BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
creation vs evolution

I believe that there is no evidence for evolution and all of the known laws of nature known to men contradict it. For example the Conservation of Angular Momentum which states, that when a spinning object breaks apart in a frictionless environment, the fragments will be spinning in the same direction as the original object. That"s easy to understand since the outside is moving faster than the inside. Therefore, if the Big Bang occurred as the Evolutionists would have us believe, how come Uranus, Venus and possibly Pluto are spinning backwards? How come 8 of the 91 known moons are spinning backwards? Why are there entire galaxies spinning backwards? Do i need to continue doesn't just this prove that evolution could not happen. i mean all you need is one fact that contradicts the theory for the theory to be useless. If there was no Big Bang then there was no evolution. But i will not stop I will give you more evidence for example let us look at The 1st law of Thermodynamics it states that "matter and or energy cannot be created or destroyed." So where did everything come from in the Big Bang and what made it start spinning? Who bought the gas to run this machine? The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is Entropy and says "everything is tending towards disorder." This is completely incongruent with and the very opposite of Evolution which believes that everything is getting better, stronger, faster, smarter and more complex in time. However, as we can clearly observe, left alone, things get worse over time, not better. Now why creation? This is answered quite easily : it is the only other reasonable and logical way of answering this great question- where did we come from? Do i have to take it by faith yes but i know it is true due to many evidence of for example the Noes flood. Millions of fossils are found all around the world and this to me shows that some kind of a huge catastrophe had to occur. There are other things that i believe point to creation and i will be happy to share them with you later on in the debate. If you have any answers please respond i would like this debate to become a learning experience and i would love for it to increase my knowledge. i am open minded and i am ready to consider other options.
Abortion in america

"Always remember our Biblical mandate, Thou shalt not kill, Exodus 20:13, which is one of the Ten Commandments." says Wholeworldinhishands.com "Abortion destroys spiritually. When a woman destroys to abort a baby then she is taking the very life that God has given her to be a steward over. Once again, a woman that has had an abortion can find healing and forgiveness but if one is considering having an abortion then you can know that God will take care of you and your baby." says Abortion-support.com
Abortion in america

um I have seen no refutations. Extend arguments.R1: child abuseDr. Ferriera found no relationship between unplanned pregnancies and newborn deviant behavior. In fact, there were more deviant babies of mothers who had planned their pregnancy than those who had not. [1]This shows wanted kids have more problems, therefore banning abortion would raise the rates of deviant children, therefore making kids have worse lives. Also allowing abortion lowers crime:"The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime" is a controversial paper by John J. Donohue III of Yale University and Steven Levitt of University of Chicago that argues that the legalization of abortion in the 1970s contributed significantly to reductions in crime rates experienced in the 1990s. [2]Levitt came to the conclusion that about 40 percent of crime's decline was the result of locking up a million more criminals. Fifteen percent of the drop was attributed to the waning of the crack epidemic. And roughly 10 percent could be credited to having more cops on the streets."What's left over -- 30 [percent] or 40 percent -- I actually believe is attributable to a cause that no one ever expected, which was the legalization of abortion," Levitt said. [3]Abortion lowers crime. This refutes your contention. R2: More south Africans are against abortion The resolution is about america not Africa. This argument does not relate to the resolution as we are debating abortion in america. This argument is false. But since you like polls:ABC poll:legal in all cases: 20%Legal in most cases: 35%Illegal in all cases: 17%Illegal in most cases: 26% [4]More people think abortion should be legal in most/all cases.So if you like majority rule, then abortion rules.Always legal | sometimes legal| Always illegal | unsure (Gallup poll) [4]21 57 18 4So in america (which is the resolution) I have the majority.R3: Overpopulation um since when was this an abortion issue? I agree it is not overpopulated but that is not a reason to ban abortion. Either way IF is becomes a problem then it would control it. But in all realities this isn't an abortion argument. =conclusion=my opponent didn't refute my contentions and my arguments are stronger. VOTE PRO!sources: http://www.abortionfacts.com... [1]http://en.wikipedia.org... [2]http://abcnews.go.com... [3]http://www.pollingreport.com... [4]
Abortion in america

"Abortion eliminates the potential societal contributions of a future human being. The US would be an entirely different country if the mothers of our nation's heroes, great presidents, scientists, athletes, and others had chosen abortion." says the website Abortion ProCon.org "Unborn babies are innocent human beings from the moment of conception. They have a fundamental right to life, which must be protected." says Abortion ProCon.org again. "Many Americans who pay taxes are opposed to abortion, therefore it's morally wrong to use tax dollars to fund abortion." says About.com "Abortion frequently causes intense psychological pain and stress." says About.com "One of the cons of abortion is that it is often considered to be an act of unkindness and cruelty. Some people even associate it with snatching the rights of an unborn child to live. However, on a more scientific note, abortion can lead to several complications later in life. It may also be a hindrance to later conceptions. Although these complications are very rare, the risk involved is a chance that you would hardly want to take. Cons of abortions are that they can lead to frequent miscarriages, infections and sepsis if not administered by a medical professional. Apart from that, women may also undergo mental trauma due to guilt and depression of the act that she has performed. So considering all pros and cons of abortion, it becomes a necessity to opt for it only when you truly need it and not to make up for carelessness on your part." says Pros-and-Cons.net "Women often feel very guilty after an abortion." says Hubpages.com "It is frowned on by many people in society. It is against most religious beliefs." says Hubpages.com
"Holocaust Deniers" Are simply, petty minded antagonists, who enjoy winding people up.

Pro is simply trying to redefine his proposition, to one more ration. Pro has failed to add anything of substance defending his original contention. Anyone questioning the official numbers you yourself quote is a "holocaust denier" The holocaust has been turned into a political weapon and has been greatly exaggerated, both in scale and context. It has also been turned into a very profitable industry for certain lawyers as well as a go to for politicians in political trouble. [see Norman Finklestein - Holocaust industry] You fail to prove the insincerity of people that legitimately think the holocaust narrative is false. Furthermore, you have to prove that for ALL people that deny the Holocaust are "simply, petty minded. .. .. " your proposition is pretty much self defeating, as this is impossible. Next time I would suggest to use less nonsensical propositions and think a little more critically before posting a debate. If you wanted to argue some are, sure that is highly likely that some are. .. but that everyone in the group of "holocaust deniers" belongs to the group "petty minded. .. ." is impossible to prove. This will serve as my conclusion as well. I yield my final round.
"Holocaust Deniers" Are simply, petty minded antagonists, who enjoy winding people up.

Hopefully Con has genuinely misunderstood the purpose of this debate. If I had wanted to argue whether or not "The Holocaust" actually occurred. I would simply have proffered that question. The purpose of this debate, was to discuss the rationale of someone, who would persistently attempt to deny that the mass murder of 11 million people actually occurred. Nonetheless I will continue with round two, in the hope that Con is able to get back on track. Definition: From the Oxford dictionaries. DENY: "State that one refuses to admit the truth or existence of" Definition: From Wikipedia. THE HOLOCAUST: Primarily, refers to the genocide of 6 million Jews, including 1.5 million children. by Nazi Germany and its collaborators. Other definitions also include the mass murders of a further 5 million people. Therefore, by definition. A "Holocaust Denier". Is someone that refuses to admit the truth or existence of, the genocide and mass murder of 11 million people, by Nazi Germany and its collaborators. Con argues that, certain people (revisionists) may question the validity of specific facts, relating to events of "The Holocaust". In the context of genuine historical research, I would regard this a wholly right and proper course of action. I would also not wish to imply, that genuine historians and researchers could ever be regarded as "Holocaust Deniers". Con cites the work of David Cole. I will reiterate the point here, that from the outset, Con misunderstood the context of this debate. Nonetheless, in respect of Con's argument and out of a genuine interest, I have taken time to briefly reference David Cole and consequentially David Irving. I conclude that, although both men may be regarded as controversial, it is still appropriate to consider them as genuine historians and researchers. In fact it is clear that neither man, as ever sought to deny the genocide and mass murder of 11 million people. So, to get back on track. Why would someone choose to deny "The Holocaust" ? When the evidence is so unequivocal. I would propose that the intentions of such a person, were wholly malicious and insincere. Therefore the burden of proof falls upon Con. They must explain how, someone who persistently states that the genocide and mass murder of 11 million people never happened. Can be regarded as sincere. .
"Holocaust Deniers" Are simply, petty minded antagonists, who enjoy winding people up.

Good luck Pro, and I look forward to the your argument. The burden of proof clearly is on you as that is an extreme statement, and there are many holocaust revisionist only seeking to find out the truth of what really happened, and they clearly counter your proposition. I argue that this one is very easy to defeat. First you have to define what a "holocaust denier" is, then you have to show that anyone that disagrees with that is "petty minded antagonists, who enjoy winding people up." I will await these proofs before I introduce my argument against them. But in the mean time I will introduce the below information to demonstrate what I have already said, and that shows the burden of proof is clearly on you. Source #1 David Cole young Jewish historian that did not believe the official narrative and investigate it himself and found many discrepancies, this was before the holocaust was weaponized and it was a legitimate topic to investigate. Interesting enough he had to go into hiding for making this video because the Jewish Defense League put out a contract for his death. It's a most fascinating story, here him tell it in the interview below. So while there were many Jews along with other groups that are conveniently ignored (gypsies for example), that were murdered in mass and forced to work in slave labor camps, there are questions that the official story is true, and my understanding of "holocaust denier" is anyone that does not believe the official story in its entirety. I look forward to you trying to proof your proposition. Good luck.
"Holocaust Deniers" Are simply, petty minded antagonists, who enjoy winding people up.

We all know beyond any doubt, that the Nazi Germany lead "Holocaust" of the 1940's actually occurred. I would suggest that anyone who chooses to deny this fact, is being insincere and deliberately antagonistic. I would also suggest that there is no intelligent reasoning, to their supposed view point. Just a petty minded enjoyment, in annoying and upsetting others. Especially, people who are sill affected by or who have strong emotions, relating to events that occurred in Europe between 1939 and 1945. Con must prove their sincerity.
Evolution is a sound scientific concept

Pro literally just took everything that I said in round 3, and then switched them around for his position. He added no rebuttals to my arguments- he just asserted that they were refuted. My opponnent literally added nothing for me to rebut in his final round. All of my arguments are still extended. I stated this last round- Pro did not take this debate seriously. I'm sorry you had to read over this crazy font jungle to sort through wild assertions made by Pro.
Evolution is a sound scientific concept

Crystallization of my arguments. We must first notice how CON consistently used logical fallacies, ad hominems, ignored basically all of my arguments, and Has yet to make ANY rational logical arguments backed by sound eveidence to support his position. Keep in mind the topic. “Evolution is a sound scientific concept” Let’s review my contentions. · I’ve provided LOGICALLY SOUND evidence to support my position that evolution is a sound scientific concept. · Observed instances of Evolution. -Argument stands. · Bacterial resistance to antibiotics. -Argument stands · the fossil record. -Argument stands. · Prediction Genetic change. _Argument stands. These arguments stand unchallenged. Let’s review con’s “contentions”. · “Standards of Logic”-Destroyed. · · “Cons fabricated quote mines”~shattered · · “Time is Not the Hero of the Plot”~irrational, preposterous,fallacious,illogical and . Refuted. · · “Evolution requires abiogenesis”-A good indication that Con doesn't understand evolution for it has nothing to do with evolution · · “Trancendental Argument ”~Not only refuted but evolution has no qualms with Cons imaginary friends. Conduct. Con several times broke our “Logic” rule this warrants a conduct deduction if not a full 7 points in my favor and falsely accused me of logical fallacies. This is an insult, and requires the loss of Cons conduct point ! Con has yet to support his position. CONCLUSION I’ve made a logical case for why evolution is a sound scientific concept backed by evidence and arguments that have gone unrefuted. I have successfully dismantled Con’s fallacious arguments. We can conclude that evolution is a sound scientific concept that is backed by evidence ,logic and observation. Anyone who denies it Is failing to reason honestly and does not value evidence and logic. Unfortunately it seems that con will not change his beliefs to conform to reality and evidence. I will end with “ You should never try to teach a pig to sing, it wastes time and annoys the pig. ” my opponent is NOT taking reality for what it is.
Should Gay Marriage be legal

gay-homosexual marriage-the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. Both definitions from Merriam-Webster. Gay marriage, presumably a marriage which is somehow related to homosexuality, e.g. one or both partners are homosexual, is legal. Nearly every form of marriage is legal. There is no need to legalize that which is legal. It is far simpler to create a new, legal institution, a civil union, and leave the definition of marriage to the Church. I propose that civil union status, along with benefits, be given to all those who become, or are currently married, and that the government ceases to regulate marriage. I concede all points, excepting 4. An interracial marriage always fit the definitions, and when did we legalize polygamy?
Should Gay Marriage be legal

1. I'm tired of people saying being gay is a choice it is not, i am a straight man and i didn't one day sit on my couch and decide to be straight or gay i just natrually was attracted to women a gay man would be natrually attracted to men their is nothing wrong with that. Your sexual orientation is no more controllable than the color of your skin. 2. People that gay marriage is imoral acording to the bible. I dont know if you know that the constitution requires seperation of church and state the government cant ban gay marriage because the bible says so. 3. Stop saying if theirs too many gay people the world will end because gays cant reproduce. Your acting like our world is dangerously underpopulated it's not it's overpopulated. 4. The definition of marriage has changed all the time a black person and white person couldn't get married. We also allowed Polygamy, thats why we change deffinitions to better fit our changing society. 5. Its okay to have slight problems with gay marriage for religous reasons but don't ban it legalizing gay marriage is not going to turn you gay. (sadly some people don't realize that) Some people have problems with alchohol that doesn't mean we make it illegal. Dont keep 4 million people(those are just the ones who admitted they were gay theres probally more) from getting married. If you think its wrong well the gay people are doing the bad thing not you. 6. Stop saying because we've voted on it several times and it hasn't passed we should stop wining. If we relied on only elections to free the slaves we probally still have slaves today. 7. Stop saying if we legalize gay marriage we might as well allow old men to marry teenage girs, and people marrying animals. Thats stupid we wouldn't allow the first one for the same reason we dont allow teenagers to have sex with old men. As for a man marrying an animal and animal cant consent to marriage and cant do any work at home. gay marriage is between two people who love each other and want to be toghether and are responsible enough to make that decision. 8. Don't say that since gays can't have kids they shouldn't get married. By that argument i could say people who cant reproduce cant get married or by law all Married Couples must have kids. Plus gays can adopt (this is a gay marriage debate not a gay adoption debate we can debate adoption another time.) One last thing to think about religion is more of a choice than your sexual orientation
Some school subjects should not be mandatory

Assuming your claim is: "Students should teach themselves whatever they wish to learn" I think you're arguing under the assumption that every student knows "for sure" what they want to do with their lives and what they want their career to be. This is objectively not the case. I am a recent high school graduate so I will argue from my point of view and that of my peers who agree with me. The objective of education is to create a citizen who is self supporting and, ideally, beneficial to society. I agree with your contention that the best way to do this is to have a student EVENTUALLY specialize in a subject in order to become very adept at his/her particular trade BUT there are two things I would like to make clear. The first is that every subject has an objective which are extremely helpful in the development of a young citizen. Math develops quantitative reasoning skills, Science grants knowledge of the world you live in, Literature (English class) gives insight into the minds of geniuses and explores the workings of societies and characters in them (psychology and sociology), History shows you the low and high points of the world and how to avoid or reach them, PE and Heath develop very important habits for your wellness ext ext... It is the contention of every leader in education that a well rounded education is essential in the development of an intelligent and capable citizen. Everyone needs a base before they build on one specific discipline. The second is that regardless of your aspiration, no one is worse off by learning a little bit of everything. You weren't forced to Major in History, in fact you do get to choose your major, and it would be very difficult to prove that even your World History class was detrimental to your overall education/development. You must also consider that a well rounded general education (before college) is very useful for everyone but especially those students who are not yet sure what they want to specialize in. 18 is a young age to make such an important decision, and the few who know "for sure" what they want to do are few, and lucky. Also I would like to point out that the claim that "Students should teach themselves whatever they wish to learn" is wayyy to general to even be taken seriously. You surely don't think that elementary students should take only the classes they wish to. They are much to immature and unaware of the importance of education to make such a decision. In fact, that could be said for almost all students pre-university. Once you have completed your "general education" you go into college and begin your specialization, while still not neglecting important subjects like history and English and mathematics and such. I agree that "some subjects" should not be mandatory like agricultural studies or small scope classes like that, but I disagree completely with the statement that "Students should teach themselves whatever they wish to learn". If you specified like "College students should be able to choose their specialization once they have completed a general course of study" then would agree, but that's the system we have already.
Some school subjects should not be mandatory

I think students should teach themselves whatever the wish to learn. I think some topics in school are irrelevant to the life of many young students. School is long and stressful. We only need to learn the subjects that will effect us in the future. For example, if you are a sophomore in high school, and you know for sure that you will be an accountant in ten years, there is no need to be learning about science and study of life. Who cares. This person needs to know numbers. This person needs to take the appropriate math classes and maintain excellent math grades to get into the right department of college they want to be in. A class that I took in high school was world history. Dumbest class I ever took.... I don't need to know about Ancient Greece. Today, I am CEO of a huge company. Let me tell you, son, I don't need any education on history to be running a 83.9 billion dollar business.
Disney Must be Banned

Look. Disney World is filled with prostitutes. All they do is try to get the people to have sex with them. Also, did you know that Disney is racist? I think I said so in my last argument. Also, Disney is filled with nonsense. Kids are influenced by Disney to be depressed or talk in a weird way, or they are motivated to eat jugs of honey a day. I completely support the banning of Disney. It is filled with a bunch of racism and baloney and frankfurters. This picture here is so ugly, don't you agree? http://cdn-image.travelandleisure.com... Also, Pooh Bear and Donald Duck not wearing clothes is just so inappropriate. Pooh Bear is misrepresenting Asians. Honestly, they should have just given him glasses, small eyes, and chopsticks. Also, why is Donald Duck white? He is as ugly and retarded as an Indian. They should have made him brown. Disney does nothing as entertainment for children. I really believe we should reconstruct the 7 Wonders, or actually 5. We already have the Pyramids of Giza, and the Lincoln Memorial functions as the Status of Zeus. Kids ought to learn more about their forefathers and ancient history. I doubt any kids know much about history. Find at least 5 pictures of me on the Internet when you post your argument.