BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Theory of Evolution is How We Got Our Species Here Today

Seeing as my opponent does not appear to be planning on forwarding an argument, I'll post a preliminary one here in favor of evolution.Contention. Natural Selection.Most people don't deny that species can adapt to their environment. The logic of natural selection is simple in the most common sense way. In a given environment, certain factors will be determinant in whether an organism survives. For instance, in the ocean with various predators, a fish who is able to hide well or swim quickly will have a better chance of surviving to reproduce then a fish who is slow or obvious looking. The natural mechanism of natural selection will therefore select for traits which allow for an organism to survive long enough to reproduce and thus pass on those specific traits to their progeny, causing the species as a whole to evolve over time.While this is not a controversial point in itself, most opponents of evolution try to distinguish between what they call micro and macro evolution. Micro evolution is defined as the process previously described, while the term macro evolution is reserved for the aforementioned processes resulting in the differentiation of species. However, this criticism is unfounded. Macro evolution is simply micro evolution extended on a large scale. For instance, take a group of a species in a single environment. They will be vulnerable to the same environmental factors and thus will tend to evolve similarly. However, when groups of a single species are separated by whatever reason, they will soon be faced with different evolutionary forces and given long enough time (life has been evolving on Earth for about 3.7 billion years[1]), the differences arising eventually make the two groups so indistinguishable that they are no longer able to reproduce i.e. they are now different species.===Sources===[1] http://www.scientificamerican.com...
The Theory of Evolution is How We Got Our Species Here Today

===Definitions===The theory of evolution will be defined as "descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations)."[1] Theory: summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven[2].Wrong: As per the definition of a theory, evolution can be shown to be "wrong" (false) if evidence is brought to disprove it or to make its truth unlikely.====Seeing as the definitions which I foresee as being relevant to the debate have now been properly defined, I will pass on the debate back to my opponent for opening arguments and look forward to a stimulating debate.======Sources===[1] http://evolution.berkeley.edu...[2] http://chemistry.about.com...
The Christian God is demonstrably evil therefore not a reliable source of salvation/afterlife

I propose that the God of the Christian bible is demonstrably evil and as a result shouldn't be trusted for salvation, or an afterlife. For this debate both must agree to argue within the confines of traditional Christian doctrines surrounding God, Hell, Lucifer, Free will, and Salvation whether via works or grace or a combination of both. In other words no Jehovah's Witness doctrines, no Mormon doctrine and sorry Scientologists, you are out too. I agree to suspend my disbelief in God and revert back to a state of faithful belief in God, but with an objective opinion of his biblical behavior and nature. In essence I will be a very naughty boy arguing against God's claims of benevolence, using his own words and claimed behavior from the bible. To kick things off, I would like to submit the account of Noah and his Gofer wood boat. While God was being very nice to Noah and his immediate family and to an enormous amount of creatures unaccountably housed on a boat without steel support beems, he was simultaneously being quite evil indeed to all those without tickets to the 120 day cruise. Whether half human/half Nephilim toddlers striving to stay afloat as their parents abandoned them in an attempt to find higher ground, or goats tethered to their pen as the torrent rose higher and higher, or Galapagos finches trying to stay on the wing until their little evolved hearts gave out and they plummeted into the ordained flood waters, its hard to argue that God's restart was anything other than evil committed against innocents along with the guilty. God's over-reaction and attempt to restart the world with a better breed of human, despite his foreknowledge of how the antediluvian would turn out is clearly an indication of his interest in creating suffering and his evil nature. That evil nature renders his offering of salvation from his notion of justice untrustworthy. -----References-------- Holy Bible New International Version Genesis 6-7 Specifically God's nature expressed in: Genesis 6:7 So the LORD said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth—men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air—for I am grieved that I have made them."
Capitalism

sub 1. The Pro has done nothing to state the good side of Capitolism and the only thing said about capitolism was that it caused the Great Depression. Since that wasn't refuted we can assume that Capitolism is bad and severly damaged the American society. 1. How does a classless society make everyone poor. In socialism no one is poor everyone is the Middle class 2. He never refuted the communist China arguement that I made therefore this point goes to me. 3. Locke's theories back Marxist. Look at Locke we based the Constitution from his beleifs and your saying this isn't crediable. 4. Pro has no evidense to back this up 5. Pro agreed 6. Pro agrees China is a communist country 7. Pro have you not been watching the news as of late it's 1%rich 99% poorer. 8. Pro has no evidense 9.Pro agrees 10. Pro agrees Pro has either no evidense or agrees with all but one point. Not only that but he has never said anything good about Capitolism. I on the other hand said it was bad. (sub point 1.) So therefore you can easily assume that Socialism is beter than Capitolism. I erdge a strong Con balot.
Capitalism

1. socialism is a classless society 2. I just restate my original arguement could you ellaborate a bit more 3. Pro agrees 4. I don't understand 5. Pro agrees 6. China is a good example too. they've been around for ages and are still here they're also rising to a superpower. that must proove something. 7. In Capitolism 1% keep getting richer and the 99% get poorer. Are you saying that if there was no rich and no poor that would be bad. 8. Pro has no evidense so if they bring it up in the last speech it is cheating. I have the burden of Presumption. 9. Pro doesn't refute 10. Pro agrees Pro has either not been clear or agreed with most of my agruements therefore I erge a strong Con ballot.
Capitalism

1. no classes. 2. Marx has defined socialism as a utopia and if you look back in history thats what they were refurred to. Wouldn't you rather live in a utopia. 3. Locke theories can help back it up. 4. OWS is the living proof people in the U. S. don't like Capitolism 5. Capitolism is the Stock Exchange 6. Socialism will work look at Cuba, U. S. S. R. , and their former states 7. no classes, classless society 8. OWS will led to communism and Fasism 9. Radicals leed to war look at almost every war in history. Has to do with $, government, or land. 10. socialism is communism. it's just the perfected state
Splatoon 2 is better than Splatoon 1

Well, that statement, as with so many other things, is faulty. Splatoon for the Wii U is not even being produced anymore. Plus, who would want to play splatoon right now anyway, since no one is playing it, and therefore the multiplayer online part would not work since you couldn't even connect with enough people to start a round. The only thing you can do on splatoon now is the single player mode. Which sucks compared to Splatoon 2. Now. Admittedly, the final boss fight in splatoon 2 deeply hurt me after seeing the final boss in splatoon. I was... Devastated. But other than that, Splatoon 2 is better in EVERY respect. PS. Splatoon is knot free
Splatoon 2 is better than Splatoon 1

Play gamesOnly Wii U!Find it Do you want to do this?You can destroy the walls!Sit down!Meet each otherAnd then ask!The team below is defeatedNow you know this law to get it started!You are a beautiful boyMaybe a demon!Ink or inkNobody knows what you hide!You can swim at the door!You can swim fast!You can climb on the wallYou know, there is always something wrong!You can also get some awesome bottles!Take a cat and watch what he can do!Go (break the world) (break the ground)Jan (Printing OK) (Worst of all in the world)Do it in the sunInk for more than a monthSPLA yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
Splatoon 2 is better than Splatoon 1

HRY SPLATON ! IS BETER BECAUS it has s cell respiration and this SONg- Splatoon the gameOnly on Wii U!Making a mess is what you gonna do!you can splash the wall!splash the floor!splat each otherand splat some more!the team with the most things splatted will winnow you know the rules so come on lets begin!you're an inkling kidthat can change to a squid!dive into the inkno one will know what you hid!you can swim through gates!you can swim really fast!you can climb up wallsyou know it's always a blast!you can charge up your ink meter too!become a crock and see what it can do!Come on (splat the world together) (splat the world together)Come on (splat the world alright) (splat the world alright)Ink it up to the sunInk it up to the moonSpla- da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da splatoonCellular respiration is a set of metabolic reactions and processes that take place in the cells of organisms to convert biochemical energy from nutrients into adenosine triphosphate (ATP), and then release waste products.[1] The reactions involved in respiration are catabolic reactions, which break large molecules into smaller ones, releasing energy in the process, as weak so-called "high-energy" bonds are replaced by stronger bonds in the products. Respiration is one of the key ways a cell releases chemical energy to fuel cellular activity. Cellular respiration is considered an exothermic redox reaction which releases heat. The overall reaction occurs in a series of biochemical steps, most of which are redox reactions themselves. Although cellular respiration is technically a combustion reaction, it clearly does not resemble one when it occurs in a living cell because of the slow release of energy from the series of reactions. Nutrients that are commonly used by animal and plant cells in respiration include sugar, amino acids and fatty acids, and the most common oxidizing agent (electron acceptor) is molecular oxygen (O2). The chemical energy stored in ATP (its third phosphate group is weakly bonded to the rest of the molecule and is cheaply broken allowing stronger bonds to form, thereby transferring energy for use by the cell) can then be used to drive processes requiring energy, including biosynthesis, locomotionor transportation of molecules across cell membranes.
Splatoon 2 is better than Splatoon 1

Ever since Splatoon 2 came out, people have been arguing about if Splatoon 2 is better than Splatoon 1. I would say that Nintendo should just do a Splatfest about it, but they just won't do it. I think they are scared that people will get to defensive of Splatoon 2 and start getting violent. Anyway, we will be settling this once and for all. Here is my first argument. Splatoon 2 has Marina. There is no way Splatoon 1 was better than Marina. On the downside, Splatoon 2 has pearl, which sucks, but Marina...
Socialism is the best form of government overall for the United States

Lighty reporting for the debate. Awaiting your first post in which you will (no doubt) seek to prove your contention. It would assist if you would begin by listing the elemental features of "pure socialism" so that we don't end up arguing about "apples vs oranges". I have read some articles on the subject and have a fair idea what pure socialism is. However, we don't want to argue semantics or end up debating the question of what the original proposition was. Ready when you are.
Socialism is the best form of government overall for the United States

In the following debate I will outline why I feel that socialism is exactly what this country needs. I will argue that it would change the economic structure/system for the positive, will lead to greater education, health-care and civil infrastructure systems, put an end to wasteful government spending, and promote peace, sovereignty, and prosperity throughout the world. I must remind you however that I am not using a Stalinist model, Castro model, or anything of the sort. I am talking about pure socialism. I need not take the time to fully brief you on that, however keep that in mind. I'll let you begin this and will respond in kind. Good luck.
Resolved: Wealthy Nations have an obligation to provide aid to other nations.

The second round will contain your argument, but you can also use rebuttal against definitions, and rules if they are unreasonable. In the third round you will construct a rebuttal, and may ask questions that will be answered in the fourth round. (If there is a way to set-up a questioning period I would be thankful if anybody can tell me how, and I want a formal questioning period not one in the comments section. ) The fourth round will contain answers and more rebuttals. The fifth round will contain your final statements, and include your voters. You may also include how you felt about your opponent (please be respectful). For the voters I ask that anything said in this debate you consider truth until the opponent rebuts it, and I also ask that you take into consideration what you believed before hand and vote while including that. I want this debate to portray what people thought after the debate including previous influences not just what happened in the debate. ' Some definitions to clarify the round are as follows, Wealthy Nations: in context developed countries Other Nations: In context of debate will be developing countries Obligation: Merriam Webster something (such as a formal contract, a promise, or the demands of conscience or custom) that obligates one to a course of action Developmental Assistance: Development aid;(also;development assistance,;international aid,;overseas aid;or;foreign aid) is aid given by actors in developed countries (Governments, Economic agencies, Charities, etc. );and;international organizations such as the World Bank,;to support the economic, social and political;development;of;developing countries. Aid is given in the form of assistance and this is subdivided in two main categories: donation of funds ("financial assistance") and;donation of expertise has been;"technical assistance". Value: Sustainability Criterion: Stability
School students should not have long holidays

Thank you for you're topic which give me an opportunity to argue now. First of all, to understand why we people shouldn't have long holidays is that we must know, that the human brain is like a knife, it's important to sharpen them regularly, just how we learn in school almost every day, so that the knife will always be sharp. Now if there is a long holiday, it is like a knife that was not sharpened regularly, therefore students may be stupid in their young age, when they're supposed to be smart. Regarding enjoying life, well, it doesn't have to be long holidays to play or to go on vacation, right? I think, the best way for a win-win solution, is that the school who change the way they teach, by giving less homework and less topics, but more practice and more depth, still, that doesn't mean we have to have a very long holiday, right? Because it's not about the quantity, it's about the quality. So, thank you for giving me the opportunity to give me a chance to argue. What about you? I really hope that you will response.
Capitalism is the best system to produce the best results

This debate will have a free style. The only requirment is that any and all questions directed towards a contendor be answered. I shall begin with opening remarks and a brief history. From the start of recorded human history, most people lived in what we would consider pretty terrible standards. However, something happened in the 1700s. We had an industrial revolution and living standards increased, and since then living conditions have increased dramaticlly. So, why was that? One common myth is exploitation, but exploitation has always been around, so it isn't that. Another one is investment, however, there has always been investment, but it did contribute in one way, and I will get back to that. What did happen was economic liberty. Adam Smith convinced the public that mercantilism and protectionism was bad, and the governments stopped the control of trade and market forces. That caused capital to be moved to its proper destination, causing innovation. Take a look at the scandanavian countries. There tight controls has meant that innovation has effectivly stopped, in comparison to more free market economies. Now, that's not saying they don't innovate, they do, but not at the rate it could be at. It is the potential to make money that motivates people. Now, people may say, its passion, not money, that drives people to innovate but I would argue that money gives a "back-of-the-mind" thought people to motivate them to pursue their passion. Not only that, but a free market allows capital to be directed towards these projects, whereas say if a central government authority controlled banking, and thus loans, they don't have the interest to invest and lend to what could be profitable and useful products. Capitalism, in its purest form, is the exchange of capital, goods, services, etc. It is peaceful exchange that is benificial to both parties. I exchange my labor, and in returnn I get money. We are all individuals, not a monolithic machine that needs to be tamed inorder to serve what others deem our goals.
The Biblical God exist and is Morally justified!

Hello! Thanks and I hope you accept. Pro resolution: The Biblical God exist and Is morally justified. Victory: To win Pro/Con must provide the best arguement. Ones own Personal arguements are suggested. Promoting less sources and more personnel belief and/or faith. Since I am the Pro and first to act I will make these permises- 1. Winner is the debater that provides the most convincing arguement(Voters personnel beliefs are not required.) 2. Must be primarily of the debaters own words and not resources.(though resources can be allowed in minimal useage.) If my opponent agrees we will go forward. Rules: 1. Witty comebacks and Sarcasm allowed. Must be respectful. 2. Must provided resources.(If used) 3. Must stay on topic within the boundaries provided above. 4. If Pro/Con is able to provide the most reasonable clear and explainable resolution- then they win. Rounds: 1. Agreement/Approval 2. Arguements 3. Rebuttals/Arguements 4. Rebuttals/Arguement 5.Rebuttals/Conclusion
The Liberal/progressive Democrat's are anti-woman!

The party that has so proudly, if not arrogantly, claimed the title of pro-woman and pro-feminist has shown it's true colors with its recent charecter assassination campaign against Govenor Sarah Palin. The liberal smear machine is in full gear and reving up for more of the same. This is the same liberal party that has claimed the title of, "The human rights", party, when, in fact it was the Rebublican party that, in the 1960's, championed the human rights movement. Somewhere along they way, the Democrats have hijacked that title. The voting records on the human rights bills in the 1960's, for both parties and in both houses of Congress, are available online and will prove very helpful in this debate. The great Senator, Robert "KKK" Byrde D-West Virginia, is a perfect, but not the only, example of the duplicitousness of the so-called, "Party of the people"! None of this would have been possible were it not for the liberal media working hand in hand with the liberals. What a partnership! The ability to revise history has proven to be a very effective tool for the Liberals and their socialist agenda. Now that we have Fox News, the liberal's job has become a lot tougher. No, the liberals are not pro-woman, rather pro-women that agree with their philosophy. There is a huge difference between the two proclaimations!
know=(is)physical experience=true emotion=logic=absolute

"so you know that the termometer Works at any moment?" Unless the battery is dead then yes, it works. if you drive in in your car is the speedometer accurat if it says 50 miles per hour? is that true For the most part yes. However, it is possible to make it inaccurate by changing tire sizes which would cause you to move faster or slower then the speedometer actually says. "religion=to rely on" But not on machines, religion is relying on faith or god. People do not base their religion on thermometers and cars.
know=(is)physical experience=true emotion=logic=absolute

"so if you cant physically experience the cup but only use the thermometer you know the cup is not hot if the thermometer dosnt show anything? and Thus you can grab it?" The thermometer would show something, it would display the temperature of the coffee. Based off of that temperature you would determine whether or not the cup is too hot to pick up. Yes, you can grab it if you would like. The temperature of the coffee has nothing to do with whether or not you can pick it up or not. The temperature merely determines whether it would be a good idea to pick it up or not. "science is a religion because it relys on confirmation from machines" Religion doesn't rely on confirmation from machines. So why would science be a religion if religion doesn't meet that requirement?
know=(is)physical experience=true emotion=logic=absolute

"unless.. so you dont know" No, I do know. I know the thermometer works when the battery is working and I know it does not work when the battery is dead. "absolute Means no possiblity or no other possibility.. you reading these Words on the screen is happening, not can happen" So this has nothing to do with the debate. Not really sure what the point of it is. "belief=theism=belief in god" Theism does mean the belief in god. But belief doesn't have to mean theism. You can believe in many things that are totally unrelated to theism.
My opponent's DDO username is not retarded flamingo

's "An apostrophe is normally used with the letter s to show ownership or possession." http://englishplus.com... Ownership "1.The state of having complete legal control of the status of something." http://en.wiktionary.org... Control "To exercise influence over, to suggest or dictate the behavior of." http://en.wiktionary.org... The username 'retarded flamingo' has not been claimed by anyone and is still open to the public. My opponent can legally exercise influence over it, thus it is my opponent's account.
animal breeding

Well, I must say that this is the most interesting topic that I have yet laid eyes on! However I disagree with the statement, and will do my best to prove you wrong! 1) First, you are putting our freedoms at stake! You say we should take care of the orphans first. This is saying that if you want a dog, you must buy one that has defects, abuse, strange behaviour, bites like a pair of dentures etc. Buyers have the right to buy a brand new puppy if they choose! 2) Breeding is a GOOD business! Making a law to temperarily ban breeding would hurt many! With the economy the way it is, is it ethical to put thousands out of the job? 3) You are restricting the dogs freedoms too! Dogs mate naturally! It's not like we invented them! It is unrealistic to ban animals from breeding! Dogs do it all the time! They run away, meet a mate, and you know what comes next! What are people going to do? Give dogs tickets for "Uncontrolled Hormones"? I look forward to what you have to say.