BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
This house believes that evolution is more defensible than Young Earth Creationism

Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to define some key terms.General Theory of Evolution - the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form. [1]In other words, in this debate evolution will be referred to as, the naturalistic process that is alleged to have turned molecules into man over billions of years. Creation - as described in the book of Genesis, God created the universe in six, approximately 24-hour days, roughly 6,000 years ago.Operational (Observable) science - a systematic approach to understanding that uses observable, testable, repeatable, falsifiable experimentation to understand how nature commonly behaves.This is what some like to call, 'here-and-now', science. This is the type of science that finds cures for sicknesses, sends mankind to the moon, and makes products of any kind that are useful to us. This type of science involves experimentation with observable, testable, repeatable, and falsifiable events.Historical (Origins) science - interpreting evidence from past events based on a presupposed philosophical point of view.Events that happened in the past are neither observable, testable, repeatable, or falsifiable. Thus, the full extent of the scientific method cannot be used for evolution or creation. Both evolution and creation are based on presupposed beliefs about how the universe began. Therefore, because we have different starting points (yours being billions of years of evolution, there being no God, naturalism, etc. Mine being the Bible), we reach different conclusions by interpreting the evidence to fit our framework of beliefs. You see, creationists and evolutions have the same evidence. The evidence is all the same, we just interpret the evidence differently. This is not part of my argument. This is something that should be agreed upon before the debate starts. It is impossible to have a proper debate on evolution and creation without understanding the differences between operational and historical science. It is impossible to be able to defend each others position in the right way without understanding that the facts exist in the present, but our interpretations of these facts lead us to different conclusions, because we have two very different starting points.You may now present your case, I wish you all the best. :) _______________________________________________________________________________[1] Kerkut, G.A. 'Implications of Evolution'For more information on presuppositions, starting points, worldviews, observable and historical science, etc., read Evolution Exposed, Chapter 1: What is Science? Or visit these links below:http://www.answersingenesis.org...http://creation.com...http://www.allaboutscience.org...
This house believes that evolution is more defensible than Young Earth Creationism

This debate is rather simple, and based off of a forum post. The burden of proof is shared. The first round is for acceptance, though my opponent can reasonably set forth some definitions if they wish or present their case for creationism. All sources and similar must go into the debate (and not hte comments) for fairness - I personally will otherwise over-source and it will weaken the debate's fluidity. In sum, however, standard debating rules and customs apply, and I look forward to my opponent's arguments. Thank you.
Autobots (pro) vs Decepticons (con)

Lastly, on Cybertron, we always had more Decepticons than Autobots for a reason. That reason was that Autobots wanted to upheld the old system, while we wanted change and rights for all bots, from the smallest minicon to the greatest titan. And those who don't agree with Megatron had to bear the wrath of his fusion cannon! Decepticon war forces are better as well. Starscream and his old commando of seekers were much better than the aerial bots. Skywarp had the ability to teleport, and I think that gives the squad a big leverage. Plus, clone soldiers of insecticons and vehicons were only present on the Decepticon side. The Autobots never had a chance. Only due to Prime's heroics and their ironic will to defend did they stay alive.
Autobots (pro) vs Decepticons (con)

Did you know what we stood for? EQUALITY. We Decepticons believed that the alt-mode of a bot doesn't define its functions, and that its caste shouldn't be decided on basis of the alt-mode. We were low down-miners and workers, and we wanted to scrap the caste system itself. Yet, what did the Autobots defend? They defended the Senate, and they saved Zeta Prime, who would have nearly destroyed Cybertron. The Autobots stood for the old traditions of Cybertron. There are many different versions of Transformers, but all of them involve me standing up for the downtrodden. I wanted full-scale change, Pax wanted it slow. Then, when I finally could remake society in my image, Pax betrayed me as he became the Last Prime and stood against me. They say power corrupted me. But in reality, it was Orion Pax, or Optimus Prime, who corrupted me. War made me stern, and there was no time for free will when you have blasters aimed at you. Optimus Prime, putting up an act of being Prime. Yet I know that he too is an ordinary bot, and that he wants things to be back as they were. He won't form a new aristocratic government, yet I know he too loves his power over the Autobots. Everytime he hears them call him prime, his spark fills with pride. I ruled through fear because people like Starscream worked everyday to wrestle control from me. Yet, every time a Decepticon says Megatron, I always detect a hint of reverence. They remember me for who I was, and they know that once the war is over, we would rebuild the world in our own way. My grand vision involves Cybertron ruling over every race, for we are superior. All Cybertronians would never have to face discrimination due to their caste. The universe will work for me. The world will be remade, and it will never be the same. P.S. when I say me, I refer to Lord Megatron
Fruits vs. Vegetables

You literally set yourself up to fail by mentioning all of the cons for fruit for me. Fruits may be more well liked because they have sugars in or carbohydrates that make you fat. Fruits seems pretty good on the outside, but actually has the same effects as other sweets. Putting fruits in deserts make them an unhealthy option. As you said, vegetables are around more often making them easier to get your hands on. Vegetables are overall healthier and are more readily available.
The Current Election is Evidence That The United States is Crumbling

So Rounds First:1) Acceptance/Opening Statements2) Arguements3) Refutations/Rebuttals/Elaborations4) Closing StatementsMy Opening Statement:The current US election is a contest between malevolence and idiocy. One half of the country believes whatever they are told on television and look no further than the "feel good" message of a Progressive Politician, while the other half believes that a television personality, not known for any philosophical or political flair, is capable of managing the country. Although I continue to be supporter of the latter, this is not because I agree with him, but because I think he buys the population time to regroup and elect an actual Statesman (or Stateswoman). I contend the reason for this is that the people of the United States have become so pseudointellectual and anitliberal. Instead, one party points to feelings to support their authoritarian vision while another party points to the Bible to support their authoritarian vision. Essentially, this election is a symptom of a society which, although it was once based on democratic principles, is now heading on the road to dictatorship. I do not claim that this dictator will be one of the two politicians running, but that the policies they plan to enact (in addition to already existing policies) will be utilized by a future autocrat, who is, without a doubt, not too far down the road.
polygamy is more natural for humans than monogamy

:) Now because my opponent did not bring up any definitions I will take it upon myself to do so to make sure we’re on the right page. Definitions: [1] “Monogamy is a form of relationship in which an individual has only one partner during their lifetime or at any one time. ” [2] “Polygamy is a marriage that includes more than two partners [at one time]. ” [3] More: “greater in amount, number, or size” [4] Natural: “usual or expected” [5] Humans: “Of or characteristic of people as opposed to God or animals or machines, especially in being susceptible to weaknesses. ” I will be setting up the burden of proof and a resolution analysis, which means, I will be explaining this debate’s resolution is and what my opponent and I need to prove before the end of this debate. Resolved: “Polygamy is more natural for humans than monogamy” This means that my opponent needs to prove that you will find that a greater majority of humans have a group or conjoint marriage then a relationship with one spouse. The Burden of Proof is on my opponent, what I need to do is negate the case he brings up. I await my opponent’s case. [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] . http://www.merriam-webster.com... [4] . http://www.merriam-webster.com... [5] . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
polygamy is more natural for humans than monogamy

polygamy is more natural for humans than monogamy polygamy is more widely practiced in human society now and historically, so that is an indicator, given we are part of the natural world. polygamy is by far most widely practiced in the animal kingdom, even with closely related primates. they did a study on primates, and concluded that the wider a species shoulder, the more polygamous that species is. humans are on the conservative, but polygamous side of things.
outlaw negative advertisments during election campaign period

Personally I am tired of all the negative advertisements that dominate campaign season but they are still needed. For every candidate, there is the good and the bad and there is no valid reason why people can't know the bad from advertisements. They can help people know if a politician has been dishonest, voted for things you don't like, or done things you don't like. If all we had were positive advertisements, people would be less informed on some of the bad things your government officials has done. If my representative has done something wrong, I will be favorable toward advertisements that told people this. This helps keep politicians responsible.
outlaw negative advertisments during election campaign period

this is true because negative advertisements will make many effect for the parties and the voter because it will make the voter feel that they are gullible by the parties and they will never trust again with the parties it is mean that the party will decrease they supporter to win in the election and not only that if the negative ads not ban it will make the young generation will imitate they habit to under estimate other party so it's mean that they learn about bullying
Anthropogenic global climate change.

I will contend that anthropegenic climate change exists. The contender will contend that anthropegenic climate change is non-existent.StructureR1 Acceptance & definitionsR2 ArgumentsR3 RebuttalsR4 DefenseBurden of proofBurden of proof will be shared equally. This is because I am making the affrimative claim and the instiagator, yet am arguing for what is normally accepted in the scientific community. Therefore, the burdens of proof cancel each other out resulting in neutral 50/50 burden of proof.Further explanation of r1 setup. First round is just for acceptance and definitions if need be. Common definitions are assumed, unless otherwise stated and agreed upon.Anthropogenic " Caused by humans" [1]Round two each person will make their argument, but no direct responses to the other person's argument. Focus on making a convincing argument that if not for your opponent's rebuttal would sell your audience. This is the only round to make new arguments for your case.Round three each person will respond directly to their opponent's round two argument pointing out any logical fallacies and attempt to find flaws.Round four each person defends their round two argument against their opponent's round three argument. For example if I say that is a cherry picking fallacy as a rebuttal in round three against my opponent round two argument, my opponent would explain in round four as a defense why me calling their argument a cherry picking fallacy is incorrect.Thank you in advance for accepting the debate.Previous debate for reference. [0] Try to stick to the structure please, makes it much easier for voters to follow the debate. Source.0. http://www.debate.org...1. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
I want to have the stupidest debate in master debating history

I said:"It does not matter what he types on a screen, it is still plausible that he does in fact want to have the stupidest debate in master debating history beneath the surface. People do things to cover up their true wants in this fashion all the time. " - Me Con completely ignored the point I made. Since Con had the BoP and failed to respond to my objections; Con loses.
I want to have the stupidest debate in master debating history

"Thank you for your eloquent argument rationalthinker. You have successfully helped me on my own terms. By providing rational and logically sound arguments have helped this to not be the stupidest debate in master debating history, which is what I was trying to prove." - ConMy opponent is under the false impression that the resolution is "This will be the stupidest debate in master debating history"or "This is the stupidest debate in master debating history" The reason this notion is flawed is simple; the resolution is:"I want to have the stupidest debate in master debating history"Con has not shown that he does not want to have the stupidest debate in master debating history. Even if he does not want this debate to be the stupidest (which he still has not argued for), he may still want to have the stupidest debate in master history at some point. Ergo, his argument is a red herring. This could be the most rational debate, but that fact would not help Con negate the resolution any.
I want to have the stupidest debate in master debating history

The resolution is "I want to have the stupidest debate in master debating history". By "I", he is self-evidently referring to himself, or else the resolution would have said "You" to refer to me. He has chosen the Con position, which means that he is arguing:"No, I do not want to have the stupidest debate in master debating history" He did not mention that that the burden of proof is shared, and he started the debate. Thus, it is assumed that the burden of proof is on him to show that he does not want to have the stupidest debate in master debating history. However, this is an impossible task. It does not matter what he types on a screen, it is still plausible that he does in fact want to have the stupidest debate in master debating history beneath the surface. People do things to cover up their true wants in this fashion all the time. Since his position is essentially impossible to defend, the debate goes to me by default; Con has the BoP.
Loosen gun control

As hard as it is for my opponent to admit he's wrong... he is, what he fails to realize is that a bullet is a bullet, it doesn't matter who shoots the gun, there will always be less harmful ways to disarm a mugger/rapist (May i suggest a tsar or mace) that are just as effective and (If used properly) not deadly at all. Does it matter who shoots the gun let it be a woman or a criminal, a life is a life. As for you saying that the case i provided was not sufficient proof i disagree strongly saying that this convicted fellon was able to posses a gun and pass the mandatory background check that the police gave him when they confiscated the weapon's so if he got the guns back, which he did, that must mean they were legal guns, and i'm pretty sure that shooting someone is a crime. I'm not even going to get into the complications of getting all of the illegal guns off the street, but i would like to say it would be impossible to do so. As for his argument being stronger, he sort of just spewed ideas and thoughts that had very little in common. Gun control should be tightened for several reasons including but not limited to: 1. The right to bear arms does not refer to individual use but to the right for your government to bear arms, so the idea that you have a right to own a gun is "Absurd" 2. even with state-of-the-art background checks there will always be some who manage to fake their way through. 3. The idea of Millions of Civilians, who have no training with weapon's, being aloud to carry them in their pockets where ever they want is like running with a stick of dynamite in your back pocket (It's dangerous) 4. Civilians don't need to carry guns because we have well established government agencies (i.e. FBI, Police, CIA, about 100 other three initial agencies, and for more major threats the military)
Loosen gun control

"The 23-year-old Navy officer was dead at the wheel, shot by a convicted felon out cruising the highways with two friends. They had been drinking and were looking for cheap thrills, illegally armed with a Glenfield Model 25 .22-caliber rifle and a Remington 870 12-gauge shotgun." This does not prove your argument at all, I asked show me one person who went threw the system to purchase a gun and then used it illegally. I asked my opponent to show me a person who went threw the system and the background search bought a weapon and then used it illegally. My argument is much stronger and has not been proven incorrect. Take illegal guns off the street, put weapons in the hands of likley victims(women) and place no restrictions on the area's of a concealed weapon that was purchased by a citizen with a better background search. Crime will drop if likley victims would carry weapons, you get one or two rapists blown away by a woman with a pistol the crime drops.
Loosen gun control

although it is not an official record from a court case here is a little sip of an article that shows a illegal use of a legal gun The 23-year-old Navy officer was dead at the wheel, shot by a convicted felon out cruising the highways with two friends. They had been drinking and were looking for cheap thrills, illegally armed with a Glenfield Model 25 .22-caliber rifle and a Remington 870 12-gauge shotgun. here' the hyperlink http://seattlepi.nwsource.com... so that makes my point valid right? maybe he didn't purchase them legally but the authorities had possession of them and let him have them and then he killed someone and the Constitution was written in a different time the dangers were closer, harder to intercept, they didn't have the worlds most powerful military guarding them they were practically expected to fight in the army when a threat did come and they didn't go around with them in their back pockets. and how safe does that make the rest of us knowing that 1 in two republicans are carrying guns around? and then you'll have (Like i said before) even more death. It's like the domino effect, one person shoots because they feel threatened then someone who looked because of the shot sees a man holding a gun over a dead body and they feel threatened so they shoot etc. Don't say it cant happen because this is the 21's century Mr. "The 1700's weren't a different time" the 1800's are much closer and it happened then. As for people need guns because Democrats are in office? or was it terrorists? Either way that's what the Military/ FBI/ CIA/ Police are for so i don't think that we need any 80 year old women gunning down Osama any time soon.
Loosen gun control

Apparently you listened to nothing I said, first of all the idea that a homicidal man purchasing a weapon legally is absurd no one with a misdemeanor or any type of mental history or illness is capable of such a purchase. My argument is that we should tighten the gun purchasing and licensing like a better background search including yourself and family members, but those able to purchase one should have little to no restrictions. You give me one individual who went threw a background search and then used a concealed weapon illegally and your point will be valid until then your just spewing opinions. The problem with firearms is that guns are able to be purchased illegally easily. Tighten the gun selling but those able to buy one should have no restrictions on carrying it as long as its concealed. Also your point about the constitution being written in "different" times is also stupidity. The times we live in now are much much more violent and dangerous than when the declaration was written. Crime is so high in the United States because there is no capital punishment anymore. It is more important than ever for citizens (women especially) to be carrying a concealed weapon, with the Bush administration out of the white house soon and the democratic party taking over the threat of another terrorist attack is almost a probability. The truth is these times are much more dangerous to the citizen and the right to bear arms is a right that should and must be implied today.
Loosen gun control

First off wow, but that aside gun control should be tightened more, the point of gun control is to stop killing and stop "homicidal men" from getting guns. Sure a few manage to get their hands on one and they do hurt people but there is no doubt that more would get hurt if the gun control rules were weaker if you really think about it that portion of the constitution was written when there were indians and other nations in North America (No offence Canada) that had a means of getting to the population before the army even knew about it unlike today where we have a Navy and an Army and a Air Force oh and 50 National Guards...... see my point? As for having a gun where you'd really need one, the rules make it so that you need one less and if they were really followed you wouldn't need one at all, so again if anything guns should be made illegal period, if everyone who wanted a gun was able to buy one there would be 10 times as many deaths related to guns then there are now and were already the country with the most crime do you really want that? so the choice is no privately owned guns and less gun crimes or more privately owned guns and mass destruction and chaos, take your pick.
Loosen gun control

Gun control, probably one of the most heated controversies in politics today,and I think a fun topic to debate on. The constitution on the United States of America allows citizens the right to bare arms. And yes today citizens are allowed to bare arms, however not extensively. I am sick of hearing about these women being ripped to pieces by homicidal men, gun control should be allowed on a more loose system. If you cannot carry a gun in areas where you are more likley going to use it what's the point in carrying one? Gun control should have a more thorough search and background system and then that should be the extent of it allow citizens who's background is clean and has children who are not mentally ill or have a history of a mental sickness background carry weapons extensively. If 3/5 women carried small caliber pistols the sexual and homicidal crime rate were these animals victimize women will drop rapidly.