BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
this method to stimulate human evolution would work to cause speciation

I apologize if my argument was lacking in clarity. I meant the isolated group will be able to mate with other humans forever. The group of 500 elites is chosen by the same criteria that natural selection chooses in the rest of the world. The smartest, strongest, and healthiest are most likely to pass on their genes in both locations. Thus, there is no reason for the isolated group to evolve in a way different from the others; they're evolving to fit the same environment as us. For the sake of fairness, I will present no new arguments either. I will end this round with this clarification only. Thank you, and I bid Pro good luck.
this method to stimulate human evolution would work to cause speciation

con is arguing that humans will still be able to mate with the group. that's true, for a long time. but then speciation will set in. con hasn't argued why this isn't hte case other than to simply say it wont happen. "Perhaps aggregating 500 elites with a criteria differing from the natural environment will lead to a separate species. But with this method, speciation is impossible." could you clarify this statement?
The Doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy is probably false.

Definition of Biblical Inerrancy: Biblical inerrancy is the doctrinal position that the Bible is considered accurate and totally free of error (from Wikipedia). The doctrine of inerrancy is a dangerously unsound one, stemming from the misapplication of western literary standards. The position that the Bible, beyond its irreproachable orthography, contains absolutely no factual errors has its articulated origin in 19th century Princeton Theology. This, of course, does not prove that the doctrine is false (as to say so would commit the Genetic Fallacy), but it should be helpful to know that primitive Christianity and all major reformers thereafter did not operate under the idea of inerrant scripture - to say as much would be verifiably anachronistic. The Chief Protestant reformer Martin Luther explained scripture this way, "Holy Scripture possesses no external glory, attracts no attention, lacks all beauty and adornment. You can scarcely imagine that anyone would attach faith to such a divine Word, because it is without any glory or charm. Yet faith comes from this divine Word, through its inner power..." (Rogers and McKim, The Authority and Interpretation, p. 79) John Calvin put this way, "For who even of slight intelligence does not understand that, as nurses commonly do with infants, God is wont in a measure to 'lisp' in speaking to us? Thus such forms of speaking do not so much express clearly what God is like as accommodate the knowledge of him to our slight capacity. To do this he must descend far beneath his loftiness." (Institutes, I.ii.I) It's time for Christians to stop deifying scripture and start taking seriously contemporary scholarship. The Bible writers, according to the literary culture of the time, always focused on form over fact. If instead of applying western standards to the Bible we take it within the socio-historical context for which it resides, a fuller, richer understanding of the text will surface. Inerrancy causes us to use western literalism where it is unnecessary - meaning is often lost in such exercises. In this debate I will present and defend 3 strains of argument: (1) Sargon the Great and the Epic of Gilgamesh (2) Gospel source criticism (3) Mesopotamian Creation mythology Anyone who thinks they can show the inerrancy of scripture to be the probable truth in light of whatever I may say concerning the aforementioned, please take this debate. - InquireTruth
(I'm bored) Anthem debate.

Rules:1. No kritiks, Trolls, Etc.2. Do not post the same anthem twice.3. You may post in round 5. 4. Don't noobsnipe me. Please.5. All anthems must be exisiting currently. For example, the USSR anthem is banned.Format: Starting in round 1,You post a link to your anthem. There is no rebuttals, You Do this for 4 Rounds. There akso is not any acceptance round.https://m.youtube.com...As for my anthem 1, It is From Mother rusja! rusja! rusja!
Christopher Handley Should Be Punished by the US Government For Owning Loli Doujins

You said, " Would my opponent also have let Nazi officers free after WWII? They were just following orders, and besides what they were doing wasn't illegal in their country." I say: This is outside the realms of the debate. I find it next to impossibile to have a meaningful debate based upon high pathetical theories and falacies. I will try to entertain my opponent though. The mass genocide they commited was agenst the Rules of War (yes there are rules). You said, " The government isn't some magical body that only makes perfect laws. In this case they are banning pictures that have no connection to real life children, nor does the accused person have any ties to real life children." I say: Doesn't matter. If we don't abide by the laws of our country, or seek reform, then we are not solving anything. Besides, he has pleaded guilty and deserving of punishment. Guilty of breaking the law. You say, "So what if it does? I ought to be able to promote whatever I want because in the end promoting something is not actually doing something. " I say: Yes you are. You are attempting to influence the public into breaking the law. That's also agenst it. That's enabling. I can't go to an elementary school and tell them to smoke crack. That's illegal and doing something. You say, "I think we should ban romantic comedies because they promote a false reality." I say: If it is a false reality, it isn't possible. Therefore there is no way they can do that. Besides, they don't promote something illegal. You say, ". We could also ban all movies that show underage drinking, it is illegal after " I say: It is illegal, unless it's an informative video showing the negative effects of it. You say, "So what if it's made for "sexual provoctivity"? I say: I was talking about drawing pleasure from the sexual abuse of a child. it's sick, it's wrong, it's illegal. It often goes hand in hand with a mental illness. You say, "I also fail to see a lot of things as art, but I do not call for their banning" I say: It is banned because it promotes the abuse of children in the form of art. It's slandering as well! That's illegal too, if art was a person. I rest my arguements. Good luck
Christopher Handley Should Be Punished by the US Government For Owning Loli Doujins

The majority of my opponent's argument consists of "it's illegal right now, so he should be punished." Would my opponent also have let Nazi officers free after WWII? They were just following orders, and besides what they were doing wasn't illegal in their country. The government isn't some magical body that only makes perfect laws. In this case they are banning pictures that have no connection to real life children, nor does the accused person have any ties to real life children. Regardless, as made clear in the comments this debate is not about the current legality of the law, but rather that it should be illegal in the first place and that Christopher Handley should not be punished. "It is my own perception that it is illegal because it promotes the sexual abuse of children" So what if it does? I ought to be able to promote whatever I want because in the end promoting something is not actually doing something. Should we also ban violent video games because they promote violence? I think we should ban romantic comedies because they promote a false reality. We could also ban all movies that show underage drinking, it is illegal after all. We don't ban these though because the promoters are not responsible for another person's actions, only that person is. If a person goes out and physically harms a child they should be punished to the full extent of the law. They should not be punished for looking at fake and drawn pictures of child abuse any more than a video game player should be charged for killing a person in game. "developed for sole sexual provoctivity, and not education." So we should ban everything that is not useful as education? Not everything has to be useful to you. So what if it's made for "sexual provoctivity(sic)"? That doesn't change the fact that no real person is harmed in the making or viewing of the material. "I fail to see the benifet in this form of 'art', which I use the term loosely." I also fail to see a lot of things as art, but I do not call for their banning.
Christopher Handley Should Be Punished by the US Government For Owning Loli Doujins

Many will not deny that the sexual abuse of a child in any form, fictional or nonfictional, is morally wrong. My opponents own source states that: "A U.S. comic book collector has pleaded guilty to importing and possessing Japanese manga books depicting illustrations of child sex abuse and bestiality." If he has pleaded guilty to owning depictions of children's sexual ABUSE, then there is no reason to not punish him, especially when he pleaded guilty. Since this is an U.S. 'artist', he must abide by the United States and it's laws, which as my opponents source provided, states that, "2003 Protect Act, which outlaws cartoons, drawings, sculptures or paintings depicting minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct." In which he has pleaded guilty. My opponent stated "If he were really interested in real children surely the prosecutors could have linked him to at least one piece of child pornography containing real children." I say: The Protection Law of the U.S. states that it does not have to be real children in order for it to be agenst the law, and if he committed a crime agenst the law, he should be punished for it." My opponent stated, "To punish a man and possibly send him to prison for up to 15 years for drawn pictures is wrong and should not happen in a "free country" It is not because of the drawn pictures, it is because of the numorous times he has held ill regard for the law and subsequently violated said law. Also, my opponent said, "One must also take into account that Christopher Handley did not just make one random doujin purchase out of the blue, but that he had already collected hundreds, if not thousands, of lolicon doujins." I say: This is even worse. If he did it just once, it would be much better that he refrained from breaking the law again, rather than collecting "hundreds, if not thousands" of this illegal contraband. It may be considered an art form, but an illegal one. Let's look at why it is illegal, shall we? It is my own perception that it is illegal because it promotes the sexual abuse of children and is developed for sole sexual provoctivity, and not education. It is for the enjoyment of others who find arosual in the molestation of children. Now, THAT, is wrong. I fail to see the benifet in this form of 'art', which I use the term loosely. I will now rest my arguementation and move to rebuttals.
Christopher Handley Should Be Punished by the US Government For Owning Loli Doujins

I do not want to debate semantics. If you need clarification on the resolution please say so in the comments before accepting this debate. In a recent court case Christopher Handley plead guilty to "mailing obscene matter" and "possession of obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children". It is important to also know that their was no "evidence that he also collected or viewed genuine child pornography". As a result of owning only drawings Christopher Handley faces up to 15 years in prison. The law says that only "obscene" materials are illegal, but that itself is absurd. Regardless if something is obscene or not the sole act of owning drawings harms no one. How obscene the drawings are matters to no one but the buyer, as he may have certain tastes. One must also take into account that Christopher Handley did not just make one random doujin purchase out of the blue, but that he had already collected hundreds, if not thousands, of lolicon doujins. If he were really interested in real children surely the prosecutors could have linked him to at least one piece of child pornography containing real children. To punish a man and possibly send him to prison for up to 15 years for drawn pictures is wrong and should not happen in a "free country". I put free country in quotes because there are many aspects of the United State government that reek everything but freedom, yet we like to tote around those two words. [Source] http://www.wired.com...
This is a pun . . .

Anyone can look up a definition to counter an argument AFTER the fact, but your first definition, the definition that my opponent's conjecture is founded upon, states: "Pun: A play on words, sometimes on different senses of the same word and sometimes on the similar sense or sound of different words." My opponent back tracks in his argument, saying that "there is no one widely accepted definition of the word pun". However many definitions there might be, the Con argued its conjecture with the clear and single definition. Normally, I would let this slide, but because of the lopsided nature of this argument, I have no choice but to decline any such leniency. Please DISREGARD any other definitions set for "pun" for the definition set in the beginning is the definition on which the debate was founded. The key part of the definition lies the words 'sometimes' and 'and sometimes'. The structure of the sentence, although confusing, states TWO possible plays on words that define a pun. It is like saying, "SOMETIMES I go to the gym and work out AND SOMETIMES I do not." There is no other hidden option (at least not stated) so for the technical sake of the debate, we must disregard any such possibility. Because it has been proven again that there are only two possible definitions of the word "pun" in THIS particular debate, I will simply restate my previous, revalidated arguments. 1. I still need only to prove one "pun" wrong to disprove my opponent's argument (He did not dispute this) 2. Kayak and cake haven't justifiable similarities to be in accordance to the set definition 3. There is no way around the pronunciation of kayak to disprove contention #2. 4. My argument is sound because my opponent only attempted to reinterpret his previously set and concrete definitions I conclude my final argument by saying that, by the set rules of my opponents first argument, I have proven that not all of his "puns" are in fact puns. Thank you for you time and please vote Con! (Great debate! It was definitely a challenging topic)
This is a pun . . .

Clearly my foe has forgotten about the key parts of the definition I gave "To define my position . . . Pun: A play on words, sometimes on different senses of the same word and sometimes on the similar sense or sound of different words. " Now if you read it properly you would have seen the "sometimes on the similar sense or sound" key word being sometimes so play on words is not a must, My kayak argument had nothing to do with sounding like "You can't have your cake and eat it too. " it simply shares a similar meaning negating your criterion, plus kayak and cake do have similar enough sounds but that is not my criteria basis . . . If you want another definition here's one: Pun: the use of words or phrases to exploit ambiguities and innuendos in their meaning, usually for humorous effect; a play on words. An example is: ``Ben Battle was a soldier bold, And used to war's alarms: But a cannonball took off his legs, So he laid down his arms. ' (Thomas Hood) You could also see that there is no one widely accepted definition of the word pun hence the pun can simply be considered drab humor of a bygone era and can also best be left to the opinion of reader hence further refuting your argument . . . . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://www.thefreedictionary.com... . http://www.answers.com...
This is a pun . . .

The following are puns: A Freudian slip is when you say one thing but mean your mother. A hangover is the wrath of grapes. Banning the bra was a big flop. Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana. A gossip is someone with a great sense of rumor. Without geometry, life is pointless. Two fish swim into a concrete wall. The one turns to the other and says, "Dam!" Two Eskimos sitting in a kayak were chilly, so they lit a fire in the craft. Unsurprisingly it sank, proving once again that you can't have your kayak and heat it too. Two hydrogen atoms meet. One says "I've lost my electron." The other says "Are you sure?" The first replies "Yes, I'm positive." http://www.joshua.com... http://www.spiration.co.uk... To define my position . . . Pun: A play on words, sometimes on different senses of the same word and sometimes on the similar sense or sound of different words. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... http://www.answers.com... http://dictionary.reference.com... The opposition must prove that the things stated were not puns . . .
Death Penalty

I literally only have time for one contention because of the severely short character limit. Contention 1 The death penalty acts as a deterrent for criminals who would other wise not be afraid of prison. There are many people who do not mind going to jail or receive the consequences of their actions, but when we insert a death penalty it puts a sense of fear into some criminals. Since it is often used as a way to kill someone after they have killed one or a few people. A study says this. "A final report will likely be published later, but the initial statistics indicate the number of murders in the U.S. increased slightly by 1.5% from 2011 In states that did not have the death penalty, while states that have it showed a slight decrease"
Drugs should be legal

I just wrote like 7000 words backing up my opinion with logical reasons and I gave examples of how it has worked for other countries (Portugal). All you wrote in response is the propaganda that has been pounded into our heads since we were little kids "Drugs are bad","Just say no", etc. No logical support of your ideas, no evidence, no study, just opinions. If you're talking about drugs that are so potent that you literally have no control over yourself, that's not what this debate is about. I specifically pointed out twice in my introduction and first sentence of first body paragraph that those drugs were not part of the discussion. However, if you are referring to the other drugs then you're just wrong. I know people that have done coke, meth and many of the harder drugs (I will not state on the internet if I have or I have not tried them) and they're perfectly fine, in fact, many are way more responsible than the average adult. Drugs like cocaine just give you a huge energy rush and you feel euphoric, you don't suddenly become more aggressive. That's your imagination at work. In other words, drugs don't change your personality. They won't make you do things that you normally wouldn't do. All they do is they make you feel different and some people like that once in a while. I'm sure is not hard for you to understand why someone would drink alcohol once in a while even though it's harmful. It feels good. Same reason for every other drug, they're harmful but they make you feel good/different. Some people try them just once for curiosity. Other people do them in a controlled way. You will always have the people that can't control themselves and get addicted but you should not take away the rights of the responsible people. Apply that logic to gun control, I don't own a gun and I don't think they're too interesting, but I would never vote to take away the right of 300+ million people just so one maniac out of 1 million gun owners goes and does something crazy. That's just silly. Otherwise every accident in history would result in the event of Congress passing a law that limits whatever right was abused until all rights are restricted or gone. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want freedom, some accident will inevitably happen, but in exchange you get, well, freedom.
Drugs should be legal

Drugs should not be legal. Drugs of harder caliber drawl people powerless and incapacitate them. The danger can not be underestimated and the feds should pursue such potent drugs out of american life. Drugs with a peaceful recreational use should be regulated by state and its municipalities. Responsible Use, and Responses to Abuses --should be the focus on lesser mind-altering substances Beer and Wine should be left as is over-the-counter. Tobacco products could be re-regulated(cleaned up) with its consumers well-being coming first. Hard liquor should be tagged with an extra tax, giving way to.. Marijuana Reform..which is so CRUCIAL that one can only wonder why/how it has not already been undertaken in its sensible manner. I have a layout for its reformation..for another argument. Legalizing Drugs could only endanger every human being
The Big Bang theory possibly occured

Rebuttals: "It's simply impossible for an abstract noun to do something because it has no physical form, and a physical form is required to do anything. A common noun can do something (a party can occur and a dog can run) but an abstract noun is inanimate. " Actually, I agree. "Theory" is an abstract noun, which means that it exists in thought or as an idea but does not have concrete or physical existence. However, you have agreed (Sadly, a concession) that the Big Bang possibly occured.
The Big Bang theory possibly occured

The big bang probably happened. (http://www.bbc.co.uk...)The big bang theory is a theory. A theory is defined as a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained. (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...).A theory is an abstract noun (http://www.grammar-monster.com...). Abstract nouns cannot occur.To occur is a verb. It is defined as to happen or take place. (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...) A verb is a doing word. It is used to express an action (e.g., to fly, to think, to sing) or a state of being (e.g., to be, to exist). (http://www.grammar-monster.com...) It's simply impossible for an abstract noun to do something because it has no physical form, and a physical form is required to do anything. A common noun can do something (a party can occur and a dog can run) but an abstract noun is inanimate. It cannot complete the action described in a verb.
The Big Bang theory possibly occured

Rebuttals: " It's extremely probable and likely that some sort of big bang occured. However, the Big Bang Theory did not occur. A theory does not occur, a theory is an inanimate noun, it simply cannot happen." Because... Nobody saw this? No. That is why this is hypothesized. Presentations: "1. According to the laws of thermodynamics (Conservation of energy[1], in particular), energy can neither be created, nor can be destroyed. 2. If statement #1 is true, then energy must be finite. 3. The Sun needs energy. 4. If statement #3 is true, and the mass and energy is filling up those spaces, how does the Sun have energy? 1. Indeed. According to the laws of thermodynamics (Conservation of energy[1], in particular), energy can neither be created, nor destroyed. 2. True. Energy is finite. 3. Yes. The Sun does. 4. Mass and energy does not fill up those spaces. Alright. While solid objects are dense (Mass compacted together as having no space to go around), liquid and gas is not; the mass has space to go around in which it does. Same goes for our Universe. "How is the universe in such complex order?" So, according to the theory[2], due to the extreme density, there was a cataclysmic explosion. What happened is, when something completely orbits a planet, or star, or whatever, that "something" is compelled to continue doing so to whatever it orbitted. Also, remember that while in Earth, there is gravitational pull[3](In which everything within Earth's boundaries is pulled down towards the Earth's core), in the Universe, there is not. "It can not be eternal" Absolutely. If this occured due to the extreme density, how was that able to hold in for so long? However, I believe that a monotheistic God created this. Sources: [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.big-bang-theory.com... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org...