BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Moral Concept of Competitve Debate

Truly one of the greatest notions we should all strive for is the realization that whatever knowledge we do possess, there is always more knowledge to gain. This is why, in my opinion, intelligent debates are essential to any civilized society; how this statement relates to DDO is the purpose of this exchange. While it is certainly true that intellectual debates do occur on DDO, the incentive to win each debate has become quite flagrant and excessive. Frivolous debates are created, in most cases, to simply win and increase individual score, members are given the option to set criteria barring those who have won too many debates. The top debaters are listed on the home page, thus creating an incentive to achieve the paltry notoriety of DDO Top Debater. There are some who are ignorant altogether, this is not a valid excuse; competition, often but not always, is guilty of conflicting with virtue and humility and that is certainly the case with DDO.
A God (any religion) exists

I am a Christian and my reasons for believing in my God is based mostly on personal experiance and reasoning. They are the following. .. 1) I have went through both secular and a Christian education, so I am familar with Evolution, the Big Bang Theory, and of course Creationism. Most Athiests (if not all) believe in the first too. However, the flaw with the Big Bang Theory is that it says that in the beginning there was a giant explosion but it doesn't say what caused it. In this case the only explanation would be God. 2) Before I became a Christian I always felt like there was something missing in my life. I was never at peace. I tried just about everything to fill in the void that was in my life, but nothing was helping. I would get extremely depressed days on end. When I finally decided to become a Christian I felt for the first time in my life peace. I felt complete and I just new that God existed and I was not just a hairless ape bound for nothing more than death. I had a friend that would help me through anything, and that I was apart of something way beyond myself. 3) The final reason and the biggest peace of evedence that I saw that proved to me that my God was real is that five years ago my grandfather suffered from a massive anurism. He completely lost his mind, and the doctors did every test they could do on him. After doing all those tests they said to me and my mother to not exspect a 100% recovery. Then after the hospital released him, and my mom and aunt spent a month taking care of him changing his adult diappers and giving him baths and etc. All through the month my entire family was praying to our God to give my granddad a 100% recovery, and at the end of that month my granddad fully recovered. Nurses that the hospital sent to check on him were amazed that he could even talk about rational things. It was a miracle and I have every reason to believe my God did it, because where modern science failed, prayer didn't. These are the reasons that I firmly believe in my God. :)
A God (any religion) exists

There have been many people I have known who were very religious and thought that their religion was everything. I am an atheist and wonder what makes someone believe there is a god? Terms: God: The creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being… Exist: Have objective reality or being ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I would like my challenger to post an argument first about why they believe there is such thing as a god. Please, no hard feelings. This is just a debate that I posted because I was curious as to how religious people believe so strongly about something. Goodluck to my challenger
A God (any religion) exists

1) Atheism is based on those unproven ideas. This is why I'm not a atheist because something as complex as planet earth, and our bodies for that matter could not possibly be created by a accident. The very idea of this is absurd. We can't even designed robots that are as complex as us, and yet people think that ours were just shear accident. It is perfectly logical that our complex bodies ans all of its functions was created. 2) I recognise that my second argument could not really help me, but my opponent clearly asked me why i believe in God and this was one of the answers to that question. 3) While it is true that many people has lost their lives to things such as war, and may in those times would have prayed and asked their 'supreme being' for help not all gods are real. In the beginning God created the heavens in the earth. There is only one god. This God however is not only a god of love and peace. He is also a God of justice. In the beginning man sinned against God and therefore had to be punished. They were punished by having a curse put on them. the curse was that the offspring of man from that point on would be a slave to sin and would be separated from God. However my loving all powerful God didn't just sit there and let everybody die and go to Hell(the place prepared for those who reject Him after death). No He sent His only son Jesus that he might die a agonising death as a sacrifice that we might be saved and that we might go to Heaven with God forever after death. However all this did not change man he kept on getting worse and worse until now their are so many bad thing and so many people dying. however, God has a escape plan. He will come back and set up His kingdom on earth, and make peace.[1][2] Therefore, the suffering that happens now is only a stepping stone for a greater good. The saying 'its going to get ugly before it gets pretty' is right. Rebuttal 1) First off I would like the voters and my opponent to know that I do not in any way believe in the Big Bang. My God is all powerful, and if he speaks something it happens right then and there. That is the power of my God. Also like I said before the suffering now is only leading to a greater good and the elimination of sin once and for all. My God is at work right now giving people the chance to accept Him as there savior before it is too late. 2) He is a spirit and we are just flesh. Mortal eyes can not see Him. He is in heaven in another dominchen, and yet he sees everything. He is omnipresent, which means he can be in more than just one place. He is everywhere and he is watching. In my conclusion, To believe in a creator is more logical, and to say that we are a accident. The suffering now is only a stepping stone for a greater purpose. God is a spirit and therefore, can not be seen with fleshly eyes. God exists Vote pro [1] Genesis 1:1 [2] John 3:16
16 year olds should vote

I will argue against this. I. They are not yet adultsEven if they are informed, If they do not live by themselves, Have the ability/privilege of owning firearms, Own their own homes or apartments, Use their bank accounts, Have the ability to serve in the military, pay taxes, Or hold jobs, Then they cannot vote as they are not independent or other reasons I listed, As an eighteen year old can have. II. InfluenceYounger voters can be swayed or influenced on what candidates they should choose when voting, By their friends, Parents, And even teachers. [1] It could be more of an advantage to not yet let them vote, So they may have more time to mature, And to form their own political ideology (Conservative, Liberal, Libertarian, Etc)ConclusionAs younger voters do not hold the same positions in society, As older people like 18 year olds, And are not likely to be mature and reasonable in voting, It would be best to not let 16 year olds vote in elections. Sources used [1] https://www. Headcount. Org/should-16-year-olds-have-the-right-to-vote-pros-and-cons/
16 year olds should vote

First of all, 16 year olds can get a better interest at a younger age so that they can study even more politics. Secondly, They are already more informed than most adults considering the fact that all 16 year olds need to already learn about these things in school. And finally, They may be ignorant in politics, But no more than adults. Only 36% of adults can name the 3 branches of government. And 38% of adults know that the Republicans run the House and the Democrats run the Senate.
Hollister

Let me just say this is the first argument I have ever posted and I really didn't think I would get a reply, I was just testing out the website and I chose a random subject. So to conclude I will not be continuing this argument because I really wasn't expecting a reply. Thank you and when my opponent replies to this in a hopefully understanding way without any language, I will shut this debate down. Sorry if any of you were looking forward to my side of the argument.
Hollister

No, It shouldn't. For me, it's an overpriced piece of crap. It's such ordinary. I think that anyone should have its own style, based on their opinions only. I know, that Hollister it's trendy and buzzing now, but I'm not getting it. It's really overpriced, and it's not interesting as well. I mean, you said that you'll become a "misfit" to all of your friends, if you won't buy clothes from Hollister, that just confirms that you're very suggestible, and that is a pity, for you.
There is more evidence towards scientific theories (Evolution, big bang, etc...) than creationism

I. Evidences towards the big bang Accelerating expansion of the universe The accelerating universe points out evidence towards a huge possibility of a singularity for the creation of the universe. The evidences for the accelerating expansion include the red shift, and isotropic distribution of the objects in space. We can detect the expansion through redshift bytheir electromagnetic spectra to determine the distance and speed of remote objects in space. (1) 2. Cosmic microwave background radiation In 1964 Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson serendipitously discovered the cosmic background radiation, an an omnidirectional signal in the microwave band. the radiation was found to be consistent with an almost perfect black body spectrum in all directions.This discovery showed radiations that were isotopic and further supported the big bang theory. (2) 3. Other evidences supporting the big bang include abundance of primordial elements, galactic evolution and distribution, and Primordial gas clouds. (2)II. Evidences towards evolution1. Ancient organism remains Darwin found the bones of an extinct giant sloth, Megatherium. He realized that animals can become extinct and that life is not unchanging, and Darwin also saw many similarities between extinct and living animals. This provided evidence that the giant sloth, Megatherium was an ancestor of the tree sloth. This showed that the sloth evolved. (3)2. Similarities among living organisms. Many organisms share a similar body structure such as Horses', donkeys', and zebras'. This provide evidence that they shares a common ancestor until they branched off. This also includes for apes and humans, also showing similar DNA structure. (4)3. Similarities among embryos Fish embryos and human embryos both have gill slits. In fish they develop into gills, but in humans they disappear before birth. This shows that the animals are similar and that they develop similarly, implying that they are related, and they have common ancestors and that they started out the same, gradually evolving different traits. (5) I will perform rebuttals to my opponent’s argument in the following round and ignore his acceptance, Hopefully, my opponent did not intend his argument to be similar of his acceptance, and will take this debate more seriously. Also, I will also include the acceptance of the two theories that I have mentioned among scientists. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://necsi.edu... http://necsi.edu... http://necsi.edu...
God Is Not Present, Not Here. (Non-Existing Here On Earth and Around Earth)

4 things I'd like to mention in my limited (2,000 char. limit/5 min) speech as Con.C1: BOP is on the one affirming a statement. The statement is that God is not here. No matter who Pro "says" the BOP is on, it would be illogical and impossible to fulfill the BOP from the Con side.C2: KCA provides logical need for creator. Essentially, everything in this earth (that we know) required a creator. Therefore, a God must have existed to create the earth.Also, therefore, he must have been around earth.I have never had such a ridiculous constraint of both time and characters to make an argument, (thanks for the challenge, my opponent) but there you have it. My opponent failed to meet BOP.God is required for earth by logic. Since my opponent didn't rebut, I win this point.Thank you.
God Is Not Present, Not Here. (Non-Existing Here On Earth and Around Earth)

It is impossible to prove that something does not exist. God - noun 1.the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe. 2.the Supreme Being considered with reference to a particular attribute: the God of Islam. 3.one of several deities, especially a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs. 4.a supreme being according to some particular conception: the god of mercy. 5.Christian Science. the Supreme Being, understood as Life, Truth, love, Mind, Soul, Spirit, Principle. [1] My argument therefore: no physical evidence of 'God', therefore 'he' does not exist 'here' and is nothing but a theory and fantasy. 'The burden of proof is on the one making a positive claim. That would in this case be the one claiming that there is such a thing as a god.' I need not disprove him but you must prove God's existence and presence here (Earth, the Universe..). Evidence is needed and 'spiritual feelings' and 'omnipresent' BS isn't evidence here OK. [1] http://dictionary.reference.com...
White Southerners are a nation.

This will be my second attempt for this debate, since my previous opponent gave no argument. Thank you in advance to my opponent, and I hope that this debate will be polite and respectful. I just want to remind anyone that everyone has a right to their own opinions. I will argue that white southerners are a nation. The word "nation" for this debate will be used in it's both historical and Biblical definition: "A large group of people who share a common language, culture, ethnicity, descent, or history". Nation can also refer to "a people, race, or tribe; those having the same descent, language, and history. " . http://en.wikipedia.org...... The second definition includes the word "race", which white is one. White southerners, or southrons, have a common language: English, a common culture: Southern culture, a common ethnicity: White (or, if you want to get specific, people from Western Europe), so therefore a common decent, and a common history, such as the civil war. So White, European, English-speaking Southerners, are a nation. The League of The South, a Southern Nationalist organization, has information further explaining what the southern nation is. I invite my opponent, or anyone, to check it out. Yes, I will admit that the SPLC considers this a hate group, but at least give it a chance before judging it. Furthermore, I am not coming from any position of bigotry or hatred towards any group of people, I am simply stating the fact that white southerners are a nation.
I might be crazy, but.......

"My debate style is not PC, sorry to break your Ivory Tower glass bubble. " This is absolutely absurd. Do I even need to make any comments here. "I make a statement, and if you disagree, then you should provide evidence as to why I am wrong. You have clearly been brainwashed by political correctness. Good luck. " I do not need to provide evidence. You do. You have the Burden of Proof, as you are the one who started the debate. You've not come up with any sort of reasoning that supports your case. Since your arguments are all over the place, simple, and random, there is no way that we can trust you. You haven't fulfilled your BoP, so in terms of debating, you ultimately failed.
I might be crazy, but.......

My opponent is literally posting random nonsense, and his argument is all over the place. You never made it clear what the debate topic was due to your lack of professional grammar and explanation. "ASsume You not me." What does this mean? I should be assumed the BoP, not you? Incorrect, (assuming you are implying this) you addressed the topic, so you have the Burden of Proof. "The global media continuously burdens light skinned humans with all the burdens." All of the burdens? What are you talking about. Your nonsensical grammar literally ruins your claims. Can you please start making sense? I would tell you to site your sources, but heck, I don't even know what you're trying to claim to begin with. The lack of communication is causing an impasse in this debate. Please specify your terms so we can propel this issue forward. If you're trying to say that we do not treat light skinned people in the right way when it comes the global media, then you should've stated that. And even so, there are also black people being burden as well. Especially with police shootings. For you to address that light skinned people are burdened with all of the burdens is strange and unsupported. What do you mean by "all the burdens." "That is the truth." A bare assertion. No sources are cited. Also, I can't see the truth in nonsensical claims. "I will not be your slave. That is the truth. Nor make you mine. That is the truth." What has slavery got to do with this topic? You're talking about the global media burdening light skinned humans.
The theory of evolution is false

"There's not enough evidence; the theory of evolution still considered just a 'Theory'"Evidence for evolution comes from morphological and molecular from living species, and from fossil data. Empirical evidence from the fossil record is useful in determining phylogenetic trees despite the fossil record's incompleteness. [7] The criticism that evolution is "just a theory" is also listed amongst Answers in Genesis's arguments which shouldn't be used; the term "theory" in science means something substantially different in science than in colloquial use. [4] Scientific theories don't get promoted to facts or laws."Doesn't common ancestry mean humans evolving from apes or apes evolving from humans?"Common ancestry doesn't mean that humans evolved from apes or apes evolving from humans any more than common ancestry means that two siblings or cousins evolved from each-other. Ring species provide intersting insight into the process of speciation, illustrating how populations of organisms which were once the same species diverge so that the groups that are most distantly related are unable to interbreed but they can interbreed with intermediary populations. Phylogenetic analysis of DNA and fossilized data provides good evidence for the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees around 6 million years ago. [8] "Perhaps humans have been around a short enough period of time to realise that there was no evolution."Evidence suggests that the earth is 4.5 billion years old and life has existed on earth for 3.5 billion years. Thanks to my opponent.[7] http://www.sciencemag.org...[8] http://www.nature.com...
The theory of evolution is false

First of all, thankyou very much for your argument... As for the suggestion that there IS enough evidence to backup evolution, in actual fact scientists over time have only found a coffin full of bones that somehow prove the theory of evolution to be somewhat cosiderable.Surely a coffin full is not enough evidence. I do understand that it is quality more than quantity but even then we can clearly see that none of those evidence are powerful enough to change views against the theory of evolution as it is still considered just a 'Theory' ,that itself states that there is not enough evidence to promote the theory to a fact. Now, you have just told me that I was wrong in thinking that the initial claim of evolution is that humans have evolved from apes and that it is more true to say that humans and apes have common ancestors, and I accept that the mistake here is mine.I apologise for that. Anyway even then I would like to ask that doesn't having common ancestors of the two different species (humans and apes) mean either humans evolving from apes or apes evolving from humans. And if you are saying that acually us humans and the apes have evolved from a completely different species, which e have no clue of,' then aren't we being a bit mythical here? Do you not think that if there were this 'other species ' then we would have found some evidence of their existence in the prehistoic era. I mean we have even gone to so much depth as to find evidence of dinosaurs, then surely finding the creature that were our forefathers is no challenge for us humans in the 21st century. Okay so next point, sorry but I guess you just don't know what planets and stars have evolved from.( I know, cheeky right? I guess making the point about 'cosmology' and not 'evolution' was a bit stupid of me...have to be honest here) But as for humans not being around for long enough I should most probably clarify. What I initially wanted to suggest is that maybe us humans have been around a short enough period of time to realise that there was no evolution. Thankyou hope I haven't said too many stupid things, you should know that this is my first time debating, you can probably tell.
The theory of evolution is false

"There is not enough evidence to back up evolution."Evidence overwhelmingly supports evolution from a universal common ancestor over alternative evolutionary explanations (multiple common ancestors) and creationism. In “A formal test of the theory of universal common ancestry”, Douglas Theobald compared the likelihood of a universal common ancestor for explaining the observed homology between organisms with the possibility other hypotheses of multiple ancestors finding that a universal common ancestor ist least 102,860 times more probable than the closest competing hypothesis (to put that number into perspective, NASA estimates that there are only 1080 atoms in the observable universe). The closest competing hypothesis was evolution with descent from separate ancestors for bacteria and for Archaea and Eukarya, not biblical creationism. [1] Cladistic analysis and phylogenetics of fossils and morphological and molecular traits of organisms also supports the theory of evolution, showing the evolutionary relationships between organisms. [2][3]"If humans really have evolved from apes then why are apes still around?"Contrary to belief amongst some creationists, humans did not evolve from apes; rather, apes and humans have a common ancestor. Even Answers in Genesis, a creationism biased source, acknowledges that this is an argument that should not be used against evolution. [4]"If evolution is the theory to explain how everything has evolved from something else, then the theory should also explain what the planets and the sun evolved from."The theory of evolution deals with the changes in inhertable traits in organisms over successive generations, not the origins (or evolution of) planets and the sun; evolution does not explain how everything has evolved because not everything has evolved. Theories in astronomy and cosmology explain the formation of stars and planets and the universe. [5]"Humans have probably not lived long enough for 'evolution' to occur."I'm not sure why humans would have needed to live on earth for all time in order for evolution to occur (in fact, if there were evidence that humans existed on earth for all time, then one could satisfactorally conclude that evolution did not happen). [6][1] http://www.nature.com...[2] http://www.sciencemag.org...[3] http://www.talkorigins.org...[4] http://www.answersingenesis.org...[5] http://www.sciencedaily.com...[6] http://en.wikipedia.org...