BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The U.S. should make collegiate education free

Con: The U.S. should not make collegiate education free1: The Existing System Works (a)The U.S. is already sponsoring and managing it's collegiate system in a responsible manner. Overall, the U.S. injects a higher percentage of it's GDP into education than Germany does.(b)The U.S. collegiate system in it's present form is working effectively, in a manner that reflects wider societal norms for the facilitation of opportunity and personal advancement. 'Increasing numbers and percentages of Black and Hispanic students are attending college. Between 2000 and 2013, the percentage of college students who were Black rose from 11.7 to 14.7 percent, and the percentage of students who were Hispanic rose from 9.9 to 15.8 percent.'(c) The U.S. collegiate system has earned international approval.Total international student enrollment: 886,052 (2013-2014)(All significant statistics indicate that the above three points are essentially correct.)2: The Role of Government within Third Level Education Government has a responsibility of tenureship, regarding college education, that requires it to be consistent when confronted by egalitarian postulation. Deflections caused by these promptings are usually the antithesis of considered reform. Government makes demands, on behalf of its citizens, insisting that elements such as parity and fairness remain obvious within the facilitation arena that is 'college education', A fees component within the system allows a basis for effective control of the entire presentation of third level education option types in a manner that helps protect the tax payers patriotic contributions. 3: A collegiate qualification is hard currency. In a modern world the bill must be paid by the person who is most likely to benefit. Student loans are an excellent method of insuring that this payment is made in a structured way. Grants and scholarships based on socio-economic deprivation, counterbalance the advantages that normally accompany affluence. The norm is a large number of fee paying students who tenaciously claim their right to be well educated and privileged.'In 2013, median earnings for full-time year-round working young adults ages 25–34 with a bachelor's degree were $48,500, while the median was $23,900 for those without a high school diploma or its equivalent, $30,000 for those with a high school diploma or its equivalent, and $37,500 for those with an associate's degree. In other words, young adults with a bachelor's degree earned more than twice as much as those without a high school diploma or its equivalent (103 percent more) and 62 percent more than young adult high school completers. Additionally, in 2013 median earnings for young adults with a master's or higher degree were $59,600, some 23 percent more than the median for young adults with a bachelor's degree'(I have examined the Pro case to date. It ignores commonplace understandings of Rules 1, 3,4,and 8, while attempting to attach moral positives to its position. I will rebut Pro's case in my next submission as per Rules Structure.)Sources:http://nces.ed.gov...http://data.worldbank.org...http://www.iie.org...
The U.S. should make collegiate education free

I think it will be a fun learning experience for the beginners, and it will allow us to learn the ropes. Secondly, I would like to thank my opponent, zeromeansnothing, for taking on this debate with me. I have no doubt that you will provide an intelligent and lengthy discourse, and I look forward to our contentions. Lastly, I would like to thank both of our mentors for agreeing to be our guides through this tournament. You have no idea how much that helps us in the learning process. Full and Clear Resolution:The United States of America should make collegiate education (for clarification, post-secondary schooling at educational institutes) free for its constituents. Burden of Proof:In this debate, and from the resolution, the burden of proof is shared. I, as Pro, must argue in favor of the U. S. putting into place a free collegiate education system. The job of Con is to provide ample reasoning as to why free collegiate education is not good. Violation of the previously stated guidelines could result in voting out of your favor. Structure:Round 1: Pro presents the framework and rules of the debate, and Con Accepts. Round 2: Pro presents his case, Con presents his case. Round 3: Pro rebuts Con's case, and Con rebuts Pro's case. Round 4: Pro defends his arguments, Con defends his arguments. Rules: 1. No semantics whatsoever. Each debater should interpret the words of the resolution as stated in the definitions provided.2. The burden of proof is shared. (More in-depth above)3. Opening round is acceptance only. Anything else will result in a violation of these rules, and will be taken into account during voting.4. Any footnotes/endnotes or citations should be presented in the text of your argument, not anywhere else.5. No forfeiting of any rounds, unless approved by both parties (Pro and Con)6. No new arguments in the final round.7. Maintain a civil and calm discourse.8. No "kritiks" of the topic (or any other kritiks)9. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add resolutional definitions10. For all undefined terms, individuals should use commonplace understanding of them that fit within the logical context of the debate.11. Failure to meet any of these specified rules will be taken into account during the voting period. Definitions:Free: without cost or payment. Collegiate: of or relating to a collegeEducation: adegree,level,orkindofschooling. Constituents: servingtocomposeormakeupathing;component. In this case, it represents the people of America. In conclusion. .. . thank you for accepting this debate, and let's make this a memorable experience for both of us to learn from. May the best debater win!
Evolution is correct

The horse hoof "fossils" are not even fossils at all. It says that it is an "educational set showing the Evolution of the Horse Hoof has 6 sets of fore and hind foot casts." No fossils, just casts. Thus no more proof has supported that claim. As far as the PowerPoint goes, it will not let me see it do to the fact it may have a virus. Since I do not trust a complete stranger off the internet, I am not willing to turn off my anti-virus programs and take the risk of messing up my computer. Due to this, no more proof has been presented. I apologize but there is nothing I can do. Your DNA article is false. Something I may mention is that ape and human chromosomes are NOT 98% identical. http://www.darwinconspiracy.com... I strongly suggest visiting this link. To read specifically abut contradicting Darwin's idea of ape to human evolution, scroll towards the bottom. Thank you.
Evolution is correct

I agree, the illustrations could be considered invalid. Here are images of actual fossils. http://www.prehistoricstore.com... If that does not suit you, you can also look at this powerpoint, slides 6-8. http://www.radford.edu... We can also take a look at DNA. The gene pool has changed over time (because of natural selection), and eventually created a humanoid, then primate, neanderthal etc. As proof, chimps and humans have a whopping 98.8% similarity in the DNA strand. http://www.amnh.org...
Evolution is correct

The main problem with the horse hooves is that they are illustrations and not bones or fossils. No real evidence is presented. Those illustrations could have been completely made up. In addition with the lack of resources, it adds no support to your belief that evolution is correct. I see no transitions in the primate skulls. Throughout the millions of years it's showing, the skulls go from somewhat normal, to more deformed. It does this a few times. I do no know why, but this still presents no hard evidence. It simply shows skulls of species no longer, almost extinct, or well abundant primates or some other mammal. In conclusion, my opponent has failed to provide any evidence of evolution in his first round of this debate. Another thing to consider is in regards to the skulls. There is no transition from an obvious primate skull to an obvious human skull. I look forward to the next round. Thank you.
Evolution is correct

I believe that evolution is correct because of scientific evidence. Let's start for example with horses. If you take a look at their hooves throughout time, there is an obvious but gradual change over time. (Look at picture) http://www.bpeah.com... Then you can take a look at some more, simple skeletal evidence. Primates. Once again, there is an obvious, yet gradual change over time. (Look at picture) http://www.theistic-evolution.com...
Evolution is correct

A cast: Although it does not contain any material of the original fossil (because it has decayed away), it retains the SHAPE of the organism that was laying there. Therefore, it is valid evidence. http://petrifiedwoodmuseum.org... There is also scientific research suggesting that land mammals have evolved into what we now know as whales. (Looking at fossils of skulls, teeth etc.) http://evolution.berkeley.edu... http://www.pbs.org... Another kind of proof for evolution is the existence of endogenous retroviruses. (Read atleast first 2 paragraphs. The 3 little paragraphs above "references" at the bottom are good too). http://evolutionandgod.com... Viruses are possibly the best proof of evolution. Especially considering that the evolution of viruses can be observed in one's lifetime, not millions of years. Viruses are ever-changing as a result of evolution. Why do people need to be vaccinated regularly? Shouldn't one shot be enough? That is because the virus evolves, changes and the vaccination is no longer effective. Take the swine flu for example. "New strains" of swine flu are simply the evolved version of the virus. http://www.livescience.com... Viruses evolve quickly (in comparison to other beings) because they reproduce very rapidly. More units being produced increases the possibility of a genetic mutation, which, if superior to previous "version", will thrive and be the newly evolved form of the virus. Antibiotic resistance is also the evolution of a virus. In simple terms, here is the process. 1) There are three viruses units. (Viruses are not cells). A, B and C. 2) These three units infect a person. 3) Person uses antibiotics. 4) A and B both die, but C has a gene allowing it to resist and survive. 5) C reproduces, creating more virus units with the same, antibiotic resisting capability. http://mmbr.asm.org... Through evolution, a new strain of virus has been formed. If my opponent is going to argue that there is no way bacteria or viruses could have evolved into humans, that is not my point. It does not matter. I believe that viruses are proof of evolution, and if so, then they are not the only beings involved in this process. Thank you for the good debate.
Global Warming Exists and we as a country need to do something about it!

One thing that he also stated was...Dr Barnett said "that position was untenable because it was now clear from the latest study, which is yet to be published, that man-made greenhouse gases had caused vast amounts of heat to be soaked up by the oceans." I will not dispute the evidence you gave me because I don't really see its point in our debate. We are debating wether or not man is the cause of global warming. Satellites telling me the temperature of the earth gives me no evidence if man is responsible for global warming or not. Dr. Barnett said that "greenhouse gases had caused vast amounts of heat to be soaked up by the oceans." Greenhouse gases are caused by none other than the human race. Chemical plants, factories, refineries, things of that sort produce greenhouse gases, not to mention many more things that produce it. Man has created, and ran these types of things that are causing global warming. Again, to say that all the greenhouse gases produced by the human populous is not affecting our environment is ludicrous. With that logic one would have to say that all the junk going into our atmosphere is good for the earth. Its failed logic to not acknowledge the role we have played in global warming. We as humans need to take responsibility for it, and do something about it so our great, great grand-kids can have a clean earth to live on someday. I will leave you with this one article from times online. http://www.timesonline.co.uk... notice in the third paragraph down how its says something of the sort (paraphrasing) This should end the controversy of wether man is responsible or not for global warming.
Global Warming Exists and we as a country need to do something about it!

One of the things that Dr. Barnett states in the link you provided is that they conducted two studies to measure temperature. One from the U.S. and one from England. Dr. Barnett said that he was "Stunned" that the two studies showed the temperature so close to each other. Now Dr. Barnett said that this confirmed global warming because the ocean temperature was warmer. I have to ask though, why was Dr. Barnett "stunned" that the temperatures from the two studies were so close together? It's what they had expected to find. The answer to that question is that there are so many variables one encounters when trying to get a temperature reading from the earth's surface. The fact that Dr. Barnett was "stunned" shows this. A much more reliable way to test earth's temperature is to measure it from space using satellites. http://science.nasa.gov... If you go to this website you will find that satellite's have recorded the earth's temperature as almost exactly the same for the last two decades. If anything it actually shows an slight cooling of the earth.
Global Warming Exists and we as a country need to do something about it!

Thank you for accepting my challenge, I hope we have a fair and intelligent debate. I am glad to see that you are one who believes in global warming. I do however disagree with you when you say that everyone believes in global warming. That is simply untrue. I know of many people who do not acknowledge global warming. I was hoping to debate someone with that mindset, however, I can, and will debate the following argument that man IS responsible for global warming. I do understand what you are trying to say about all the "scares that people buy into about the warming, or the cooling of the earth. But never before when there has been a warming or a cooling has there been so many industrialized nations that are putting tons and tons of junk into the atmosphere. I believe that there are warming and cooling phases on our planet, however, never before has the temperature been this high, and never before has there been so much carbon in the atmosphere. I believe man is to blame for this because of all the pollution that has been put into the atmosphere. "We looked at the possibility that solar changes or volcanic effects could have caused the warming - not a chance. What just absolutely nailed it was greenhouse warming." This is a quote from the article about global warming, the link is http://www.commondreams.org... consider this quote as well taken from the same resource. Dr Barnett said that position was untenable because it was now clear from the latest study, which is yet to be published, that man-made greenhouse gases had caused vast amounts of heat to be soaked up by the oceans. "It's a good time for nations that are not part of Kyoto to re-evaluate their positions and see if it would be to their advantage to join," he said. The study involved scientists from the US Department of Energy, the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California and the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, as well as the Met Office's Hadley Center. They analyzed more than 7 million recordings of ocean temperature from around the world, along with about 2 million readings of sea salinity, and compared the rise in temperatures at different depths to predictions made by two computer simulations of global warming. If you ask me it looks like things are happening like never before, that is why I believe its happening, and we are to blame. You cant surely think that all the plants, and pollutants we as humans put into the air does not have an affect on our environment. To use the argument we have nothing to do with it, would be like saying, "all this carbon were putting into the atmosphere is good for the earth.
Global Warming Exists and we as a country need to do something about it!

This debate is for those out there that say things like "global warming does not exist." There are numerous evidences that support the fact that global warming is happening. According to national geographic the rate of warming is increasing. The 20th century's last two decades were the hottest in 400 years and possibly the warmest for several millennia, according to a number of climate studies. And the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports that 11 of the past 12 years are among the dozen warmest since 1850. There are many more facts that we can look at as the debate continues, however for arguments sake I will leave you with that just to get started.
Whether Aliens Exist

Er... Pro made the positive claim that aliens DO exist, therefore I will be arguing that aliens DO exist. I will begin by defining the word "alien" Alien: A living being existing outside of Earth that is able to make conscious decisions ARGUMENTS: 1) Consider the universe. We can only see a fraction of a fraction of it, and we know that the universe is pretty big. We stand out among the stars as living creatures developed from a seemingly unlikely combination of ingredients that created life. But again, the universe is too big to comprehend, and with all that emptiness, there is bound to be life somewhere outside of Earth. 2) Scientists and astrophysicists are finding more and more evidence that alien life does exist. Three planets were recently found that revolve around their sun at just the right distance to produce water, a seemingly desired substance for life to exist, though not particularly necessary. This leads me to my third argument. 3) We are limited to life. We require certain substances in order to survive, such as water, oxygen, a perfect mixture of heat and coolness, and food. But this is all we know. We see the world around us and what we see as life is what we comprehend as life. But again, we are limited. It is likely that aliens might not even be able to survive on our world, because they have adapted to a different environment on a different world. Their bodies won't work the same, and they certainly won't look the same. If aliens were born to adapt in a different kind of environment, then the chances of their existence are much higher, for they would not require a world like ours. SOURCES: http://phys.org... http://www.torontosun.com... http://www.popularmechanics.com...
The Golden Compass Boycotters Are Ignorant.

Heres where I got my information and I dont always follow what the Church says .. I saw the Davinci Code after first reading about it and doing research. I will not see this movie after my research because I don't believe in the message. Christians are not ignorant for not wanting to see a movie, they are exercising the freedom of speech. I don't care who wants to see the movie. I just don't believe in the message so why should I have to see a movie I don't agree on, why should the Christian Church have to agree with a movie they dont believe in. We all have a right to stand up for what we believe in , thats not us being ignorant, its standing up for your beliefs . As for my information, http://snopes.com... his own site http://www.hisdarkmaterials.org... There are two examples that led me to the conclusion that neither myself nor my daughter will see this movie. We arent preventing sales by boycotting it , you can still go see it and any Christian who feels it is okay can go see it , thats your choice. The Christian religion just wont give it the seal of approval as is their right. Also what proof do you have that those who decided they would boycott the movie haven't seen it or read the books ? Did you go to the Higher Ups at the Church and stay with them and see if they saw it or read it??????????? What proof do you have showing they are ignorant ???? How do you know what that decision was based on?
The Golden Compass Boycotters Are Ignorant.

Hmmmm. What does boycott mean? I believe it means, in your action atleast, to stop a movie from producing or selling. Not letting someone voice their opinion through a movie is stopping them from being heard. That is Anti-American. Don't buy into it. Great. Their is a difference between not seeing a movie and boycotting it. Pullman has read books about God considering he is good friends with the creator of Narnia. He is an Atheist so he doesn't get offended by your God because he doesn't believe in it. I have never not seen a movie because I disagreed with it, because I'm not ignorant enough to know that they can keep their opinion. I believe Christians are scared of losing Christians because they know what they are doing is wrong and is just scapegoating these movies to make them look good. If you were paying attention you would have seen my definition of ignorant. Someone who has not read the books. Which makes you ignorant. Pullman dislikes organized religion because he believes people should have their own choice of what they want to believe. You didn't know that did you? That makes you ignorant to that fact. That's the point of this debate. The difference between Pullman and Christianity is that Pullman is not trying to silence the Church. He is telling its followers to follow their heart and trust what they believe and no one else should tell you how to. That's so Pro-Christian, it's crazy. God gave us free will, and Pullman is telling us to use it. Wow. I bet once again you didn't know that. That makes you Ignorant, with a capital I. Ignorant is not knowing the truth, and you don't know it. They do not kill God. You wouldn't know that, because you are Ignorant to that fact. Someone gave you false information. Sorry.
The Golden Compass Boycotters Are Ignorant.

Again let me ask you , how am I or any other Christian stopping him from voicing his opinion? He can voice his opinion as much as he wants, I just choose not buy into it. We all have different opinions , I highly doubt the author is going to read books all about how God is good , so again why is it wrong that I choose not to see a movie I don't believe in. What if you are asked to go see a movie , you have no interest in .. Say you like action and someone wants you to go see Crossroads with Brittney Spears or Gigli , and you say no I dont like those movies or no I dont like the actors ... or the message it gives . That doesn't make you ignorant. It is your preference and your opinion. Noone is ignorant because of their own interests and beliefs. I am not saying you can't go see it , just that I won't go see it , because to me it goes against what I believe. That is my right , just as the author has the right to write it , I have the right not to read it or see it. To say I am ignorant because I won't see a movie that I dont believe in because I feel it goes against my religion ..is ridiculous. Prove to me How we are ignorant ??? You havn't presented any facts to this nature. Actually the actor has said thet the children kill God and he has expressed his dislike for the Catholic religion and his opinions of my religion , hmmmm a little ignorant himself , I believe. Technically he is boycotting Christianity by not being a Christian , is he ignorant , no he is just expressing his beliefs as Christians are by not seeing the movie or reading the book.