BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Bob Saget has a strong desire for toasters.

Potato. Potato. Contention 1- On comedy central, Bob Saget was roasted. He clearly didn't enjoy this, as he would much rather be toasted. He therefore desires a toaster. Contention 2- since desire is defined as a sexual urge, I do not know how my opponent could prove that Bob Saget doesn't have sexual relations with toasters. He likes men, (http://t0.gstatic.com...) Women, (http://t1.gstatic.com...) and hand sanitizer, (http://dailyblabber.ivillage.com...), so why wouldn't he like toasters? Contention 5- According to http://www.celebrityspider.com..., toasters can be used to capture souls, and the devil loves to capture souls, so the devil desires toasters. Since Bob Saget is the devil, (http://t2.gstatic.com...) Bob Saget desires toasters. Bless you.
Bob Saget has a strong desire for toasters.

Let me see....First, these two doctors have prescribed you a heaping dose of Shut Up. http://thumbs.dreamstime.com... Contention #: You says that Bob Saget has no toaster, causing him to desire one. However, few people know that Bob Saget hires hobos to breathe on his breath for hours until it is toasty and warm. Like your face. Other Contention:Bob Saget is not God. http://www.fancast.com... Contention (number): http://www.annadewdney.com... Here you can see something supporting my debate. Contetion More: Bob Saget is asexual. http://blog.rifftrax.com... Yes. Bob Saget is a paramecium. The king of paramecium. s. Contention: http://www.michaeltotten.com... This peanut was toasted. Bob Saget was generally anguished at the toasting of the peanut, therefore going on a murdering streak. By joining the cast of Full House, a sitcom that in the first season decimated nearly 1/4 of the world's population. http://rookery2.viary.com... Contention: Cornflakes. Bob Saget's greatest ally. Also hates toasters. Contention lost track of numbers: Do YOU even appreciate toasters? Yes? Well how about NOW? : http://farm1.static.flickr.com... HEEBEEJEEBEES! Raffi once said: "It grows in bunches, I've got my hunches. It's the best. Beats the rest! Cellular, modular, interactabodular." The "it" that grows in bunches and is the best is the anti-toaster. It was created to destroy all toasters in the universe. It was created by none other than Bob Saget. And Uncle Joey. If you wanted to destroy toasters, then you clearly do not desire them. Case. Closed.
Bob Saget has a strong desire for toasters.

Thank you for NOT making this debate. First off, my opponents entire argument is a fallacious ad hominem, so he loses. Contention 1- Bob Saget is god (bobsagetisgod.com). God created everything. God loves his creations. So Bob Saget loves toasters. (http://www.llerrah.com....)(http://chasingthewind.net...) My opponent has stated that Bob Saget does not have a toaster. Since he doesn't have one, Bob Saget desires one. My opponent has the burden of proving that Bob Saget does NOT desire a toaster. That is not possible, as the world will never know if Bob has strong sexual urges towards toasters. (definition from dictionary.com)
Bob Saget has a strong desire for toasters.

I am agenst this argument. Contention 1: First, Philip, a hip n' fly individual, agrees with me. http://www.srpublications.com... Omg, indeed. Do you notice any toaster in this Picture: http://blogs.pioneerlocal.com... NO! Therefore, Bob Saget has no toasters, and further, does not desire one. Contention 2: http://www.olsen-twins-news.com... Contention 3: DJ is mad at Stephanie for taking her spot in the cereal commercials. http://images.fanpop.com... They thoroughly appreciate cereal, indeed? This is because Bob Saget, who plays their father in the show, does not provide them with a toaster. Fool.
being evolution

You, my friend, can't claim a single argument up to this date of scientific advancement , in favour of evolution..(check some valid scientific sources and read some good article on Darwinism). Believing in evolution is just like believing in some 'Bigfoot'..but you can't prove anything about it's existence. You can't just get away by proclaiming something without a valid argument in favour of your motion. For me and majority of people alongside my notion accept that Theory of Evolution "may" be true , but it "is" not true.... Think about people living in arctic, the Eskimos, why don't their skin have evolved ? Why don't they have thick skin to preserve fats??? Why do they have dark skin instead of white ??? Don't you think theory of evolution can't be considered a fact or a law until it's universally accepted?? Well think about it and rectify your views ...
being evolution

Some of us believe that our finger tip can regrow after being cut but it's not so with our whole limbs or arms....why so??? because we have lost that biological system of regeneration..... And this comes from the interpretation of Darwinian theory of evolution.....but let me first ask you a question ...even up to this day, not even 10% of the biological species are known...and even to most of these species Darwinian theory doesn't comply.... Then how could you believe the evolution theory to be a fact?????
being evolution

if humans cut of a single finger in a moment of life or death as a rule.. eventually we will be able to regrow our limbs.. like the tail of a lizard, because the lizard that survives getting grabbed by the tail will survive can survive it a finger will regrow genetically for the male to fit the genes of the child evolution=live or die=life or death=survival+adaptation evolution=any difference between any being natural selection(incorrect)=adaptation(correction)
There are only a maximum of three genders

Alright, so I will start off with the fact that gender in definition is, "The state of being male or female (typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones)." (https://www.google.com...) That is not my solid information though. Gender does not depend on what you feel you want to be. It is biologically the state of having two X chromosomes, or an X and a Y chromosome. This can also be depicted by your genital type, as a penis and testicles for a male, a vagina and ovaries for a woman, or both a penis and a vagina for a hermaphrodite. Some of modern society, mostly the Alt-left, think of gender as a social construct. You can't feel what your gender is. That's like saying that your favorite color is seven. They are on two different kinds of spectrums. Gender just happens to be a very small one. No matter how you look at it the only other combination for the two chromosomes is two Y's, and since men can't reproduce. It is almost impossible to produce this. Considering all of the possibilities, I believe that there can only be three genders.
There are only a maximum of three genders

Rules of the debate: 1. No attacking each other personally 2. Don't try to forge or exaggerate facts 3. Let's debate and walk out of this as human beings 4. First round will be introduction round with no arguments I kinda gave some slack for my side for including hermaphrodite as a gender; but I (Pro) will be arguing how why there are two main genders, male and female, and a possible third gender of hermaphrodite. My opponent (Con) will be arguing how and why there are more than three genders.
Capitalism is ruining human nature

I will now refute my opponents argument. China is not a pure capitalist country, instead it is a mix of socialist, communist, and capitalist. Which is a reason for its poverty and poor to rich ratio so China is not a good choice in this case and doesn't resemble a true Capitalist economy.{1} One of the great things about Capitalism is that it can get people out of the monotonous production line jobs and even the sweat shops by providing ways out and opportunity for those people to leave and possibility create their own business which will cause the greatest thing in an economy, competition. Competition is a very natural thing animals and even humans through out history have competed with each other trying to one up the other. Competition makes people better by the natural thing called evolve or die which means if a business isn't getting better by making a product better or cheaper it will die among the other businesses, but if it can rise to the occasion it can last and evolve to a better business. Another analogy that shows how great Capitalism vs a Command economy is by this- Think of a classroom as the economic market, with Capitalism the ones who work hardest will get an A and so on, so it is test day the ones who studied the hardest, paid the most attention in class got an A on the test, while the ones who didn't studies didn't pay attention received and F on the test, so now the students who got A's will keep working hard to get better grades while those who got F's will either try to work hard or will be left behind. Now compare it to a Command Economy the same students studied hard and the same students didn't so test day came along, but instead of giving the best students A and worst F it wouldn't be fair so they take the Average so everyone got a C on the test, well it wasn't fair to the students who worked harder so instead of trying to better themselves they stop studying and soon the test average is an F no everyone has failed. A Capitalist market rewards those who try hard and do well by more money while a command economy tries to make everyone equal no matter how hard they work, so is this fair, no. Money hasn't repressed human nature because if there was no money there would be other things that people would compete over like precious minerals, property, or food. Money is just another means for nature to work with humans. Capitalism is naturally while Command economy is not. Sources {1} http://www.fsmitha.com...
Capitalism is ruining human nature

You use the analogy of greed and animals to portray your view. The question is when does greed stop? The point that I am making is that these leading corporations create a society where men in suits and offices get distinctly richer and the workers in un-skilled jobs are alienated from their true human nature as they are forced into monotonous production line jobs which don't bring out any sense of their potential as a human being. This is how the greed of capitalism has created this destruction of human nature! In a sense society is drastically getting richer and poorer. Look at superpower china, how many people are living in poverty there? Can you not see that in such states and on a global scale there are of course a majority who are benefiting from capitalism but there are so many who are getting fucked over from it! Money has essentially repressed their human nature, look at sweat shops! You simply can't say that they are establishments that ooze out human nature! They destroy it and capitalism has created such places in the world!
Capitalism is ruining human nature

First things first Capitalism isn't fair, but nature as in its self is not fair.The old saying plays into account "Survival of the fittest" and this is true when it comes to both nature and Capitalism. Look at business and animals in the same light if an animal is born with stronger bones, denser muscles, and a camouflaged coat it is more likely to survive in the wild and pass on its genes, then look at Capitalism if a business is created with better investors, hard working employes, and a product that can sell it will more likely survive in the business world. With a business that can become stronger it can create more jobs with better revenue and a great product to buy, if anything a command economy is less fair because while it does have a safety net it also has a enclosed area that is very close to the safety net which turns into more like a cage for business which means it forces weak business to survive and it hurts all the other thriving business in the same market. Now time to get to the question of the debate is Capitalism ruining human nature and I have taken the position of no it doesn't. Lets look at the definition of human nature "the psychological and social qualities that characterize humankind, especially in contrast with other living things." there is a contrast between animals and humans, but the thing that makes animals and humans similar is that they both are greedy. Animals always want more food, power, and mates and Humans want more money and property. There are two types of greed the good greed and the bad greed the good greed is when you want to better yourself the bad greed is when you want more for the sake of having more. That is what Capitalism it all about bettering yourself through greed while it has its faults it better satisfies our human nature of getting more while a command economy forces everything to be even. Capitalism doesn't ruin human nature it brings it out Sources http://dictionary.reference.com...
Capitalism is ruining human nature

There have of course been arguments for and against capitalism since the days of Marx. The overriding argument for capitalism is that it creates opportunity and rewards hard work. But is it really fair? The way I see it it really isn't. In the 21st century leading corporations such as McDonalds or tescos (in the UK) dominate our society. Yes they are strong contributors to economic growth and create jobs but the way I see it they create distinct social inequalities. Firstly the vast majority of workers are low paid. but also work in a production line manner with no room for creativity or personality, everything is scripted and workers are alienated from their true talents. The way I see it is that capitalism has created a free market where corporations have got so big that there is no room or opportunity for new start up business. The lower earners are simply controlled by these leading corporations. Capitalism simply isn't fair as not everybody wins! Responses!?!?
Evolution is real

Did you know that most religious people today believe in evolution? Of course they all say that "god planed evolution". I think that's false. You say that evolution has no facts, only theorys? What about the HMS Beagle? Can you explain why all of the finches found on different islands during the same time period had different beaks. Each adapted to its surroundings. One of the finches even had a special beak designed to grab twigs and use them to prod larva out of logs. Had they not adapted, they would have starved. If there was no evolution, all species would eventually die out. Even recent studies show that human legs are beginning to evolve because we so commonly walk on concrete even though our legs are designed to walk on grass. How can you explain that? And tell me another thing. If evolution is false, then why arn't all species exactly alike in size color EC.???
Evolution is real

Hello buddy! I have come to prove you wrong about evolution.. I am here to say to you first, is that evidence is NOT the same as proof! And.. Biologists admit that the creation of all that we live in "Shows signs of a Creator or Designer because everything that is here has a specific design, such as plants and humans" However, evolution suggests we were created from inorganic matter, which is denying the law that nothing can be created nor destroyed.. Which shows nothing on how the inorganic matter was created!Us Christians have a "solid empirical basis for their theory, while the evolutionists are left clinging to their convictions of faith." And also "to simply dismiss the concept of a Creator as being unscientific is to 'violate the very objectivity of science itself'"... While we may not be able to comprehend knowledge of a Creator, we certainly can apprehend it! MORE AND MORE EVIDENCE TO COME BRO!
Resolved: The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument is Sound - 3

Well, that was disappointing. Let's make this one short. Modality does not claim that whatever exists possesses the quality of necessary existence and that whatever does not must exist contingently. That makes absolutely no sense because contingency in modality is a property of existence and as such, something that does not exist cannot be attributed a property of existence. To clarify I would only like to rehash two key definition. Contingent Existence - Existence that could have failed to exist, i. e. existence that is explained by an external cause. You and I exist contingently because our respective parents may not have met, or may have chosen not to have children. We could have, logically speaking, failed to exist. Necessary Existence - Existence that could not have failed to exist, i. e. existence that is explained by the necessity of its own nature. The laws of mathematics exist necessarily. It would seem perfectly plausible that if the world existed in the exact opposite manner then two and two would still make four. A perfect being, or God, exists necessarily because necessary existence is an essential perfection and thus would be possessed by a perfect being. Take not that God's status as a necessary being does not offer proof of his existence. Necessary existence merely functions to explain why God exists, if he does. The LCA offers evidence for God's existence by means of argument to the contrary, in which no other explanation for the existence of the universe is possible. Note that necessary existence is equivalent to the state of being eternal. Something that exists necessarily cannot be created or destroyed. My opponent also claims that the laws of mathematics do not exist necessarily. Let me point out two major flaws in this argument. First of all, he claimed that everything which exists must exist necessarily and that anything that does not exist must be contingent. Given this logic by rejecting that the laws of mathematics do not exist necessarily then they must not exist at all. His line of thought justifies the belief that one and one makes three. Next, we can evaluate his claim using the proper interpretation of modal logic. He states that we cannot know that if the universe functioned differently the laws of mathematics would hold true. I would claim that the laws of mathematics are by definition metaphysical properties that are true independent of any physical reality. The laws of nature could function in such a way that worlds pop into existence from nothing. One world popping into existence and a second world popping into existence would still, however, make two worlds. Nothing else has been refuted. I am too tired to rehash arguments that my opponent did not respond to.
Resolved: The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument is Sound - 3

i disagree with modality logic. it says that if something exist then it is necessary but if something failed to exist it is contingent.suppose x is a thing that exist for a span of 100,000 years.after that it will be no more. we call x during its lifetime that x is necessary but we call it after its cessation, contingent. so there will be a doubt as to what will be the true nature of x.is it a necessity or contingent? it cannot be both because necessary and contingent are opposite thing.i also disagree with the necessity of mathmatical law of 1+1= 2 in any situation. you say that 1+1= 2 irrespective of how the world functions. but how do you know that? many laws of science changes during the current functioning of universe, nobody can predict what will happen when the functioning of the universe changes.so the modality logic does not work.since rest of your argument is based on modality logic, hereby i hold them false.
Resolved: The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument is Sound - 3

Resolved: The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument is Sound.Rounds:1. Acceptance only2. Opening arguments3. Clash4. Closing arguments/clashThe Leibnizian Cosmological Argument (LCA) Every existing thing has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God. The universe is an existing thing. Therefore the explanation of the universe is God. I cite the The Nature of God by A.W. Pink [1] to describe the complexity of the Lord:[F]rom a review of the perfections of God, it appears that He is an all-sufficient Being. He is all-sufficient in Himself and to Himself. As the First of beings, He could receive nothing from another, nor be limited by the power of another. Being infinite, He is possessed of all possible perfection. When the Triune God existed all alone, He was all to Himself. His understanding, His love, His energies, found an adequate object in Himself. Had He stood in need of anything external, He had not been independent, and therefore would not have been God.He created all things, and that for himself (Colossians 1:16), yet it was not in order to supply a lack, but that He might communicate life and happiness to angels and men and admit them to the vision of His glory. True, He demands the allegiance and services of His intelligent creatures, yet He derives no benefit from their offices, all the advantage redounds to themselves (Job 22:2-3). He makes use of means and instruments to accomplish His ends, yet not from a deficiency of power, but oftentimes to more strikingly display His power through the feebleness of the instruments.I ask readers to take note that we should rationally accept an argument as sound if the affirmation of its premises is more plausible than the negation.Sources1. http://www.pbministries.org...
Uniform should be mandatory at all high schools.

To win this debate, I must successfully rebut my opponent's arguments. I will assume that Con holds the burden of proof because there is only one round and not enough room for me to make my own arguments and for either to be responded to. The 2,000 character limit only allows enough room for me to rebut Con's arguments anyway.Re: Freedom of ExpressionAlthough it may be true that student's will not be able to express themselves the way they want, that is probably a good thing because gang colors and insignia will not be worn at school. If we allow students to express themselves so freely, it may lead to the showing of gang-related attire which is what the typical community is against. Also, what students express on their clothing could be offensive to other students, such as shirts with offensive or crude language written on them or inapropriate pictures. It would be overall better if students just went with apropriate uniforms.Re: Not FittingUniforms can be fitted to each student's size so that they don't have an issue with their clothing. If they have a problem, they can see the person who is in charge of fitting uniforms and get them adjusting so that they are no longer a problem. Each student would actually concentrate better on their schoolwork because they would worry less about how they look and fitting in.Re: ExpensesA national 2013 survey of 517 US school leaders found that 77% of those surveyed estimated the average annual cost of school uniforms per child to be $150 or less and 94% of those surveyed believe "one of the main benefits to parents is that school uniforms are more cost-effective than regular apparel"[1]. Parents seem to prefer uniforms to miscellaneous clothing cost-wise, so expenses are actually less of a problem than they are with normal clothing. Con's argument therefore holds no merit.Con's case is negated. Vote Pro. (I've reached the limit)Source1. http://www.naesp.org...