BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Creation Is Real, NOT Evolution

I was a creationist for the better part of 30 years. I know your position better than you think. I used to ask the same questions, But not to people like myself who have studied the topic of evolution until about three years ago. When I found someone who understood evolution, It became much harder to attack. I still had questions, So I sought out the answers for myself. I cannot prove to you macroevolution in the way that you ask because definitionally it is impossible. Macroevolution is the process of change over time, Usually very large amounts of time. Microevolution is a proof of macroevolution. The age of the Earth is also testimony of this process. Geologists have studied the Earth"s layers extensively. There is plenty of evidence if you really wish to learn. My suggestion, Do not limit yourself to just material you agree with. If you live in an ego-chamber where only your beliefs are reinforced, You will never believe anything other than what you do right now. Sorry if you feel like my responses are emotional. I am passionate about truth, But I promise this is not just an emotional response. I have read several books, Both sides of the subject, Including intelligent design theory. Evolution is the only one backed by all branches of science, In every country. Why is that important to me? All branches of science uses the scientific method: 1. Purpose/Question 2. Research 3. Hypothesis 4. Experiment 5. Data Analysis 6. Conclusion This method has produced result like non other. This method is where all of our technologies come from. It is a method used to understand the world around us. This same method is used to understand evolution. I bring up different countries because of their different belief systems. The United States is predominantly Christian. This is not true for other Countries. China is more Buddhist, India is more Hindu. No matter the religious influences, They all agree Evolution using the scientific method is correct. Science is a method of learning the truth about reality. What method are you using to determine Creationism is correct? If you examine your reasons for believing this, You will see that you do not have good reasons for believing it. There are thousands of books on the subject of Evolution and its proofs. Please read one! Do not except what other Apologist have to say about it without researching it for yourself. You do realize that no one was there when God created the Earth? The difference between my position and yours is that mine has the fossil record as evidence for my proposition. I hope you never stop learning. This debate has been interesting and fun. Thanks
Resolved: Automatic weapons should be legalized through out the United States.

Resolved: Automatic weapons should be legalized through out the United States. First round acceptance only. The debate shall flow as follows: R1- Acceptance R2- Constructive cases R3-Rebuttals R4-Voting issues/Final focus In accepting my opponent is also agreeing to the following terms: Automatic Weapon- Any firearm capable of discharging rounds continuously at a rapid rate Legalize- To make legal Throughout- Through the entirety
Is Batman better than Spiderman

Batman has beaten The entire Justice League, death, and many other villains, including, but not limited to, Carnage, Darkseid, and Venom, who regularly beats Spiderman. Batman also has the Thrasher, Stealth Suit, Hellbat Armor, and The Justice-Buster. Batman is by far The coolest superhero ever, and is clearly, the better hero!
Is Batman better than Spiderman

Batman is a rich person who uses his overpowering wealth to act better than other people. He doesn't have any real superpowers, he's a buffoon who dresses up like a flying furry thing. have you ever seen the old Batman TV show? It's preposterous. he goes out and surfs and shimmies and stuff. But the batman these days is too gritty. there's got to be some kind of balance. Recently, JOKER CUT OFF HIS FRICKING FACE! Is that for kids? Is it in the least bit funny? No. batman was good from 1940 to 1950. After that, everything deteriorated into one big mess. Now, there's the whole alternate universe thing, and that messes things up, and Robin isn't Dick Grayson anymore, which is weird, and they've turned all the villains from mildly amusing goofballs into savage psychopaths. It's OK if they kill a few people every now and again, but seeing all the bloodshed these days makes me want to poop my pants. batman isn't supposed to be horror, he's supposed to be noir, and people need to get that through their thick skulls. batman has been ruined. Spiderman, however, while perhaps a bit grittier than at his conception, is still a lighthearted jokester, and he still has a modest alter ego that kids can look up to, and nothing has changed much in the Marvel universe. A few things, maybe, but I can still pick up a spider man comic book and look at it and tell what's going on. AND OH MY GOSH LEGO BATMAN I HATE HIM I HATE HIM I HATE HIM I await your next argument.
Floyd Mayweather Jr would beat Manny Pacquiao in a boxing match

Manny Pacquiao will win the fight, but Mayweather is just too afraid to fight against him. So, Mayweather quit. It was his way out so he could remain unbeatable. Refering to my video in Round 2, you can see Pacquiao's punch is more powerful than Mayweather. Pacquiao's punched literally moved the boxers body. Also, while in training, Pacquiao's training was obviously more efficent because he is ducking the punch. While Mayweather's trainer is hitting him on the shoulder, tell me What boxer is going to punch you on the shoulder? To conclude, this argument. I will like to state that Mayweather needs to come out of retirement for this one fight everyone so desperately wants to see. So, we can proove who is the superior boxer. Thank you.
Floyd Mayweather Jr would beat Manny Pacquiao in a boxing match

Since my opponent has refused to respond, I will continue my argument. Manny gets hit way too easily... As I stated before, in every boxing match,the boxer must get punched, after all that is the sport. Even though Mayweather has great defense, he will get hit. Cockiness I will like to clarify this point because as I read it I was like Oh my that was not what I intended. What I meant is that Mayweather believes he's the best boxer because he is undefeated and all this, yet he will not fight Mayweather because he is "retired". I believe Mayweather is scared of Pacquiao because he knows he's going to loose. After all, he did ask for Pacquiao to take a drug test by blood. Yet, Pacquiao disagreed because taking away blood weakens you. (Trust me I know by first hand experience and it sucks). http://www.youtube.com... The video I posted is about the fight everyone wants to see. And Mayweather states "Whatever what they do they cannot beat me." If he fights Pacquiao, he will get beat so he decides to retire even though he is young.
Floyd Mayweather Jr would beat Manny Pacquiao in a boxing match

Why do you believe Mayweather is a superior boxer? There are a lot of superior boxers in my belief for example Cotto, Mosley, and Pacquiao(1). As you notice in my first source, Pacquiao comes first and Mayweather comes right after even though they both have the same pound-for -pound. You state that the reason for this is because Mayweather retire, but why would Mayweather retire especially when he was "supposedly" at the top of his game. Speed and Power Mayweather's speed in my opinion is remarkable, but Pacquiao's speed is also incredible. Actually, another boxer,Juan Manuel Marquez, says that Pacquiao does not only have a stronger punch than Mayweather, but is also faster than him (2).Pacquiao has the best of it in terms of power, knocking out seven compared to only four by Mayweather.(3) Manny gets hit way too easily... In boxing, I haven't seen one match where the boxer does not get punch. Every boxer gets punched, it all depends on the technique/plan the boxer chooses against his opponent. Also, every boxer makes mistakes. After all, he is human. What I like about Pacquiao is that he lost. Your probably saying what?! But, I have my reasons. Mayweather is cocky, likes to show off through his "speed". His cockiness is also very contagious as my opponent stated there is NO PROOF Mayweather can be beaten at the pro level. Opponents "It would appear from my graphic that Manny has fought the much tougher, or dare I say more experienced fighters. His opponent’s average record is 45-3, while Mayweather’s is 38-4. Both have quality wins over big names, the biggest name on each resume is obviously Oscar De La Hoya." Sources: 1. http://boxing.about.com... 2. http://ringtv.craveonline.com... 3. http://bleacherreport.com...
Floyd Mayweather Jr would beat Manny Pacquiao in a boxing match

This is assuming they both fight at welterweight Floyd Mayweather is a superior boxer. His speed is remarkable His defense is the best and he is undefeated Manny Pacquiao is only the pound for pound best boxer because Floyd retired. Manny gets hit way too easily, he relies too much on brawling. Manny has lost before, and has had controversial bouts with Juan Manuel Marquez There is proof that Manny can be beaten, there is no proof that Mayweather can be beaten at the pro level.
Fat Shaming is Never Okay

"So what if some people are fat? Does it really matter? No, it doesn't."Wow, what a great argument! How could I ever argue against such amazing logic and reasoning? (Sarcasm)My argument is that sometimes it does matter whether or not someone is fat, why they are fat, and whether or not they use their fatness to exploit the system given the circumstances, as mentioned before. "If they aren't bothering you, then why should you care?"Because if people use their fat to exploit the system and get benefits they didnt earn, or are fat because they completely lack self control, or are fat just to rub it in to peasants they rule over, then that is a shameful thing to do and therefore can be shamed. "As for the whole Disney thing, I don't really see where that comes into play. So some people were jerks and were abusing the system. They were fat but the main focus was they were being rude and not thinking of others."Yeah, and being flat out rude and selfish is a shameful in a blatantly obvious exploitation of a system meant to help the disabled is truly a shameful thing to do, making fat-shaming justifiable. "The kings thing is true but that was years ago. I don't know anyone in this day and age who would do that."That doesnt matter though. The debate is that fat shaming is never okay, meaning it never will be or has been okay. You conceded that Kings did exactly that, so you basically concede that argument and therefore concede the debate. "If a person is fat, they are fat. We can't change that so we might as well leave them alone"By that logic a rapist is a rapist, and we cant change that so we might as well leave them alone too...... And thats a f*cking stupid argument to make.
Fat Shaming is Never Okay

So what if some people are fat? Does it really matter? No, it doesn't. If they aren't bothering you, then why should you care? Some people are fat because they want to be. It's not a big deal. As for the whole Disney thing, I don't really see where that comes into play. So some people were jerks and were abusing the system. They were fat but the main focus was they were being rude and not thinking of others. The kings thing is true but that was years ago. I don't know anyone in this day and age who would do that. If a person is fat, they are fat. We can't change that so we might as well leave them alone
Fat Shaming is Never Okay

Pro is arguing that fat shaming is NEVER okay, im arguing that sometimes it can be justified. Now then: scenarios for which fat shaming, or shaming people for being fat, is sometimes justified1) Using their fatness to skip lines at DisneyAt Disney world, people who are fat as sh** who need rascals or those scooters to get around routinely are allowed to skip lines to get on rides before other people. Problem is: most of them arent actually disabled, theyre just f*cking fat as f*ck and are using their fat f*ckedness to skip lines and ride rides, simply for being fat. Im not making this up either, this problem was so bad that Disney actually chose to scrap the whole thing of letting fat disabled people go on rides first primarily because too many fatties were exploiting the system. . http://www.nbclosangeles.com...So if someone is using their fatness to immorally cut lines at theme parks, then fat-shaming them is certainly justifiable in that case. 2) In medieval times, Kings would over indulge as a way to show off to the world that they had food and were richGluttonous monarchs often became gluttons simply because they over-indulged in luxuries that were showered upon them that they earned in no way whatsoever. .. . They did it simply because they could. The portly Marie Antoinette infamously said 'let them eat cake' when told of poor people not having soup partly because she was a fat f*cker who obviously showed little empathy for the less fortunate masses. So, shaming monarchs for being fat, over-indulging, narcissists is also justifiable to a degree. 3) Some people are really, really f*cking fat for no reason. If you are portly because of a genetic problem or because no matter how hard you try you cant lose weight, then there is no excuse to make fun of them or shame them for genuinely being fat and being unable to escape it. .. .. But on the other half of the equation there are the fatties who weight 350 pounds easy and simply eat and eat and eat, all the time, almost non-stop, simply because they have no self control. People who do not have self control are shamed all the time and its justifiable to do so. .. .. Kids who dont control what they say or how they act are shamed for being such annoying little bastards, women who whore themselves out and dont control who they sleep with are shamed for being such whores, and fat people who dont control how much they eat and how fat and obnoxious they become are also shamed for not having self control like the others. There are degrees and cases where fat shaming is in some cases okay, and to say that its NEVER okay is irrational.
Fat Shaming is Never Okay

In this day and age, it's shocking to find that something that fat shaming still exists. It's rather sickening to think that some people find this okay. I'm here to say that fat shaming is awful and it does nothing but make people upset. I am not a skinny girl but any means. I have big boobs and bit of a belly. However, I am fine with this. Yes, it could work harder to become skinny but I don't want to nor do I feel the need to. I am fine the way I am. I'm not saying that I shouldn't try to be healthier but that doesn't mean I have to not enjoy foods I love. Being fat isn't a sin. And don't bring me the whole 'Gluttony is a sin thing' because that doesn't apply. The definition of gluttony is the act or habit of eating or drinking too much, not being fat. Just because a person is fat does not mean a person is less of a person. It just means they are bigger. Some people don't mind being fat and other people have health problems. Then, there are people who want to loose weight. That is fine but it is never okay to just hate someone because they are fat. It is stupid and close minded
Creationism has made verified predictions.

I accept the challenge. Some clarifications were worked out in the Comments. The debate is not just about whether any predictions made by Creationism are correct. Even the most fanciful of theories make some correct predictions. It whether predictions made by Creationism meet the tests of scientific evidence as stated by Theobald in the quotation that Pro included in his challenge. Pro stipulated that one of the predictions made by Creationism is that the earth is less than 10,000 years old. We are debating Young Earth Creationism. Thanks to Pro for the challenge.
Creationism has made verified predictions.

I would like to use mostly the same form as used by Microsuck, because I like it. Definitions: These are the definitions that will be used throughout this debate. Theory - A well supported, conceptual framework that encompasses a large body of scientific facts, inferences, data, and observations and explains them in a coherent way (Fairbans, 2012) Predictions-In science, a prediction is a rigorous, often quantitative, statement, forecasting what will happen under specific conditions (. http://en.wikipedia.org..., I do not generally use wikipedia, but it is useful in some circumstances) Scientific evidence - "Scientific theories are validated by empirical testing against physical observations. Theories are not judged simply by their logical compatibility with the available data. Independent empirical testability is the hallmark of science"in science, an explanation must not only be compatible with the observed data, it must also be testable. By "testable" we mean that the hypothesis makes predictions about what observable evidence would be consistent and what would be incompatible with the hypothesis. Simple compatibility, in itself, is insufficient as scientific evidence, because all physical observations are consistent with an infinite number of unscientific conjectures. Furthermore, a scientific explanation must make risky predictions" the predictions should be necessary if the theory is correct, and few other theories should make the same necessary predictions. " (Douglas Theobald, 2012) Scientific theories are invalidated by evidence contrary to prediction. (Karl Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Also see Imre Lakatos" expansion on this. ) Rules: Ad hominem attacks is strictly not allowed. Arguing by means of logical fallacies is discouraged. Arguments by means of affirming the consequent, although a logical fallacy, is allowed in the context of scientific proof. The BoP is on me to show that creationism has made verified predictions, and the BoP is on my opponent to show how the predictions were not verified, but that data actually contradicts the predictions. Do note that there are various competing theories within creationism, although most make similar/same predictions, thus I will clearly state which theory I support in the arguments. With a contradicted prediction, Con must show that it is related directly to the core hypothesis, and not through an auxiliary hypothesis.
Resolved: It should be illegal to take Christ out of Christmas and replace it with another phrase.

Hello. I am here today try to get you (the audience) to vote in affirmation with me on the resolved: it should be illegal to take Christ out of Christmas and relplace it with another phrase. The first Christmas was because Jesus Christ was born. I think that it takes out the true meaning of Christmas when you take Christ out. When an average American hears the word "Christmas," they think gifts, food, family, lights, and other things of that kind. They rarely ever think of the true meaning. I understand that not everyone believes in Jesus Christ, but that's not the point. The point is that you're not being forced to celebrate him. Just don't disrespect him by putting a X in place of his name. You could also say Happy Holidays or something else of the sort. But, you're still taking out the main reason for this whole season. I also think of gifts when I hear the word "Christmas." But, that is because the three wise men brought baby Jesus gifts. Even the people that come from other countries don't disrespect the reason for the reason. Jesus is the reason for the season. So don't be a Grinch and ruin the whole season just because you are too lazy to write "Merry Christmas." Or because you don't believe in Jesus. Thank you and please vote in affirmation to the resolved: It should be illegal to take Christ out of Christmas and replace it with another phrase.
Young Boy Found at a New Mexico Compound Died in a Ritual Ceremony, Prosecutors Say

Before I begin, I want to first make it clear that I have nothing against you and apologize if anything came across that way. I have an irk you don't feel the same about me. "Well first off, Who really cares what you think? " To respond to that, I was simply pointing out something I suspected you missed that I included in my previous argument. "You do not have the power to stick your christianity into this case which is what you are doing and you know it. " I didn't even mention religion in my previous argument. You started talking about your own atheism ("Prayer has been proven time and time again TO NOT WORK. ") and then crucifying the judge. " 'Authorities found 11 malnourished children at the compound, Ranging in age from one to 15 years. ' That was also confirmed in the first newspaper article posted in RD2. ' " Yes, I know. It was also included in the article I posted in my first argument, If you read it, And mentioned in my own argument. I accepted that was true, Saying "The only concrete evidence the prosecution provided was malnourishment and poor living conditions" in my arguments. "That's also confirmed in the video from the Washington Post in which you didn't watch. " We're arguing about a court case. If it wasn't presented in court, It's irrelevant to the judge's decision. "You are a christian so you are trying to defend your religion. " I am unaware of when my religion was mentioned, How I supposedly defended it, Or how it relates to this debate. "There's no such a thing as christianity. " Christianity is a religion, And therefore exists. I don't deny the presence of other religions because I don't believe in them. Additionally, I'd like to point out my first argument, Where I did mention religion didn't matter in this debate, And it still doesn't, So why do you spend half your argument talking about my religion? I'm not personally involved in the case. "Serious abuse of the system. " I find it alarming you think that a judge judging something is abusing the system. I could also say that, In a way, You're abusing this website's system if you fail to abide by your own guidelines for the rounds of this debate. "Since you are so confident of your verdict, Why don't you take a backyard stroll and go interview the 5 defendants? " I'm only defending one person, And that's Judge Backus. On my first unrelated note, Might I suggest that if you make another debate four rounds long, Be advised that people don't usually change their opinions halfway through the debate. The winner is determined by the people who read the debate, Not whoever gives up first. Once again, I maintain that Judge Backus made the best decision she could.