BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Human rights do not have adequate justification under a secular government.

Rights are a commonly debated subject. But where do rights come from? Do we even really have rights? What are they, and why do we have those rights? The concept of rights in the historical U. S. have been tied inseparably as an endowment from the God of the Bible. In this debate I intend to show that: An orderly list of rights, logical in scope and limitation, can only be derived from Biblical principals for the fair, equitable, healthy, and orderly function of a society. My opponent must show that such a list of rights (not necessarily the same rights) can be made from a secular perspective.
Roman Catholicism is true Christianity

Merriam-Webster defines Christianity as "the religion derived from Jesus Christ, based on the Bible as sacred scripture, and professed by Eastern, Roman Catholic, and Protestant bodies." According to this definition from a reputable source, my premise is correct. Religionfacts.com states that the common theme among Christian denominations is that "they agree on such fundamentals as the Bible, the Trinity, and the teachings of the Nicene Creed." It then goes on to list the different branches that agree on these fundamentals, the first of which is Roman Catholicism. I argue that Catholicism does follow the teachings common among all true Christian denominations: the Bible, the Trinity, and the Nicene Creed. Therefore, it is truly Christian.As my opponent's position implies that there are specific areas in which he believes the Catholic church is not truly Christian, I will allow him to present them so that I can address them in my rebuttals. This will be much easier than for me to list all the ways that Catholicism does adhere to the Bible and the Nicene Creed. http://www.merriam-webster.com... http://www.religionfacts.com...
The Physics behind Imabench

The Physics Behind ImabenchThis is the first installment where we take a look at the the greatest debaters and see what makes them so damn good at debating.(READ 2 times faster)First off, we have Im a motherfu*king bench with his debates. Now let's see what he does to get those amount of votes. And remeber folks, theres a lot infomation to take in here so buckle up your seat belts and get ready for the ride.http://www.debate.org...So, if you can just read some of his debates right there.Now if i asked you what their doing, you'll probably just tell me "they're debating"But! if we take a closer look at his debate's, You'll see that Imabench puts a bunch of dots after countering a point or when giving a point occasionally.As you see after doing the method, his opponent's points becomes dumb after doing that.If you know anything about emotions, then you must know about the term "Humiliation" which refers to the preference when most human shows embarrasment. 100% of normal people would suffer from this kind of emotion and would make you want to be alone thinking about it. Causing them to have less time to make up good reasons and points.This is one of the reasons why Imabench is so succesful at winning debates.Bam! The votes fills up on Imabenche's side.Now let's move further into his debatesImabench is swearing. If you know anything about being sad then you know about a phenomenon known as Kübler-Ross model.The Kübler-Ross model shows 5 stages in griefDenialAngerBargainDepression Acceptance These emotion accociates with being emo.Emo is accociated with bullying.Swearing is accociated with people becoming emo and bullying.Causing certain defeat, though there are people like Roythmoo or something that can withstand the pressure of Imabench.So why is this is so important?Well it shows that Imabench knows physics and and now that you know physics you might be able to win debates.Now i think that just does it in exposing how Imabench is so good at winning debates.I should note that imabench has the heart of a cat. Just joking, thankyou for reading.
Legalization of Same-Sex Marriage

I would like to debate with 16kadams about same-sex marriage. Because fondly, i would like to get his opinion on it. It seems like a very popular topic worldwide. Now let me visit the definition of same-sex marriage. 1. two people of the same sex who live together as a family; 2. 2 people entering a marriage contract by law Rules: No trolling No swearing No inappropriate content Sources needed.
selection isnt natural

I'll simply add some rebuttals and then finish off the debate. First off, my opponent still hasn't addressed my argument concerning the peppered moths, so we can assume that's been dropped, and so has the assertion by my opponent made in the first round, that "natural selection is false. " Moving on, my opponent says "why use the word if it's not selection. " But he still hasn't understood that there are 2 different meaning of selection, which I detailed earlier. My opponent then says that I'm arguing that natural selection is selection. That is true, but selection in this context is the word that uses the biological definition of selection. And science does in fact have a definition of natural selection and a seperate definition of selection in biology, both of which I gave in earlier rounds. My opponent says that "you can find 10 different definitions," but he fails to provide any, and I think we can assume that the definition by Oxford Dictionaries is pretty accurate. That's all for this debate.
selection isnt natural

My opponent's entire argument is using the wrong definition of "selection," which in biology, the subject we're discussing, is the following - a process in which environmental or genetic influences determine which types of organism thrive better than othersSince my opponent didn't give any definitions throughout this debate, the ones I gave here and in the previous rounds are the ones that we will use. My opponent keeps saying that natural selection isn't selection because it's not intended, however they never specified what version of the word selection they were going to use, and since we're talking about biology, I thought it fit to use the biological definition, since my opponent provided none. And the definition of the word selection in biology has nothing to do with intent or randomness. Also, my opponent makes the claim that nature is random, however this is not true, nature is bound by it's own laws. The following is a definition of nature - the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations:So my opponent still hasn't refuted the proper term of selection which we are using [and we are using it because my opponent in the previous 3 rounds never gave their definition of selection.] They also have completely dropped their statement from the first round "natural selection is false," by refusing to refute my example of the peppered moths.That's all for this round.
selection isnt natural

My opponent has ignored the peppered moth example, so that argument still stands. My opponent also says random = not intended, this is false. The definition of random, as provided before, is - made, done, happening, or chosen without method or conscious decision: My opponent argues that you can't have selection without intent. However my opponent is arguing about natural selection which is a term in biology, so we will use the definition of selection in biology, which is -a process in which environmental or genetic influences determine which types of organism thrive better than othersThis definition of selection [biological term] does not state anywhere that selection can't be random.Also, my opponent has started to argue that natural selection isn't selection, they still haven't made a single argument towards the actual resolution of the debate, which is "selection isnt natural," and at the beginning of the round where they said "natural selection is false," a statement that I've already disproved. My opponent also says that natural is random, which is false. The definition of natural is "existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind:" This has nothing to do with "random."There isn't much else for me to say.
selection isnt natural

Since my opponent didn't specify definitions, I will do so here. [All definitions are from Oxford Dictionaries]Natural Selection - the process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring. False - not according with truth or fact; incorrect:Random - made, done, happening, or chosen without method or conscious decision: The best way to prove natural selection exists is by looking at the example of peppered moths. These moths exists in a forest, and they were light coloured, and they were white. s://upload. wikimedia. org. .. ; alt="" width="320" height="212" />This colour helped them to blend in with the trees. Bernard Kettlewell, a British geneticist, found that the light coloured body was a good camouflage in a clean environment. However in polluted areas, the black coloured moth [of the same species,] had an advantage over the other ones. s://upload. wikimedia. org. .. ; alt="" width="319" height="211" />These black skinned moths were undiscovered until 1811, so we can assume that they came through a random mutation. Now, this is one example of natural selection, as the light skinned moths outnumbered the black skinned in a clean environment, however after the industrial revolution, the black skinned moths were able to blend in better to the poluted environment, and outnumbered the light skinned ones. After environmental regulations, the light skinned moths started to outnumber the black skinned moths again. Sources - . https://en.wikipedia.org...This is one example of natural selection. I now toss the ball back to my opponent and await their response.
If Mario and Luigi fought, (to the death) Mario would win.

Argument #1: Mario is much faster than LuigiAt 3:03, you see a scene of Mario running almost as fast as Samus' 550 mph missile. This means that Mario's maximum speed is at about 545-550 mph, which is much faster than any speed that Luigi can run at. Since both have practically the same abilities and power-ups, the one thing that differenciates the bros is speed. Since this is the one major difference, Mario will likely defeat Luigi due to being too fast for Luigi to catch.
13 year olds should be able to have sex

Firstly, I must point out that the ad hominem response from my contender seems to me to reflect his intelligence, and ability to take such an important issue seriously. I myself am not 13 years old, but I am still in favor of a 2 year age gap restriction, that is; a 13 year old can have sex with 15 year old, but not a 16 year old. A 14 year old can have sex with a 16 year old but not a 17 year old etc. Next, onto why I think the age of consent should be lowered to 13. Most social studies show that teens of our current, modern society are maturing rapidly faster than in comparison to the 20th century. Secondly, biologically, teenagers are fully physically and anatomically capable of participating in the act of sexual intercourse. By the age of 13, puberty has usually taken place and thus, this is natures way of telling us when human beings should be having sex. Challenge to my contender: Under what grounds should the age of consent be higher than 13? What are the objective arguments to support this? Sources: http://www.dailymail.co.uk... http://www.medicinenet.com...
Iphone 5 vs. GS3

I have several responses to my opponents arguments- A) I fail to see how Apple changing the screen size to 4 inches makes it superior in that it overs a bigger canvas for apps and such. The GS3 offers a 4.8 inch screen which is nearly an inch bigger canvas for apps. Plus screen size is a matter of preference and differentiates between people. It does not give any sort of edge overall. B) Apple may have introduced a new processing core, but they are behind on the game. It has the 1.5 GHz dual-core Snapdragon processor which can run multiple high-intensity apps (Pandora, Netflix, etc.) without slowing down or lagging. It also has a whopping 2 GB of RAM, whereas the Iphone 5 only has 1 GB. www.denverpost.com/business/ci_21731314/iphone-5-vs-galaxy-s3-who-wins-battle (check out the "processor" section) C) I would like to direct you back to one of my other sources stated that the GS3 does indeed have a panoramic camera (something the GS line has had for over a year). http://www.androidcentral.com... (check out the "camera" section) Before I turn this argument back over to my opponent, I would also like to point out that unlike the Iphone 5 the GS3 uses a standard micro-USB charging cable and adapter. The Iphone 5 has switched to the Lightning adapter, which is not only non-standard to most other markets, it is even non-standard to Apple itself. It screwed customers over by forcing them to buy an overpriced adapter to connect the Lightning to old Iphone accessories. http://www.denverpost.com... (same as first source, but check out the "Iphone connector issue" section)
Iphone 5 vs. GS3

SAN FRANCISCO " Apple introduced a new iPhone on Wednesday with a larger screen, faster wireless Internet speeds and a more powerful chip, as the company again seeks to demonstrate the staying power of one of the technology industry's great franchises. Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com... The bigger screen in the iPhone 5 marks the first time Apple has altered the dimensions of the iPhone's display, which has measured 3.5 inches diagonally since the original iPhone Apple released in 2007. While the display at that time seemed gigantic compared with the tiny screens on most cellphones, Apple's competitors have been far more aggressive in pushing more roomy displays on their smartphones, with some screens approaching nearly 5 inches. Apple said the new display offered a bigger canvas for activities like reading a book, browsing websites and watching movies. It also shows how the dividing line between phones and tablet computers is becoming fuzzier. Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com... The new, faster Apple-designed chip inside the iPhone will let users open emails, load music and interact with other applications more quickly. The game developer Electronic Arts showed a photo-realistic car-racing game running on the new device with graphics that closely resemble those of high-end console systems. The device will also work on the latest variety of high-speed data networks with wireless carriers, known as LTE. The iPhone 5 has a new feature that will allow users to easily stitch together multiple images into a panorama, a feature that has been available in some apps and stand-alone digital cameras for some time. Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com... the GS3 does not have a panoramic camera
Iphone 5 vs. GS3

I look forward to this as well. The GS3 is manufactured by Samsung, Apple's biggest competition. It is a dependable and advanced product that blows the Iphone 5 out of the water. I will be focusing on 5 key points that consumers focus on: Battery Life, Network Speed, Operating System, HD Video Capabilities, and Maps. A) Battery Life- The GS3 has a 2100mAh battery that can last 45 minutes to an hour longer than the Iphone 5. You can also buy replaceable batteries for the GS3 if you are going to be going a long time without access to a charger. You can't do that on an Iphone. B) Network Speed- When running the same download speed monitor on both the GS3 and the Iphone 5, the GS3 delivered much more consistent and fast results, while the Iphone 5 tests were completely random and all over the spectrum. C) Operating System- The GS3 OS is superior to the Iphone 5's because of how customizable it is compared to IOS6. On the latest Android OS you can customize everything from your keyboard layout to your home screen setup, unlike the Iphone5 where you have strict, set formats for everything. D) HD Video Capabilities- The GS3 has a larger display than the Iphone 5 and has true HD video capabilities, something it's competitor dosen't have. E) Maps- It is no secret that the Iphone 5's map capabilities are pathetic if that. I doubt I could find my own gas station a couple miles down the road with it, whereas the Android map app is effective and reliable. I turn this over to my opponent. http://www.androidcentral.com... http://www.gottabemobile.com...
Men are lazier then women.

Preface: - I should remind the voters that the bop lies on Pro. Case: - Pro has yet to show why Men are lazier than Women. Rebuttals: - If Pro’s idea of evidence for Men being lazier than Women is in his laziness to even participate in this debate, then he fails to carry the BOP, for his a particular example that can not be generalise to the gender on its entirety. Conclusion: - Pro forfeited & did not present any argument to carry his bop, thus fails in both conduct & argument.
Euthanasia in a medical setting is moral

"My opponent has contorted this debate in such a way that any form of euthanasia must be justified. " I'll just quote this to represent that entire paragraph. I have not contorted the debate in any way. The topic we are arguing is Euthanasia in a medical setting is moral. Due to the strict wording of the topic, I took that to mean that you are arguing that euthanasia in a medical setting is always moral. I must argue that it is never moral. You tried to change the debate to Active Euthanasia in a medical setting is moral. However, if you wanted to debate that, you would have had to tell me earlier, in your first speech, not in your second speech, after I have posted my arguments. You decided to not argue in favor of passive euthanasia, saying that it is not moral. Thank you. You have argued that euthanasia is not moral. Also, I did not know you were not a proponent of passive euthanasia, as you said nothing about it in your first speech. You mentioned it only in your second speech, where it was too late. In your third speech, you now say that you think that passive euthanasia is not immoral, just that active is a better choice. Here I have a quote from your first speech; "I believe that passive euthanasia is an immoral practice" Thank you. My second posting paragraph: Ok, you have to look at the context in which that quote was pulled. I said that while I was arguing that passive is immoral. You forget that all of my arguments directly counter all forms of euthanaisa, including active. Even with that quote, I late go on to show how active is still wrong, so really, who has won is up to the voters. "My opponent decided..." paragraph. I did not decide what you were supposed to defend. I inferred it from the topic. You initial post only said what you believe, not what the topic is. If you wanted to argue that euthanasia can be morally justified, you should have made it your topic, not your first argument. Since I am here to argue the topic, not your beliefs, you do have to defend passive euthanasaia. "My opponent claims..." Ok, so here you are guilty of contorting the debate. So you argue that active euthanasia is on higher moral ground than passive. Ok, I agree. However, they are both immoral, so it doesn't matter whether or not active is better than passive. You have not shown why killing someone is moral. Just because active is on higher moral ground does not justify it as a moral action. You have not said anywhere that your justification involved the consent of the patient. Please don't make stuff up in your last speech. Conclusion: My opponent again drops all of my arguments, deciding to spend his last speech arguing with me what he is supposed to argue. He forgets that I have shown that killing is always immoral. He argues throughout his entire speech that active is better than passive. But he never shows why active or passive is moral. So he does not morally justify active, and so my argument goes. Both are immoral. I await th
Euthanasia in a medical setting is moral

My opponent has contorted this debate in such a way that any form of euthanasia must be justified. This debate was initially about me arguing that active euthanasia was morally just compared to passive euthanasia. Since my opponent is opposed to all forms of euthanasia, I changed the debate so that it was pro-euthanasia vs anti-euthanasia. Also, in my first post i said, 'I think that euthanasia in a medical setting CAN be morally justified'. That is, there is circumstances upon which euthanasia in a medical setting can be morally justified. In the first phrased debate, I made it clear that I was not a proponent of passive euthanasia. Thus, I believe it is conniving for my opponent to ignore that. To have a legitimate debate, it should be about me arguing that euthanasia can be morally justified, and my opponent opposing any form of it. Instead, he keeps ranting that he has won because I said I was not a proponent of passive euthanasia, something he knew before the debate started. The reason I am not a proponent of passive euthanasia, is because I believe that active euthanasia is a better choice of action. So it is not that passive euthanasia is necessarily wrong, I just believe that there is a better choice of action. My opponent's second posting is an act of contortion, and spinning, rather than debating in a logical, sophisticated manner. For instance, he says 'It doesn't matter that active might be moral. You have shown yourself that passive is immoral, so I win'. So he is saying that active might be moral, and all I am arguing is that euthanasia can be morally just. Thus he is admitting that this might actually be true, that active might be moral. Thus, it looks like I have won. My opponent decided what he thought I was suppose to defend without reading the initial post by me which stated that I felt that euthanasia could be morally justified in a medical setting. This does not mean that I have to defend passive euthanasia. It means that I have to show that a case could be made in favor of euthanasia. Thus, my opponent should be trying to argue against my justification not hyperactively, and redundantly claiming that he has won. My opponent claims that I have admitted that the injection process is wrong. The point I was making is that although no one likes to see someone die, the injection process is a more moral action than letting the patient suffer. We must keep in mind that actions pertaining to morality may differ by degree. Such issues are not black and white. We cannot always say things are either good or bad. But we can say whether something is better or worse than something else. My claim is that a lethal injection stands on higher ground than letting someone suffer, thus the injection process is a more moral act. My opponent has misrepresented the debate. He should keep in mind that my justification involved the consent of the patient. He should try prove that my justification is wrong, and that suffering is better.