BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Your account is a troll account. Prove me wrong.

Preface: From the accounts name (very jackfilms-esque) as well as your comment on the lgbtq+ poll: "God no, transgenders should be given help, as most have gender dysphoria, and gays are NOT normal," not to mention the profile picture and the only profile settings changed where those to say you support Donald Trump and are a conservative, I have been lead to believe that this account (from an 18 year old no less) is purely a troll account created for the lols. I have nothing against that, and nothing against you expressing those views if they are believed by you in earnest. This debate is not to challenge those beliefs, however if this account is proven to be real (how this can be done I will state later) then those debate requests shall be forthcoming! So, if this debate is accepted, I would simply like for you to state how it is you have founded your political beliefs, why you support Donald Trump (again no judgement, just looking to see if it is sincere), and your opinion on those within the lgbtq+ community and what it is you find so not normal about "gays". I will not be challenging these beliefs (yet), and simply challenging that you do in fact hold them. (And seriously bro, if this is a troll I really am not worth your time in attempting to troll, I'm a super chill dude and you've got nothing to prove so if you are trolling, you can carry on your merry way, just want to see if that is in fact the case. If it's a troll concede, or if you are legit and can't be bothered, a simple comment of "can't be bothered" might suffice, but then again that might be exactly what a troll would say....)
Palmer should not receive the inheritance from the will

1.) On August 13, 1880, Francis B. Palmer made a will that will give his two daughters, Mrs. Riggs and Mrs. Preston and the rest of his estates to his grandson, Elmer E. Palmer. When Elmer found out about the will, he decided to speed up the process of his grandfather's death in order to receive his grandfather's estates. 2.) Elmer E. Palmer murdered his grandfather by poisoning him. He claimed all of his grandfather's property. 3.) Elmer's defense is that his grandfather is dead and now the will must be effective according to the law. 4.) The law of the will should follow the wishes of the testators when he or she pass away. 5.) Here there was no certainty that the testator would have survived and changed his will or receive the estate in the will. 6.) The case of Owens v. Owens, a wife was convicted of being an accessory of the murder of her husband in order to receive the estate of her deceased husband because she was now a widow. 7.) The statues provide dower to the wife who was survived by her husband and lost his protection and support. 8.) The plaintiffs in that case was entitled to the will. Instead of a new trial, the facts of the trial is the same results. 9.) To the statutory restraints that will impose upon the final arrangement or final act towards one's property by will, should follow the validity and performance of the will. 10.) The capacity and power of the individual that will dispose of his or her property after death, should be exercised according to what the will states and the legislature can't assume that they will have control and has to understand what is said in the will. 11.) The courts do not have the power to enforce to improve the justice system. 12.) The words of the statute are: "No will in writing, except in the cases hereinafter mentioned, nor any part thereof, shall be revoked or altered otherwise". 13.) The only person that was able to revoke or change the will was the grandfather and the court should not take it upon themselves to decide on who gets the property of a dead man. 14.) There are many laws that are not fair and individuals receive stronger sentences for crimes that are not harsh. 15.) The case is not based on how severe Elmer's punishment should be but if he should be rewarded from the crime he committed. 16.) If someone was guilty and sentenced to prison and served his time, then we should move on and not reside on the past. 17.) The court should not punish someone twice for the same crime, if he was already punished for it. 18.) Therefore, Elmer should receive his grandfather's estate as it stated in his grandfather's will.
Is Trump a good Person/President/whatever_you_wanna_call_it

HEEEEEEEY! I'm here to argue that yes,Trump is a good..whatever. Sorry,don't know what to call it,I'm just gonna say Trump is good. Sorry for the bad title...But obviously I'm a big trump supporter. Here's my rules: 1. Don't be f*cking rude,ok? Can I just put this out there? Thank you. Like just don't. Don't be a f*cking D*ck ok? ok,thx. 2. This isn't really a rule,just PLLLLLLLLLZ,to the best of your ability,have proper grammar and spelling. The first round is the only exception to this. 3. First round is for acceptance only. No debating in the first round. 4. If I make a Joke,don't turn around and use it against my entire argument,ok? Just don't even do anything with it. It's a joke. OK? 5. Just...idk...i felt like there should be 5 rules... SO YEAH! There it is...I Know,I know,this is gonna trigger alot of people. So yes,thank you.
Just for fun! Whether The Doctor Should Have Let Martha Travel With Him

For all you Doctor Who fans out there, here's an argument for whether the Doctor should have let Martha travel with him. I am taking the negative side. Let the wonderful arguments begin! Negative 1) The Doctor was heartbroken. Martha was interested i him which made it all the worse. 2) Martha was rude to the Doctor. She pushed the Doctor and asked from him more than he was willing to give. She didn't care about the fact that he just lost somebody, all she cared about was her own satisfaction. 3) Martha was selfish. She may have helped people and saved people, but ultimately she was just plain self-centered. She thought she was the most important woman on Earth. 4) Donna was way better for the Doctor. Understood that the Doctor needed a companion or hi "Master" would start showing. Donna was much better for him and pushed him only for the good of others. These are the reasons I give that The Doctor should not have let Martha travel with him.
Just for fun! Whether The Doctor Should Have Let Martha Travel With Him

1) Pro states "Martha did not want to leave, but she made the right choice in leaving to protect her family." The way I remember it, Martha just used her family as a cover up for the real reason she was leaving the Doctor. She left him because he didn't love her. Also remember that Donna's family has been put at risk as well, but she doesn't want to leave the Doctor. She is willing to stay with him forever. 2) Pro says "It's not Martha's fault for falling in love with the doctor. Also, the Doctor did not want to travel with Donna at first. Something he did not want would not cheer him up." This is also false. The Doctor wanted very much to travel with Donna. He was the one that asked her, and she refused. So I can't see how that could mean he didn't want to travel with Donna. 3) Pro says "She was going to, but other forces prevented her from doing so. She was think on the scale of the universe. Better one world then all" Something the Doctor makes clear to all his companions is that there's always a way out! Destroying the world is definitely not a compromise. It's giving up. The Doctor is disapointed in Martha for standing up to the Osterhagen key. 1) Pro argues " Donna is evil. You can determine this from her quote in the episode "The Doctor's Daughter:" " Oi, Oi! Alright, cool the beans, Rambo!" [1] She obviously thinks beans are cool. The Doctor has said: "Beans are evil. Bad, bad beans." [2]Now, if beans are evil, and Donna likes beans, that means Donna likes evil! Therefore, through the transitive property, Donna is evil! The fact that the phrase "cool the beans" means to lower the temperature of the beans completely negates this argument 2)"Martha does not like beans. Therefore, Martha does not like evil, because beans are evil" I have no evidence that Martha does not like beans. The rhyme goes "beans, beans, are good for your heart!" Martha is a nurse, so if anything, she would like beans since they are good for you, which makes Martha the evil one here. 3)"She is independent. She does not regret leaving the Doctor, and left him on her terms, not his." I agree, but I cannot see how this supports pro in any way 4)"She did not go back to living a normal life. She joined UNIT and worked for Tourchwood. She was the only companion that used her experience with the Doctor in her career." The Doctor isn't a huge fan of Torchwood. They tried to hold him captive after all. So why should this be relevant in any way? Thank you for debating with me Merrit! Before I go, I just want to say you were fantastic. Absolutely fantastic. And you know what? So was I!
Just for fun! Whether The Doctor Should Have Let Martha Travel With Him

Rebuttals:1. Con states: " I would like to remind you that Martha left the Doctor, which was not good at all for the Doctor. And it certainly did not cheer him up."If Donna's family went through what Martha's did, Donna would have made the same choice. Martha did not want to leave, but she made the right choice in leaving to protect her family.2. Pro proceeds and states: " Because of Martha, he made sure not to let his next companion fall in love with him. If the Doctor needed a companion, Donna was the way to go."It's not Martha's fault for falling in love with the doctor. Also, the Doctor did not want to travel with Donna at first. Something he did not want would not cheer him up.3. Pro also states: "Unlike we would like to believe, he is not perfect. He makes mistakes. As we see in "The Stolen Earth," the Doctor has turned Martha into a weapon. Martha is actually willing to destroy the earth. The Doctor surely did not want this to happen, and the only way it could have been prevented is if Martha had never traveled with the Doctor. So not only would it have been beneficial to the Doctor, it could've been beneficial to the world."I concede the first two points. However, it was not Martha's fault. Even so, Martha didn't blow up the world. She was going to, but other forces prevented her from doing so. She was think on the scale of the universe. Better one world then all. 4. Pro says: "Again, the Doctor needed a companion, and Donna could've been excellent."True, but it doesn't negate the fact that if the Doctor did not have Martha, the world, and then the universe would have perished. Argument:1. Donna is evil. You can determine this from her quote in the episode "The Doctor's Daughter:" " Oi, Oi! Alright, cool the beans, Rambo!" [1] She obviously thinks beans are cool. The Doctor has said: "Beans are evil. Bad, bad beans." [2] Now, if beans are evil, and Donna likes beans, that means Donna likes evil! Therefore, through the transitive property, Donna is evil!2. Martha does not like beans. Therefore, Martha does not like evil, because beans are evil3. She is independent. She does not regret leaving the Doctor, and left him on her terms, not his. 4. She did not go back to living a normal life. She joined UNIT and worked for Tourchwood. She was the only companion that used her experience with the Doctor in her career. Nevertheless, the Doctor chose Martha as a companion and it worked out great. It didn't end up in tragedy like it did for the other companions. Sources:[1]: http://drwhotranscripts.blogspot.com... [2]: http://www.chakoteya.net...
Just for fun! Whether The Doctor Should Have Let Martha Travel With Him

Thank you for debating with me Merrit! My opponent makes good points, but I will now rebut them. Now I will be responding to your argument that the Doctor should have let Martha travel with him. Allons-y! 1) "At this point in the series, the Doctor is feeling the pain over the loss of Rose Tyler. Martha is exactly what the Doctor needed at that moment in time. A companion would help cheer him up. Martha did in fact cheer him up, as the Doctor continued to travel with her throughout season 3." I agree that the Doctor needed a companion to help cheer him up. But I would like to remind you that Martha left the Doctor, which was not good at all for the Doctor. And it certainly did not cheer him up. Because of Martha, he made sure not to let his next companion fall in love with him. If the Doctor needed a companion, Donna was the way to go. The Doctor stated to Donna, "We had the best of times." If he had stuck with Donna from the first time they met, he would never have had Martha to leave him heartbroken yet again. 2) "If the Doctor did not want to travel with Martha, he would not. The Doctor is fully capable of saying no when he does not want something. If he did not want Martha being his companion, he would have said no." The Doctor, just like us, does not always know what's best from him. Unlike we would like to believe, he is not perfect. He makes mistakes. As we see in "The Stolen Earth," the Doctor has turned Martha into a weapon. Martha is actually willing to destroy the earth. The Doctor surely did not want this to happen, and the only way it could have been prevented is if Martha had never traveled with the Doctor. So not only would it have been beneficial to the Doctor, it could've been beneficial to the world. 3) "If Martha wasn't the Doctor's companion, the Doctor, along with the whole world, would have perished because of the Master. [2][3] Clearly Martha was an essential influence in the Doctor's timeline." Again, the Doctor needed a companion, and Donna could've been excellent. I would like to thank my opponent for arguing with me, and it is now his turn to rebut. And don't forget to carry a banana!
A lot of people hallucinate about Jesus, Muhammad and Beyond Happiness

Not just people who would be dismissed, like the mentally unwell, but a lot of people. It is not openly accepted as everyone as an individual feels that it would be rejected and even that they would be ridiculed. I personally know that dedicated Muslims have constant experiences of visions about Jesus, Muhammad, and Beyond Happiness. It is just those who have not who go against this and stop this being openly accepted.
A lot of people hallucinate about Jesus, Muhammad and Beyond Happiness

I suppose your aware of the effects of LSD and magic mushrooms. While it may not be the real image of the holy figure in question, what's so hard about seeing a typical image for them e.g. long black hair, aqualine nose. The image may be even more brilliant than the real image of Muhammad. I'm sure you know about how happiness works with these drugs, so it would be a brilliant experience. Now many people can hallucinate, I'm sure you know. So this round of the debate im putting forward that these hallucinations work like any thing to see, just the corresponding colours and shapes to Muhammad. Hallucinating can be so happy, it would be seen as supernatural to those who have not. The brain is stimulated by the idea of happiness, the topic is contemplated on the "trip". Ideas of Beyond Happiness would be contemplated. How many people have you specifically asked if they have, I'm sure there would be those who say they have.
You cannot tell one's race just by looking at their skin color.

PRO forgets the definition of 'one's he gave. I only needed to be able to identify the race of one person by skin color, which is quite easy. Indians (from India), for example, have a very distinctive skin color. I shall answer her question anyway. "Can you tell the differ[e]nce between Puerto Ricans and Mexicans? Most likely, you can not." I don't need to. They are both of the same race. According to the United States of America, their race is 'American Indian or Alaskan Native.'[1] [1] http://www.whitehouse.gov...
You cannot tell one's race just by looking at their skin color.

One- A person; one person or thing This seems incredibly unstrategic for my opponent to define 'one' in such a way. I can quite easily tell the race of one person or thing based on skin color, as some races have very distinctive tones. Indians, for example: http://www.bing.com... Or, look at this picture: http://elproyectomatriz.files.wordpress.com... You can immediately spot the one person who is not African. The fact of the matter is, some people can be very easily defined by skin tone, and since my opponent has set such a low burden of proof for me, showing one of the above examples of this is sufficient. "I am Italian. I have been called white. This is not true." According to the United States government my opponent is, in fact, white: "White: A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa. White. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa." http://www.whitehouse.gov...
You cannot tell one's race just by looking at their skin color.

I did not define it because i clearly stated that I would let you start. One- A person; one person or thing I see you have made a bold choice to do that experiment. I would try that same experiment, but it is dark as heck, and really, I just don't feel like fighting tonight. ;) BUT, I have done one on the internet. I looked at profile pictures and tried to guess. I was failed at this test. I know what your thinking. She is just saying that. WRONG Claim One: I will give an example. I am Italian. I have blonde hair, the same as Lady GaGa's. I have been called white. This is not true. I am currently debating the fact that Italians should not be called white. BUT since the other debater has failed to post, I will use another debate. Koopin has used my debate topic, and here is his. . http://www.debate.org...
You cannot tell one's race just by looking at their skin color.

The one word that might cause some trouble in the resolution is 'one.' My opponent has failed to define it, so I will. I won't do anything semanticky and define it as 'the first number after zero' or anything like that. I'll assume 'one' to refer to people as a general principle. Every race has a distinctive skin tone. If I catch a good look at the color of your skin, I can probably tell what race you are. For example, somebody with a whiter skin tone is almost guaranteed to be from Europe. I could also infer that a more chocolatey fellow is from Africa. These inferences of mine tend to be spot on. To test this, I walked down the street making informed guesses of everyone's race, eg. "Arab!," "Mexican!," "Indian!" If the proceeding obscenities were also accompanied by a 'that's not true!' I assumed I was wrong. However, I rarely heard such responses, thus I concluded that I can tell one's race just by looking at their skin color.
Creationism should be Recognized as another Explanation for Life on Earth

Creationism is just as valid as an argument as Evolution. Even in the famous 1925 "Scopes Monkey Trial" Atheist Lawyer Clarence Darrow stated "It is bigotry to only teach one view of origins. Students should be taught both the creation and the evolution theories." (1). In order to support my side, I need to use arguments in explanation of why Creationism is just as possible as Evolution. Here are my arguments: 1) Evolution is just as logical or illogical as Creationism in origin The word science means "knowledge." Science is the study of what we know. In order for something to be truly scientific in the strict sense of the word, it must be observable, testable, and demonstrable. The entire subject of origins (both creation and evolution) is actually outside the field of science. (1). If you found a very old box, and inside it was a golden locket, and someone asked you "how did that get there?". You would most likely respond, "Well, someone put it in there". Lets first look at the fact that Evolution does ignore this logic and instead replace it with a different type of logic. With Evolution we must understand that the locket must have come from materials inside the box that developed over time. 2) No instance of Macro Evolution has ever been proven Macro Evolution being considered the adaptation of a species that is completely assumed, like an adaptation from a non-flying organism to a organism with wings. Micro Evolution is adaptation within its kind, such as thicker fur on wolves living in colder regions. Evolutionists will quote instances of Micro Evolution as if that proves Evolution (4), when in reality, even the bible says "bring forth after their kind." (Genesis 1) (3). Which allows for Micro Evolution under a previously designed genetic code. 3) The Origin of Life cannot be explained by Evolution Next I want to explore the fact that Evolutionists have not actually proven that life could have formed from amino acids and salts in a body of water somewhere. School textbooks will read that Scientists Miller and Urey "proved" the origin of life from inorganic compounds possible. The truth is far from that, there experiment failed to create life. (1). For life to have been created, the Earth would have had to have no Oxygen at the time, because the organism would be oxidized quickly and killed. Although, without Oxygen you have no ozone layer to protect earth from the sun, therefore the Suns powerful rays would have destroyed it as well. (2). Sources: 1) http://www.fillthevoid.org... 2) http://www.icr.org... 3) The Bible http://www.biblegateway.com... 4) Dutko, Bob. Top Ten Proofs Evolution is Scientifically Impossible. Book.
Creationism should be Recognized as another Explanation for Life on Earth

I believe it is unfair that present day school books and teachings are extremely bias towards evolution. It comes across as if Evolution is the only plausible explanation for life on Earth. In reality, we honestly have to agree that when life started, we weren't there. There is no way for us to prove 100% that Evolution or Creationism is correct. I believe that Creationism is just as valid of an argument as Evolution and should be treated that way.
God exists

Thank you Con. If we observe everything around us we can see that everything is made so accurate and perfect. The way the entire universe is designed is with perfect organization and harmonious order, and that all matter from atoms to galaxies moving according to a program, shows us that there has to be a creator of this amazing universe. If I said that a few jars containing chemicals for a medicine were put side by side then miraculously a strong wind blew the bottles. Then suddenly exact amounts of chemical from the jars just fell open and the medicine was created you will call this a complete nonsense. A medicine has to have very precise amounts of chemical that even a tiny bit extra would not complete the process, or a tiny bit less would fail too. However it is said that this incredible Earth is made without a creator and from: 1. Chance 2. Nature 3. Reason I stated how this world cannot be created by chance already. Now I would like to show you how this entire universe isnt creed from Nature. Nature consists of water, soil/earth, air, fire. If nature created this universe it has to have the things it created in order to create it. Who see's love, compassion, wisdom, etc. in nature. If I harm nature in any way it won't react because it isn't our creator. However if it was to be our creator it wouldn't let anything happen to itself. Some other people believe that reason created this universe. Then who created reason? So can this world be created by itself? Your turn Con:)