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

Full resolution: The Creation Model is a more viable explaination for the complexity and diversity of living things than the Evolutionairy Model.Definitions:The Evolutionairy Model:The Evolutionairy Model states that all organisms diversified through a tree of life which would be displayed below. [2] (Note: Con doesn't have to necessarily defend this particular tree of life, but the concept in general)All life forms on Earth have diversified through purely naturalistic means including but not limited to natural selection and mutation. The Evolutionary Model also states that such diversification has occured over the course of billions of years. Another key idea is that over time through the processes of evolution like natural selection/mutation will make organisms more complex over time. The Creation Model: The Creation Model on the other hand states that all organisms we see today, diversified from the original kinds that God has created during the seven days of creation. The diversification is a result of natural selection within biblical kinds. The origin of kinds comes from Genesis 1:11-12 “And God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth.”And it was so. The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds” [1]Instead of a tree of life, the Creation Model more represents a orchard as seen below. [3](Note again: I will not be specifically defending this creation orchard, but rather the concept)If you look at the creation orchard, you can see a blue line that eliminates all but one line, that is meant to represent the biblical Noah's flood where Noah preserved one from each kind. Genesis 6: 19-20 states below." You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive." [1]In addition to that, the creation model also states that the complexity of organisms is derived from the Biblical God. Instead of evolution's billions of years, the Creation Model states that all organisms diversified within thousands of years. Another prediction of the creation model is that there will be a general decline within living things even as small as on the genetic level due to the post-fall curse.Debate Structure: Round 1: AcceptanceRound 2: ArgumentsRound 3: Pro refutes Con's arguments in Round 2 and vice versaRound 4: Both sides defend their original arguments Sources:[1] The Holy Bible[2] http://palaeos.com...[3] http://www.christianpost.com...;
father christmas is real and alive

1.) My opponent seems to think that someone who does not know who Father Christmas is would think it would be a snow car. I will begin to say that my opponent is wrong for a car in the well spoken language English is referd to as 'she' and not 'he'. 2.) You must remember, the voters will be judging your politeness as well as mine. 3.) If you had read my arguments more carefully you would have found out that I was prooving my point correct. Please read the following 1. I have prooved that Father Christmas rides in a sleigh with reindeer and that 'HE' delivers presents. 2. Father Christmas is alive (no snow car can be alive ). 3. Lying is of no intersest to me in a debate. 4. I would not die to proove my point so why would I try to do so (in lying in a debate) . And last I shall say that my opponents main wepon is hipocricy in every way. Oh and before you start it I shall tell you that I had some problems with the typing ( I thought I should tell you otherwise you would be making a racket).
father christmas is real and alive

1.) It appears that my opponent fails to understand that reindeer have hooves and that hooves make noise. My opponent also fails to understand that the debate is about Santa Clause and not my spelling mistakes. 2.) It is hypocritical of you to say that my spelling is terrible and that I miss out words, as instead of saying "that" you appear to talk about hats. 3.) What time of year do you expect the night before Christmas to be, middle of summer ? 4.) Father Christmas is kept secret so people don't find him. 5.) if you cannot translate English into English then you should read more carefully, and as for my final point: You should argue about Father Christmas and not anything else. Oh andone more thing: why would I lie in a debate ?
father christmas is real and alive

You are right as in saying that roof tapping can be false but it never happened any other time of year. Proof: I was one of those children that experienced noises and slay marks, yet I have never reported it on the news and nether have my parents . Now I think back and know that it must have been him who brought me presents and him who made roof tapping as he did in the famous poem : Twas the night before Christmas, as his reindeer are meant to fly and land on rooftops but have some time on the ground. I also found that it was the naughty children that did not believe in him and the nice would believe father Christmas for reasons of proof . His reindeer must be very fast and he must be prepared to make an almost impossible journey every Christmas. And as for the last rebuttal, I will say that father Christmas must manage to keep top secret in the heart of Lapland ( the North pole impossible for any human being to live in).
Should Rubik's Cubes Be Allowed In School

Ummm what are the sources that say that Rubik's Cube helps your brain get sharper?Remember Rubik's cube could be solved using a series of algorithms. This video proves it:https://www.youtube.com...Seeing this, it contradicts your statement that Rubik's Cube helps your brain get sharper and get your mind smarter and stronger.Also, you said that Rubik's Cube is not much of a distraction.Listen, that's mainly your opinion and your prediction.Listen, were Fidget Spinners a distraction at first?No, it wasn't. However (this is the key point) people started to use it as a distraction which became a distraction.Rubik's Cube may not be a distraction at first, but it will.So. this is why Rubik's Cube should not be allowed at school.
Homeschooling is better than Public or Private School

Now, I must say something up front, I will not be on this site from Monday till' Friday. So as odd as it sounds, a round will be forfeited by both sides to let me get back from being a State Page where I will not have regular internet access.So, here are the basic rules:Stay CivilUse Spell-Check (please)Use sources/logic/experience to back up your claims and/or contentionsWikipedia is not, I repeat, not a source.Experience should be a secondary, if not last, resort as support for a claim/contention. It should be used more as a way to give examples and illustrations.Round 1 is acceptanceA round will be forfeited at no expense to either side (Must be the same round for both parties and AFTER round 1 and 2). 'Nuff said.
Homeschooling is better than Public or Private School

Ooookkk... Anyways...AP courses can be taken online, making it accessible to Homeschoolers:http://www.apexlearninghs.com...Also, define "extracurricular activities." That could mean anything from a football team to a debate team, all of which are accessible to homeschoolers. Last year in NC, a homeschool team won the Mock Trial competition and reached nationals. Also, there is a growing movement of Homeschool sports teams. There are also many groups where Homeschoolers come together and work and play side-by-side. I belong to CHEW: Christian Home Educators of Wilmington:http://www.chewilm.com...Slightly disappointed my opponent didn't really even seem to read my contentions.
Mozart is better than Vivaldi

I thank my friend for agreeing to debate this with me. This will be a song debate. Rules: 1. Only 1 song per round. 2. Three rounds for the debate. 3. Try to keep the wording minimal and only focus on posting the songs. 4. (Obviously, only songs from Mozart and Vivaldi can be used) For the first round, I shall issue the classical piece: Requiem. http://www.youtube.com...
Animals should be used for Medical Research

Who is to say animals don't have the same rights as people do? A few thousand years ago, women had absolutely no rights whatsoever (and this is still the case now in parts of the world), a few hundred years ago Blacks didn't have any rights, a few hundred years ago in the United States, only rich white land owners had rights, gays didn't have all the rights until a few decades ago, and all those people mentioned, up to a certain point had no rights to certain medical treatments. For crying out loud, dogs had more rights then some people did 100 years ago in some areas. And horses. Why are we so much better? Why are dogs and horses so much better? Who dictates who has rights and who doesn't?
Animals should be used for Medical Research

Animals do not have the same rights as humans do, therefore it is acceptable to experiment on them. If we granted animals rights, all humans would have to become vegetarians and hunting would be outlawed. While animal testing is not pretty, a 2011 poll of nearly 1,000 biomedical scientists conducted by the science journal Nature found that more than 90% "agreed that the use of animals in research is essential." A small amount of animals are used for progression in advancing medical technology when you consider that just the U.S. alone consumes 9 billion chickens a year, while only 26 million animals are used for animal research. Wouldn't it be considered a waste if we didn't use animals for research to help progress in Medical Technology?
Animals should be used for Medical Research

I am going to keep my side of this rather short. How about, since humans fall under the category of animals, let's use humans for medical research as well. Why wouldn't you? The amount of risk there is? Well what about the risk for animals? Why, since when is a human life worth more than an animal's life? Well no duh it is to us, because WE'RE freaking HUMANS. But that doesn't mean that's truly the case. Humans are not more valuable to the earth, only to themselves. If we killed one of ourselves trying to do research, there would be a big uproar, and the family of the dead ones would want revenge! But animals such as chimpanzees, dogs, cats, and all other X Factor animals actually feel for their family and their young ones. They have a since of care and love and passion. They would lose something, too. Why are we willing to break the hearts of one family that might not walk with their backs straight up? Why is the fact that fur and a different walking stance mean a difference in how we treat one or the other? If some species above our heads took us for it's own use, we would have a big uproar, but because we are at the top we can do whatever the hell we want, can't we?
Is Mary the "Queen of Heaven?"

Cool your jets there, would you? First, it is a compliment to the notion that your comprehension level seems to exceed your age. However, I am starting to rethink that compliment. Now, back to the debate at hand; Quote from you: "So now you're arguing by using the point that Virgin Mary had sinned?" Umm, YES, that was the very first point of this debate. Go back and look, "Catholicism teaches that Mary is the "Queen of Heaven" and that she is without sin." The fact that Mary sinned means that there is NO Immaculate conception, and that is a lie of Catholicism. Now, when you go back and look at my very first post, you should also take note that this debate is to remain within the context of the KJV Bible, not ESV or NIV or any other! So please follow the rules of this debate or forfeit! Do not quote from any other bible other than the KJV in this debate or it will mean that you are in fact forfeiting, OK? Did I see you say that God has Sinned? What are they teaching you? Where does it say that in the KJV Bible? Because I see that God is perfect! Psalms 18:30 "As for God, his way is perfect: the word of the LORD is tried: he is a buckler to all those that trust in him." Deuteronomy 32:3 "Because I will publish the name of the LORD: ascribe ye greatness unto our God." Deuteronomy 32:4 "He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he." 2 Samuel 22:31 "As for God, his way is perfect; the word of the LORD is tried: he is a buckler to all them that trust in him." I pray that you will study the bible and not mans words, ok! Jeremiah 17:5 "" Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD."
Is Mary the "Queen of Heaven?"

I see that you say that you are 14 yrs old. Honestly, I am having doubts but I will take it at face value for now. You do know that the scriptures do not say anything good about the queen of heaven, right? Lets see what it say's; Jeremiah 7:18 The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger. Jeremiah 44:17 But we will certainly do whatsoever thing goeth forth out of our own mouth, to burn incense unto the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, as we have done, we, and our fathers, our kings, and our princes, in the cities of Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem: for then had we plenty of victuals, and were well, and saw no evil. Jeremiah 44:18 But since we left off to burn incense to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, we have wanted all things, and have been consumed by the sword and by the famine. Jeremiah 44:19 And when we burned incense to the queen of heaven, and poured out drink offerings unto her, did we make her cakes to worship her, and pour out drink offerings unto her, without our men? Jeremiah 44:25 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, saying; Ye and your wives have both spoken with your mouths, and fulfilled with your hand, saying, We will surely perform our vows that we have vowed, to burn incense to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her: ye will surely accomplish your vows, and surely perform your vows. The previous verses show that the queen of heaven is a false god, an idol. You do understand that Mary was a sinner just like you and me? By offering the required sacrifices according to the law, Mary admits her sinful state and offers those sacrifices: Luke 2:21 "And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb." Luke 2:22 "And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord;" Luke 2:23 "(As it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord;)" Luke 2:24 "And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons." You also understand that Mary had more than one child, Jesus had brothers and sisters by the same mother. Matthew 13:55 "Is not this the carpenter"s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?" Matthew 13:56 "And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?"
Is Mary the "Queen of Heaven?"

Yes, as a Roman Catholic I do believe Virgin Mary is per se Queen Of Heaven. Although put aside my beliefs I will argue that she is. Since Virgin Mary had been referenced in the Old Testament as the mother of Jesus and the Virgin birth, she would be considered as queen of heaven.Since Jesus is the major figure for not just only Catholicism, but other forms of Christianity: Jehovah, Baptist, Orthodox, Lutherans, Anglicans, etc, Virgin Mary is the mother of Him.Even Jesus was Jewish, but had betrayed the religion, and since Judaism uses the old testament and they do believe in heaven (not hell) they sort of use the same heaven.
Bryan Mullins: All The Feminists Should Be Killed By Our Police Officers

I wish you had made this debate more than three rounds, it's been very fun. Here I go, with my closing argument. Your profile pic shows that you hold some incredible force known as the "Bryan Mullins" logic, but you haven't been using it too much. Anyway, here we go: You are a pig, because you hate women, but you shouldn't take that as an insult, because pigs are adorable animals and thinking of them as anything but adorable animals means that you consider them as worse than you. I'm not a pig, because I'm OK with women, and I support women's rights, but, honestly, I wish I was a pig. Pigs are great. They look at radishes and they snort a lot. I think I rode one like a horse once. Police officers do have the right to maintain law and order within the bounds of the law whether I like it or not, but please remember that laws are only written down by people and laws can be changed at any time, so that police officers aren't allowed to kill people, but just allowed to taze them or something. If a police officer can kill somebody who hits them, then I should be able to kill somebody who hits me. Not that I would want to, it's just unequal. The power given to police officers is often abused, and they face very little punishment for going around and chopping the heads off people. This is wrong. I know "Misporkist" is a made up word. I made it up to imitate you and give myself a hoot. Does it really matter if it's fake? There has to be some kind of word that refers to someone who hates pigs, and there isn't currently one in the dictionary, so I decided to invent one. All words are invented, and I can invent that one if I feel like I need it. Castrating people is just like castrating animals. It both serves the same purpose. It serves to protect the world from overpopulation by a certain species. We're just as horny as they are, and ten times more dangerous. You hate animals, don't you? Humans are animals. Just because we're highly advanced doesn't mean we have to think of ourselves as better. Either some humans can get castrated, or some animals can go without it. Either way is fine with me, but we shouldn't exclude ourselves from it. I bet your dog's been castrated, huh? I know I'll lose conduct points for calling you GoRgOn ThE UnThInKaBlE. I don't really care, I'm glad I did. It's a name that I think gets my point across very clearly. It's very accurate. Nothing is wrong with it, it's a fun alias, it's not profane, and it doesn't really suggest anything wrong with you. I think it's great. You're a party pooper. Police officers should not kill all feminists, only feminists who commit crimes like anybody else. Women deserve the right to vote, because they're "human beings," as you put it, and they should have the ability to participate in our wonderful democracy. Feminism isn't a mess, it's a strong movement with a good purpose, and they aren't criminals. They're very nice people. Vote for me, people. Don't vote for GoRgOn ThE UnThInKaBlE.
Bryan Mullins: All The Feminists Should Be Killed By Our Police Officers

First, you said in your first argument round that you hated men and called them pigs and described a poor misandrist characteristic. You just played hypocrite denying that you "hate men" with arguing with your own argument you made before. Here is evidence: "Men, such as you and I, are pigs. We are literal pigs wallowing around in our garbage slop and I hope that feminists become the only people left on the planet because men are beings who root around in wet dirt looking for carrots and radishes. We also drink water from a trough. Women, on the other hand, are the secret to life and veritable goddesses. You are a pig, and I know this, because you hate feminists and women." You are saying that you're not misandrist, but you say and argue that they're "pigs" that is the most hypocritical excuse I've ever seen in your recent argument. Here is the definition of Misandry: "A hatred of men" [1] Here is the definition of a Misandrist: "A person who dislikes, despises, or is strongly prejudiced against men. "the counterpart to a misogynist is a misandrist" [2] [1] https://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] https://en.oxforddictionaries.com... You still lose conduct points calling me a "crazy man." Police Officers have the right to maintain law and order within the bounds of the law whether you like it or not, you can't fight the police though you hate them. You made an irrelevant quote about pigs and "piggies" not feminists. Here is evidence: "if you consider being called a pig an insult, then you are "Misporkist" (hateful to pigs). I like piggies. Everything about them is adorable." First off, "Misporkist" is not even a word, I just looked it up on google, but found no results, and pigs in general, have nothing to do with feminism. Second, you're still supporting castration which is against human rights, Men are not "pets" they're human beings too. You can't just castrate them like dogs and cats. Yet again, another irrelevant argument, dogs and cats have nothing to do with feminism or "castrating men." In your first round, you did not sound calm, you sounded like you were triggered at the fact that I supported my position and brought evidence and sources to my first round argument. You calling me "GoRgOn ThE UnThInKaBlE." you're not just going to lose conduct points, but you are also going to lose S&G points. It is also unprofessional and flattering, it is not about being as flattery as possible, when it comes to debating, it is about being the most professional and blunt as possible. You think typing it out is "cool" for you, but you will still lose those points. My conclusion is that Police Officers should kill all feminists because they're illegitimate, they didn't deserve the right to vote, they should have the choice whether or not they want to vote. Feminism is a mess and it has been a mess this entire time, even if you don't see it. I have respect for those who protect our freedom from criminals.