention.
Modern Day Feminism Has No Legitimacy.

I will start my argument by stating that I myself, just as my opponent is not a 'men's rights activist', am not a feminist, or, at least, I am not a first-world feminist. I believe that in a first world environment, the only things that come anywhere close to "oppression" are illegal, and while of course they still happen they are prosecutable and therefore are not exactly fixable with a movement other than perhaps that by police. As many people will argue, the majority (if not all) of first-world feminist claims have been completely disproven. However, it is here where my opponent has made a mistake. They are referring only to first-world feminism. It is not modern feminism as a whole that is illegitimate, but first-world feminism. First-world feminism is the most prominent from of feminism, and also arguably the most pointless. Unlike true feminists, first-world feminists only care about women getting murdered when they have to use it for damage control. We don't usually hear about this larger picture of feminism, generally because instead of sitting at a computer writing articles, or marching in parades protesting against issues that aren't there, these feminists are doing something about the problems that are actually present in the world. True feminism as it exists in the modern world appears in places such as Egypt, where feminists protest alongside thousands of other revolutionists despite the risk of death that they have been reminded of time and time again, or in the Peshmerga, where men and women are fighting together against ISIL forces in the Middle East, or in any other of the Kurdish movements there, and in dozens of other examples I have not listed here. It is, putting it lightly, wildly misrepresented by first-world feminists. This type of feminism is not but one simple group as it may have seemed initially, but instead comes in many forms, such as Marxist feminism and anarcho-feminism, where with both the idea is not to blame men, but to blame and act against the system which exploits and hurts both men and women, or for example libertarian feminism (not including individualist feminism), where women and men are given the same extensive rights. You may've noticed a pattern here. Unlike first-world feminism, these forms of feminism are centered around men and women being allies or at the very least, on friendly terms, unlike the feminism we see in America and other first-world countries, where this is only a claim used for damage control and nothing more. The various forms of feminism outside of first-world have been instated as movements in America before, of course, but they eventually devolve into first-world, fail entirely due to the inherent lack of problems to deal with, or eventually merge with the movement other than feminism that they are associated with; for example anarchism or Marxism. Modern feminism is not illegitimate; It is only this first-world breed of "feminism" that has no legitimacy.
Modern Day Feminism Has No Legitimacy.

I challenge you to a debate on the topic of feminism. I believe I can offer statistics to combat your assertion that feminism is not sexist and still about equality. The rules are as follows: R1 - Acceptance Only. R2 - Opening Arguments. R3 - Question Round, Where we Each Ask The Other as Many Questions as We Want R4 - Answer Round, Where We Answer Each Other's Questions R5 - Closing Arguments. I look forward to the challenge!
The Death Penalty

If we kept all of the murders alive as was your suggestion, the prisons would soon become overflowing, and we would have to spend your precious tax dollars to build new prisons. Plus, nobody ever said that it was against the law to kill. It is against the law to murder, but under certain circumstances, killing is necessary. For example, the war on terror, if someone breaks into your house, or the cow that made the burger that you probably had for lunch a couple of days ago. Those example's are self defense im talking about sentencing someone to death not killing someone out of self defense. Secondly i would say yes there would still be taxes but we could and i think we still do use inmates as free labor or we should to improve society like sorting garbage for recycle build a factory in the prison for recycling turn it into a prison/ recycling dump? there are endless possiblites.
The Death Penalty

If we kept all of the murders alive as was your suggestion, the prisons would soon become overflowing, and we would have to spend your precious tax dollars to build new prisons. Plus, nobody ever said that it was against the law to kill. It is against the law to murder, but under certain circumstances, killing is necessary. For example, the war on terror, if someone breaks into your house, or the cow that made the burger that you probably had for lunch a couple of days ago.
The Death Penalty

1.My point would be to throw them in jail forever never to see the light of day in the highest security compound possible. clearly you see it as the only punishment as i see it, thats just petty revenge we as a society should see through this and see that revenge killing him puts you at that persons level..... its hypocritical to say don't kill then punish the act with more killing. As well as the innocent convictions people who are innocent has died because of this, without it this isn't possible protect innocent lives is also key to this. Sorry not much here but you only typed like one sentence...
The Death Penalty

Looks like someone got mad because they missed a round.... for one id like to point of you have no sources to back up your number you cannot just pop stuff into your head and type it how about when you use your fancy statistics remember that.P.S I suspect that's a lot of copy and paste. Also people he again never addressed my points, So they still stand. I'm going to ignore your statistic dribble and look at the whole point which is at the end. "10.60 years Lethal injection makes so much more sense then letting them live. They killed someone, they do not deserve to live, and to be kept alive. You know as well as I do that it would be much easier on the criminal to get a life sentence, then to know that he was going to die soon. Murders don't deserve prison "luxuries." " That's a complete hypocritical statement seeing how right now if I were to track down a murderer prove that he was a murderer in court and murder him I would be put in jail for murder. Plus you completely ignore the possibility of an inoccent being convicted and kill by the state it has happens. Wait a minute doesn't that mean the state should kill themselves for murdering the innocent? O wait that dont happen does it they just go oop's im sorry we will try better next time Hmmmm.... is that what you wanna tell their loved ones? I'm sure you don't they fact of the matter is DP is a hypocritical punishment saying don't kill then turning around and killing. Thats nothing more than revenge, pay back not a punishment to show them they did something wrong. Also my opponent even ignores the fact that not all death sentences are for murder, during the red scare two "suspected" communist were killed which wasn't even legitamently proven guilty of being communist as well as being a communist was not a legitament crime. As well as children,mentally retarded have been given DP when they do not fully comprehend their actions. Jury nullification which can be used to convict the innocent by bias jurists for racial or gender discrimination and so on. My opponent really only cares about revenge and his taxes.
resolved: furbys cause insanity

PRO's burden of proof is to establish that furbies *cause* insanity. So far, all he has said is that the noises they may -- and he wrongly states that they make it "all day" -- "drive people insane." Effectively, he has done nothing more than restate the resolution. He provides no proof whatsoever. Further, to establish his side, he needs to prove not that a furby could cause one person to go insane, but that it causes people -- i.e., everyone -- to go insane. He further needs to establish causation. He has yet to even attempt that at this point.
resolved: furbys cause insanity

I accept.PRO has the full burden of proof to show us that furby's cause insanity. A furby is a "American electronic robotic toy released in 1998 by Tiger Electronics It resembles a hamster or owl-like creature and went through a period of being a "must-have" toy following its holiday season launch, with continual sales until 2000. Over 40 million Furbies were sold during the three years of its original production, with 1.8 million sold in 1998, and 14 million in 1999. Its speaking capabilities were translated into 24 languages.Furbies were the first successful attempt to produce and sell a domesticlcally-aimed robot. A newly purchased Furby starts out speaking entirely Furbish, the unique language that all Furbies use, but is programmed to start using English words and phrases in place of Furbish over time. This process is intended to resemble the process of learning English." [http://en.wikipedia.org...]
is fasting good for you

Thank you for starting this debate. Fasting is not good for your health for numerous reasons: 1: Nutritional Standpoint: When you fast, your body does not get as much of the necessary nutrients it needs. For example, if you eat only lunch and dinner, and skip breakfast, you are not getting the nutrients you need from breakfast. 2: Less energy: Fasting gives your body less energy. When you skip breakfast, you are not getting energy early in the morning. When you skip lunch, you are not getting the energy needed during the afternoon. When you skip dinner, you are not getting energy at night. I await my opponent's opening arguments.
America doesn't have a gun problem.

Yes for the united states it is getting better however this is do we have one now? The answer is yes because despite the fact it is getting better, you as a United States citizen are 10 times more likely in other developed countries. "Compared to 22 other high-income nations, the United States' gun-related murder rate is 25 times higher. And, even though the United States' suicide rate is similar to other countries, the nation's gun-related suicide rate is eight times higher than other high-income countries" "Overall, our results show that the U.S., which has the most firearms per capita in the world" With this it is easy to say that the United States does have a gun problem. Again it is getting better but at the moment it is still bad RESOURCES http://www.cbsnews.com...
America doesn't have a gun problem.

I think for the country the gun problem is VERY low. We have 30,000 something gun deaths yearly, true. (I know you'll cite that.) In the USA we have in 2010 (I know this is a little old, but they are pretty much EXACTLY the same.) 3.6 homicides for every 100,000. (That's around 10,000) Most polls show that around 70-80 percent of homicides are gang related. I'll meet you in the middle, so about 2,500 were not gang related homicides. That is very low. That is around a 1.0 per 100,000. 20,000 of the 30,000 deaths are suicides. We cannot do anything about that, sorry to say. In fact our crime has been dropping around 2-4% every year, crime is half that it was in 1993. And let's talk about those mass shootings. We need to have armed police in schools, and heavy-duty locks on classroom doors. () Other than that, I don't really know what to say other than all of this came from the CDC.
Redskins Name Controversy

Round 3: Rebuttals Even if not everybody feels that a term is not offensive does not mean that that term is not offensive. The reason why such a large portion of Native Americans do not feel that the term "Redskin" is offensive is because they have assimilated into the American culture. This, however, does not take away from the fact that the term Redskin is extremely offensive, as I have shown in my previous argument. While I do not know if this is against the rules of the debate, and as they have not been stated I will assume that I am not, I will proceed to rebut my opponents round 3 rebuttals. I understand my opponents point that people view the terms "Redskin" and "Negro" as two very different words, with the former being less offensive and the ladder being extremely offensive in society's eyes. However, it is important not to believe that everything society believes is right. Given the history of the word "Redskin" it is very fair to assume that it is equally offensive as the N-word. For example, both terms were used in the terms of murder (Redskin used when a bounty hunter killed/scalp a Native American and the N-word used when a black man/woman was being lynched). Obviously these are not the only scenarios where the word is used however these are the two worst examples, and each are equally horrific. Knowing that not everything society knows (or doesn't know) is necessarily correct, we move onto the next argument that the owner of the team would not chose the name "Redskins" if he had intended for it to be offensive. The reason for why the owner made this decision is not because he thought that the name was not offensive, but because he did not, and still does not understand the history behind the term that makes it so offensive.
Redskins Name Controversy

First of all, you are saying that before, the term "redskin" was at a point a non-offensive. The term "negro" has never been a positive word, so this would be a very different story today if it was the Washington Negros because "redskin" is an ancient slur with no meaning in today's world, while "The N-Word" is a very offensive thing to say. Second, It can"t be that people have been more sensitive about offending blacks than Indians. Back when many sports teams were given their nicknames, nobody would have guessed that a racial slur would one day be censored as "the N-word." The football team previously known as the Boston Redskins was christened in 1933, back when cartoons, radio shows and other pop media were totally unrestrained in their willingness to denigrate black people. There was obviously no stigma against racism toward blacks in those days, so why wouldn"t somebody have named his sports team "the N-word"? Because it"s an insult, that"s why. A sports team does not select a nickname for the purpose of adopting its negative connotations. Yet the politically correct wonks at the U.S. patent office, when they called the Redskins name "disparaging," must have believed that the football team meant to disparage itself. The debate ought to end right there. If anyone questions whether the Redskins name is "hostile and abusive" , the immediate answer should be that it must not be, otherwise the team would never have adopted the nickname. No team owner is going to name his team something he views disrespectfully.