BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Egg came before the Chicken [Pure logic] [No evidence]

This debate has a rigid pair of rules, failure to abide by either and/or both and one forfeits 7 points to opponent.The Rules: Never use evidence other than from Darwin's theory of evolution or any LOGICAL hypothetical past state of animals or living beings in general. In other words, no one should deserve the sources vote because this should be purely original work. Never, ever contradict yourself. If any one of us is proven to have self contradicted even once (even using a quote from round one and from round 4) that person loses immediately no questions asked UNLESS they can prove it is not a self contradiction in which case the prosecutor forfeits the match, in other words I really want us to not have any self contradiction at all because this debate is often turned ugly by it. Thanks.Round one is not for acceptance it's for con's case. <--- failure to abide = 7 points forfeit.My case for the egg is this one, simple fundamental line of logic that, to me, is flawless.The 'egg' could be the egg we know mammals to have, fish to have, birds to have or even an imaginary type of egg.I shall now define egg, FOR THE CONTEXT OF THIS DEBATE. This definition is non-negotiable and if you do so I will remind you only once that you accepted this debate on the premise that this definition ring true, if you fail to adhere after a warning, you forfeit 7 points.Egg: Any biological structure from which a fetus forms, and perhaps develops, or merely is involved with the production of the living vessel.My definition of chicken (not in the meat context) is negotiable, unlike the definition of egg. However in negotiation (which must end prior to round 4) I would appreciate good reasoning and justification for it.Chicken: The first creature existing to genetically resemble the modern day hen, all which descend from it or its relatives.My argument is simply this: There could exist no chicken without an egg but, far more easily, could the egg of a different bird have mutated to create the chicken in fetal form (or its father having been the mutated bird). I cannot see any way, unless evolving straight out of thin air in a similar way to single-celled bacterium, that there cold have existed a Chicken before the egg containing one.
The Egg came before the Chicken [Pure logic] [No evidence]

"I meant that saying dinosaur's had 'egg' doesn't prov [sic] emy [sic] theory right. Instead, An egg of a creature that directly produced the first chicken is proof of my theory. The fact that the chicken came from an egg shows my theory to be true. " If a chicken came from a dinosaur egg, it could be concluded that the dinosaur egg came before the chicken. However, if the chicken did not come from a dinosaur egg, it could still be concluded that the dinosaur egg came before the chicken. Thus, both statements result in the same conclusion being reaching regarding chickens and eggs. For Pro to reject the second statement (that a dinosaur had an egg before the first chicken existed) as proof of the resolution, Pro must disagree that the conclusion of the second statement satisfies the resolution. It follows that since the conclusion of the second statement does not satisfy the resolution, the first statement and its conclusion also do not satisfy the resolution. Thus, it is possible that a chicken came from a dinosaur egg - in this case, the resolution is negated and Con wins the debate. Logically, there is nothing intrinsically special about dinosaurs that prevents Pro's argument from being extended to other animals. Extending Pro's argument to the animal whose egg (that I have shown to not be a chicken egg) created the chicken, it follows that the resolution is negated. Even if Pro's argument cannot be extended to all animals except chickens, it is still very possible that the first chicken came from a dinosaur egg, especially since chickens and dinosaurs are genetically similar. To conclude, Pro has not met BOP.
The Egg came before the Chicken [Pure logic] [No evidence]

"Yes I agree but how can a chicken not come from an egg?" Pro has agreed that the following to be semantic abuse: "dinosaurs had eggs. they came before chickens." It follows that Pro considers the resolution to refer to chicken eggs and not to the eggs of other animals. Whether or not a chicken comes from an egg is irrelevant; a more relevant question would be whether or not a chicken comes from a chicken egg. The answer to this question is contained in my speech from the previous round: "the DNA of the egg is different from the DNA of a modern chicken egg; thus, the egg is not a chicken egg and the sperm is not chicken sperm, however, the combination of the two forms a chicken." Thus the (chicken) egg did not come before the chicken.
The Egg came before the Chicken [Pure logic] [No evidence]

"Okay by hen's egg is [sic] was referring to an egg from which a chicken comes. An egg is not a fetus at all, it always needs fertilization by a sexy SPERM! (the hen species is not hermaphrodite). [...] A chicken is [...] at its very conception ALREADY only HALF the genetic data of" a zygote. Presupposing that egg and sperm are different, the combination of egg DNA and sperm DNA must be similar to that of the modern chicken. By the laws of probability, it is more likely that there are important mutations in both the egg and the sperm (or just in the sperm) than in the egg alone. If there are mutations in both, then it follows that the DNA of the egg is different from the DNA of a modern chicken egg; thus, the egg is not a chicken egg and the sperm is not chicken sperm, however, the combination of the two forms a chicken.
The Egg came before the Chicken [Pure logic] [No evidence]

Okay by hen's egg is was referring to an egg from which a chicken comes. An egg is not a fetus at all, it always needs fertilization by a sexy SPERM! (the hen species is not hermaphrodite). Thus you can not possibly say a chicken is an egg because it is, at its very conception ALREADY only HALF the genetic data of an egg. Please drop this silly argument and actually explain how on Earth chicken came before egg?
The Egg came before the Chicken [Pure logic] [No evidence]

"A chicken is a being the resembles the modern day hen. The egg of a hen is formed BEFORE the fetus begins to form. The chicken is not an egg because it is a fetus at its origin. Over to con." Agreed. However, the above statement presupposes the existence of a hen (before the egg is formed): "The egg of a hen." This presupposed Chicken must exist before it can have the egg that is considered in Pro's scenario. Over to Pro.
The Egg came before the Chicken [Pure logic] [No evidence]

1. The BOP lies on Pro. 2. Con concedes that the Chicken did not come before the Egg. 3. Every Chicken is an Egg: A. An Egg is "any biological structure from which a fetus forms, and perhaps develops, or merely is involved with the production of the living vessel. " B. Creatures "genetically resembl[ing] the modern day hen" are "biological structure[s] from which fetus[es] form[,] and perhaps develop[,] or merely [are] involved with the production of [. .. ] living vessel[s]. " C. A Chicken is a creature "genetically resembl[ing] the modern day hen. " D. Therefore a Chicken is an Egg. 4. Pro cannot redefine Egg or Chicken without contradicting himself and effectively forfeiting the debate. "There could exist no chicken without an egg but, far more easily, could the egg of a different bird have mutated to create the chicken in fetal form (or its father having been the mutated bird). " Agreed. A priori, it is possible for the egg, a mutating "biological structure," to be a chicken, such that the first chicken and egg come into existence at the same time. Thus Pro's BOP is not fulfilled. "I cannot see any way, unless evolving straight out of thin air in a similar way to single-celled bacterium, that there cold [sic] have existed a Chicken before the egg containing one. " Agreed. Naturally, since every Chicken contains itself, every Chicken is contained inside an egg. To conclude, Pro has not disputed that the Egg and the Chicken could come into existence at the same time instead of one existing before the other.
Just because your so cute and for the sake of arguing i want to debate.

well first of all i get one point for making you laugh. I get another for flattering you. I get two more points for actually being the first guy to try to "socialize" or "talk" to a girl on debate.org lol. secondly i have you stuttering because you cant even spell boyfriend right anymore and most importantly who ever is reading this has to be laughing or thinking how big of a creep is this guy in the back of there heads. Thus i challenge your boyfriend to a dual or a debate about why he should have no problem with him giving me his girlfriends information to a total stranger on debate.org solely based on the issue that he just thinks shes cute. Let me rephrase that. He dosn't have to know.(jk) (one more point for calling you cute again) Oh forgot to mention he cant possibly be better then Batman.
Just because your so cute and for the sake of arguing i want to debate.

k well now the argument is going to take a different shift. But if i win you share with me your Myspace and/or Facebook account but if i lose you share with me your Myspace and/or Facebook acount anyways.. Not fair? I know its Castro time on Debate.org so to bad. Now your arguing why you shouldn't give me your myspace/facebook account and why i shouldn't put my pix (or should) up on Debate.org
The Deuterocanon is not inspired

Since Double_Helix46 failed to issue the challenge as promised [1], I have taken it upon myself to throw down the gauntlet.Note: There are four rounds, and the voting period is two weeks. 8000 characters.Outline:Round 1 - Acceptance (opening argument for Pro)Round 2 - ArgumentsRound 3 - RebuttalsRound 4 - More Rebuttals, no new argumentsResolved: The Deuterocanon is inspiredBurden of Proof is shared, with a tilt towards Pro.Definitions:"Deuterocanon" is defined as "the Old Testament scriptures included in the canon of the Catholic Church but rejected as apocryphal by Protestants; Tobit, Judith, Additions to Esther, Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Jesus ben Sira (Sirach), Baruch, Additions to Daniel, 1 and 2 Maccabees."I would like my opponent to list his Old Testament canon in round 1, if possible.Here is my list:GenesisExodusLeviticusNumbersDeuteronomyJoshuaJudgesRuth1 Samuel2 Samuel1 Kings2 Kings1 Chronicles2 ChroniclesEzraNehemiahTobitJudithEsther1 Maccabees2 MaccabeesJobPsalmsProverbsEcclesiastesSong of SongsWisdomSirachIsaiahJeremiahLamentationsBaruchEzekielDanielHoseaJoelAmosObadiahJonahMicahNahumHabakkukZephaniahHaggaiZechariahMalachiI will be giving reasons as to why the Deuterocanon is worthy of its inclusion in that list. I will also (possibly) challenge my opponent to demonstrate how scriptures he deems inspired are, for if there is no standard by which to deem inspiration, this debate is impotent.Sources:1. http://debate.org...;
We should ban all Nuclear Weapons

In conclusion, banning of nuclear weapons even if successful would cause more death and destruction than leaving them exist. On top of that, it would be near impossible for the abolishment to be successful. Such a failure to abolish would only leave rogue groups have them and take them away from responsible groups. Such an attempt would greatly increase the likelihood of civilian populations being hit by a nuclear weapon. In addition it would cause a arms race of thermobaric weapons which can rival nuclear weapons in killing potential. Such thermobaric weapons would also lack the alternate uses that nuclear weapons have, thus forcing them to be used for death and destruction. There are also pros of nuclear weapons such as their non-lethal uses and that they are the only thing that can save us from a late warning asteroid. Since there are significant pros of nuclear weapons and the cons of abolishing them are enormous, it must be concluded because of overwhelming evidence that nuclear weapon should not be abolished unless you want death and destruction. I thank my opponent for participating in this debate. This debate is now concluded.
We should ban all Nuclear Weapons

Our nuclear weapons would kill more then just there target I have three questions for my opponent What about the danger of the human race? Do you realize these weapons can end up in terrorist"s hands? Do you realize that radiation will cause long term effects on people"s health? Do you really wanna kill more innocent people then enemy"s? There are 26,000 nuclear warheads in existence. These are enough to incinerate the entire population of the planet five times over. At least around 2,600 of these weapons are on high alert. This means that they can be launched within about 45 minutes or less of the warning of an attack (the President or Prime minister will have 10 to 15 minutes to make a decision on launch after the Chiefs of Staff have given the opinion that we are under attack. The Chiefs of Staff have 10 to 15 minutes to decide if we are really under attack after receipt of electronic information that we are). The existence of nuclear weapons constitutes a continuous and totally unnecessary threat to the population of our planet making both true peace and peace of mind impossible. The people of the world do not want these weapons. Of the 192 states of the United Nations only 8 have built and deploy nuclear weapons*. The remaining 184 states are put at risk by the 8 who have them. Of the eight states that have developed these weapons, in no case has the populations of those states been asked if they want them. Nuclear weapons are to dangerous it will spread radiation which will kill more people as time goes by. Animals would die because there food and water are covered with radiation it will ruin the environment. As of 2005 the Nuclear Weapon in NYC costs $10 trillion dollars we don't have money for that we are in debt almost $20 million dollars The World Council of Churches, through a Muslim-Christian Initiative, has said "We agree that the Christian and Muslim traditions are unambiguous on the sanctity of human life and on the protection of all forms of creation, including the environment. "We believe that chemical, biological and particularly nuclear weapons do not discriminate between combatants and non combatants and inevitably destroy innocent human life, even as they destroy other forms of life such as animals and vegetation, cause irrevocable damage to the environment for many generations to come and cause human suffering and disease. Therefore, we hold that these weapons are contrary to our religious and ethical principles I have stated the Environmental, Economical, and Moral status on this issue it would be a catastrophic for us to keep Nukes in place thank you.
We should ban all Nuclear Weapons

Nuclear weapons kill indiscriminately. There have never been weapons like these. They are not for fighting the enemy in the traditional sense. They are for wiping out the populations of countries. There are no other weapons that can kill hundreds of millions of people in a few hours. The civilian populations have no hope; no place to hide. They are led "like lambs to the slaughter". The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists tells us that 50 of today"s 26,000 nuclear weapons could wipe out 200 million people. "Nuclear weapons have provided us with the capacity of self-destruction. former peace and security adviser for the United Nations, launching the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN)9 . Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction of an ethnic, religious or national group. That is what nuclear arsenals potentially do. The mass killing of civilians is condemned by international law as a crime against humanity. In fighting a Just War (a war that is being fought because it is the only available way of defending against an aggressor) it is necessary to fight the attacking force, not slaughter the population as a whole - that is genocide. In supporting a government which deploys nuclear weapons, and does not work seriously to get rid of them, are we declaring ourselves willing to be party to such a crime?
The Big Bang created the Universe

I think the real question is, what created God? You say that something can't be made out of nothing. If that was true, how did God come to exist? While the theory of the Big Bang has not yet been fully proven, neither has the existence of God. There are things in this world that we couldn't even begin to discover, let alone comprehend. I found a religious argument using the evidence of the Big Bang (http://infidels.org...). I thought that might interest you to read. With that said, I come to my conclusion. I believe that the Big Bang created the universe. There is evidence to that belief, although lacking some rather vital information. Thank you for educating me further. That is what debates are all about.
The Big Bang created the Universe

Your second statement should end in a question mark, since it's a question (rhetorical or not). Before I continue, let me explain what the Big Bang theory is. The Big Bang theory "is the prevailing cosmological model for the universe from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution." (http://www.bbc.co.uk...). The Big Bang is a theory as you stated. There is evidence to this theory but it has not been proven in full to be completely accurate. The same thing goes with God. Although there's more evidence proving the Big Bang than God. It is being studied that for a short period after the Big Bang, the universe underwent an incredible burst of expansion called "inflation". At the time, the universe must have been filled with a form of energy of an unknown nature for this inflation to have occurred. 50 years ago, Robert W. Wilson and Arno A. Penzias heard the hiss of radio signals coming from all directions beyond the Milky Way. After researching this, they found that the hissing is cosmic microwave background radiation which is the residue of the energy and matter that created the universe billions of years ago. They found proof to confirm the Big Bang theory. Avi Loeb is a professor of science at Harvard university as well as the Chair of the Department of Astronomy. He stated "I"ve been trying to understand the beginning of the process before the Milky Way and its stars were formed. It turns out that the first stars were more massive than the Sun and the first galaxies were smaller than the Milky Way." He says this is a compelling period because "it is the scientific version of the story of Genesis. I don"t want to offend religious people, but the first chapter of the Bible needs revising"the sequence of events needs to be modified. It is true that there was a beginning in time. As in the biblical story, "Let there be light." This light can be thought of as the cosmic microwave background." (http://www.smithsonianmag.com...) Furthermore, "In order to contemplate the universe creating itself from nothing, you must first accept the proposition that something can be created from nothing . That is tenable only in the quantum realm, so applying it to the universe presumes a quantum scale for the universe." (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...)
All drugs should be legalized.

First your argument. Your moral side, of course you have a right to ruin your body as you please, but not only do drugs ruins your body, but doing certain drugs, for example "spice" can hurt those around you, which could result in murder, assault, harassment, all sorts of bad things, which this country does not stand for, and each of which is against a law. . http://www.nydailynews.com... Hypocrisy argument: "Some substances are just as harmful as alcohol and tobacco" First I would like to point out that tobacco, is an extremely weak substance compared to illegal drugs, and tobacco is addictive, and has a limited amount of side effects, where a hit of weed, is more likely to render you incapable of driving a care, which brings us to alcohol, the affects of alcohol and some substances are the same, but if someone popped some spice , and killed everybody in a massive rage, I would pick rather pick alcohol, which is monitored at a social gathering. economic issue: Ill keep this one short and simple, if the drug is banned, don't make it, which means it wouldn't be sold, which in turn solves your economic prices. As your argument stating that more people have been caught with a substance then those who committed violent crimes, I don't see that as a argument, it just seems like you ran out of ideas and popped that up as a quick last resort. So as to my arguments. I argue, that all illegal drugs, should stay illegal. First is that all substances a potentially harmful to you and those around you, but certain drugs, that make you feel "good" can get others killed around in you in extremely scary ways, and, I'm throwing my opinion out there now, find friends and family a better solution for a release then drugs.
All drugs should be legalized.

Hello contender,These are a few arguments:Moral side The government’s there to protect Life, Liberty, Property and that’s it. My body being my private property, it’s absolutely ridiculous and outraging that bureaucrats try to dictate what substances I should or should not make use of. Anyone who disagrees is disagreeing with the basic principles this country was founded on. Hypocrisy issue Some substances are just as harmful as alcohol and tobacco depending on the dose, even high calorie foods can be more addictive and cause much more harm to one’s health[1][2]. Anything the doctor prescribes you is also a drug. Economic issue Prohibiting it, makes it always more expensive due to the risk of producing and distributing. With an open competitive edge, it’d drop the prices, thus reducing theft and crimes related to money raising. Legalizing it would make it harder for crime organizations to compete and they’d be out of business. When there’s a rival seller, they simply kill each other to eliminate competition, with a legalized and open market/competition, like in any other private sector, the only way to succeed is to improve quality, reduce prices, etc. Not to mention it’d also create lots of jobs and new industries. Legalizing would certainly leave more space in prisons to real and more serious crimes, as well as having more police force available. As seen here the percentage of drug arrests[3] The following is a graph comparing how marijuana possession surpassed violent crime arrests. Prohibition doesn’t stop those who want to use it anyway. See below. Prohibition not only doesn’t work, but makes it worse Prohibition always makes everything even more attractive, especially to young people. If you know any teenager, the chances they’ve used or use drugs are high: "Teenagers drugs: 60.6 percent of youths aged 12 to 17 were dependent on or abused drugs." "In 2008, an estimated 22.2 million persons aged 12 or older were classified with substance dependence or abuse in the past year (8.9 percent of the population aged 12 or older). Of these, 3.1 million were classified with dependence on or abuse of both alcohol and illicit drugs, 3.9 million were dependent on or abused illicit drugs but not alcohol, and 15.2 million were dependent on or abused alcohol but not illicit drugs." [4] Prohibition of alcohol in the U.S in 1920 had catastrophic results: Not just didn’t prevent anybody form using it but also raised violence and empowered gangs, the number of crimes increased by 24% between 1920 and 1921, homicides by 12.7% [5]. PS: I haven’t even mentioned how much money we would save stopping this senseless "war on drugs". References: [1] http://www.examiner.com... [2]http://www.thatsfit.com... [3] http://www.motherjones.com... [4] http://www.inspirationsyouth.com... [5] http://en.wikipedia.org...