BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Evolution never happened and is not real

Evolution is proven fact Antibiotic resistant microbes, better known as "superbugs" is 100% confirmation and certification and proven fact that evolution is taking place right here in the here and the now. Antibiotic resistant microbes are evolving every single second of every single day to become more resistant to antibiotics. Superbug 1.a pathogenic bacterium that has developed immunity to antibiotics, or an insect that has developed immunity to insecticides. ("has developed" means evolution is taking place) Now watch the vidies that proves evolution is taking place in the here and now) http://www.youtube.com... - Frontline - The Trouble with Antibiotics Documentary http://www.youtube.com... - Frontline - Hunting the Nightmare Bactiria http://www.youtube.com... - Rise Of Superbugs Resistant To Antibiotics | Full Documentary http://www.youtube.com... - Antibiotics Resistance My opponent cannot win the evolution argument in which was just listed and proved. That was quick and easy!
Evolution never happened and is not real

So it is so it is so it is mt fault. Even so on the first round. I wouldn't have caught what you were after. Had I paid attention on the second round like the dildo breath that I am I should have caught it. But alas in all fairness I truly don't think that many garlic onion beer belly deodorant raptures in the deep would have caught it. So I humbly apologize with my schnauz caught in a nun's pep rally at a Nirvana the worst band of all time concert for the yodeling grunge country opera enthusiasts. Please tc and have fun.
increases in minimum wage causes more damage than good

The idea behind increasing the minimum wage to $10.10 is that we'll index it to inflation. How would hamburgers rise from $1 to $3? McDonald's could increase wages to $15/hour and prices would rise 17%. $1 would become $1.17. http://articles.latimes.com... Also, the idea that it downplays education is asinine. $10.10 isn't going to convince a college student to drop out. If anything, it would only help pay for an education.
increases in minimum wage causes more damage than good

At first glance it may appear the numbers are in favor of increasing minimum (who doesn"t want more money?). Let"s look at it more in depth, first there is the increased inflation. 10.10$ and hour will drop the value of OUR money. The second hit to Americans will be the increase in price of goods and services. That 1$ hamburger may now end up 3$ (inflation + job costs). Lastly it downplays the importance of education. Why advance in education if Mr Joe at fast food makes only a hair less?
increases in minimum wage causes more damage than good

I believe that incremental increases to the minimum wage does more good and less damage to the middle and lower classes. I support a minimum wage of $10.10. Since, this debate is purely based on whether it does more good or more harm (costs vs benefits), I will let the voters weigh in. The costs- An estimated 500,000 workers could lose employment. The benefits- An estimated 900,000 workers would be moved out of poverty. You decide. http://touch.latimes.com...
We (democrats) should vote for whoever the democratic nominee is in November.

ResponsesAs the Pro has conceded my first two contentions in round 2, I have won both of these key arguments. By failing to respond to rebut my response to her argument in the last round, I have therefore won on my third contention. Silence is compliance, and the Pro has been silent. ConclusionGiven the significant differences between Secretary Clinton and Senator Sanders, there should be no reason to vote for Sanders supporters to vote for Clinton if she is the Democratic nominee. Clintons record on Campaign finance, the minimum wage, healthcare, trade and wall street should immediately disqualify her in the minds of genuine progressives. Jill Stein has far more in common with Senator Sanders, and should, therefore, be supported over Hillary Clinton. These have both been conceded by the Pro and the Pro has failed to produce and substantive reason as to why Sanders supporters should support Clinton.
We (democrats) should vote for whoever the democratic nominee is in November.

ResponsesThe pro contends the lesser of two evils is better because third parties have never won the presidency. However this is the exact logic I argued against in the the previous round. By promoting a vote for a lesser evil, the pro betrays her own logic. By supporting the current political dynamic she is in fact opposing any of the reforms that she claims to support. One cannot claim to oppose something, but then vote for it. This is why Sanders supporters should not support Hillary Clinton if she is the nominee.Furthermore if more Americans were to vote for a third party, that would show a clear demand among Americans for these reforms and allow third parties to enter the political mainstream. The pro has conceede my other two arguments.
We (democrats) should vote for whoever the democratic nominee is in November.

I am aware and do agree that there are key issues that set Clinton and Sanders apart. Which is why I whole heartedly support Bernie sanders who is in my opinion the most qualified politician in this race. However, as long as we have a "Winner takes all" electoral system, third"-party candidates will always struggle. With our electoral system we"ll naturally have have 2 major parties. Third parties have failed historically since 1860 and the successes they do have are short. Reform to the way of our elections are preformed is way overdue if we want to give third parties fair representation and to give them a fighting chance. Most of America is saying that their beliefs don't match with those of the republicans or the democrats.This reform is not something that's going to happen overnight and most certainly not by November. Which is why I whoever the democratic nominee is, in some unfortunate event sanders does not pull through, I will support them because America does not deserve the current republican party's leadership. Sources: 1.) https://en.m.wikipedia.org... 2.) http://www.bloomberg.com... 3.) http://www.thisnation.com...
We (democrats) should vote for whoever the democratic nominee is in November.

(PSA: This debate is aimed at Sanders supporters for the most part.) 2016 is a very historical presidential election. I am a strong supporter of Bernie Sanders for the Democratic Nominee rather than Hillary Clinton. Though I believe Hillary Clinton is Less favorable than Sanders I still think its important to vote democrat in November. I believe there is too much at stake this election for the GOP to be in the white house. The life of The Affordable care act and same-sex marriage is at stake and the threat of defunding of planned parenthood along with more restrictions on abortion is eminent. Especially with Trump who is evidently a failure of a business man will run our economy with his mass deportation and general anti immigration agenda. Make America great again by voting Dem. Obama has worked too hard at cleaning up after Bush we don't need to go back to those days Sources 1.)http://www.ontheissues.org... 2.)https://en.wikipedia.org... 3.)https://en.wikipedia.org...
Human activities are the main cause global warming.

i'd like to refute my opponents points and then return back to defending mine. regarding my opponents first point, his point simply stated that humans pollute the earth. duh. of course human pollute the earth but this evidence is not conclusive enough to state that they are the main cause of the earth's rising temperature. we must look to a far greater source of carbon and other greenhouse gases: the earth itself. trees, volcanoes, and cosmic rays all cause the atmosphere to trap in heat. and there is far more carbon being produced by these natural occurances than humans as proven by avery's and singer's studies. to place this blame of such great magnitude on humans is proposterous. and also, no where in any research could i find a stat that humans cause "more than 50%" of global warming. in my opponents second point, he simply stated that people believe in the greenhouse gas theory. although this is true, i have evidence to support the other side. recently a petition was circulating around the oregon institute of science and medicine of over 17,000 highly qualified scientists who believe that humans releasing carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases will not cause a catastrophe in the foreseeable future. in response another petition had been created recieving only 2,600 signatures stating that humans are causing this change. signatures for this survey consisted of only 10% scientists and of that 10%, only 1% were climatologists. and also a recent court case in britain ruled that "an inconvenient truth" could not be shown in school because it was ruled non-factual. my opponent states that the UN agrees with him that humans are the cause of global warming but if you gander at his debate history, he is involved in a debate that states the UN is a bad organization. a little hypocritical, huh krebs? :) moving to my side of the argument my opponent showed no means of proving that global warming is not happened because of the earth's dawning ice age so this point still stands. i clearly prove that because we are coming up on an ice age, this is the culprit of rising temperatures and not humans my second point covered fossil fuel emissions which is most commonly named for causing global warming and i disproved this and stated that rising temperature actually causes rising CO2 levels and not the other way around thank you.
Human activities are the main cause global warming.

First off, I'd like to thank my opponent for joining this debate and wish them best of luck to them now to clarify a few definitions: (merriam-webster) human- of, relating to, or characteristic of humans activities- the quality or state of being active (in this case, pollution and burning of fossil fuels) main- primary cause- a reason for an action or condition global warming- an increase in the earth's atmospheric and oceanic temperatures widely predicted to occur due to an increase in the greenhouse effect resulting especially from pollution 1.) the earth is heating up because of the dawning ice age a.) About 10,000 years ago, the last Ice Age had come to an end with carbon dioxide levels at an all time low. As the temperature had some drastic changes, rising from about negative 8 degress celcius to about one degree celcius, the carbon dioxide levels continued on its downward slope before slowly rising until recent years when it sky-rocketed. Also, during the last era of warming about 115,000 years ago, the temperature had risen well above what we are experiencing now, yet the carbon dioxide levels were well below the average level ever recorded. Over the past century, the temperature has risen less than half of a degree even though the carbon dioxide levels are nearly twice the highest amount that have been recorded. b.) "Within the 90,000-year Ice Age cycles, the Earth also experiences 1,500-year warming-cooling cycles. The current warming began about 1850 and will possibly continue for another 500 years. Their findings are drawn from physical evidence of past climate cycles that have been documented by researchers around the world." (Warming Caused by Natural Cycle, Not Humans.) This is the side of global warming according to Avery and Singer, two scientists studying climate change. Their research was compiled from years of research on tree rings, ice cores, prehistoric villages, fossils, titanium profiles and numerous other sources. 2.) burning fossil fuels only accounts for a small percent of greenhouse gases a.) The burning of fossil fuels by humans is most often the culprit of global warming but in Avery and Singers research they go on to say that the burning of fossil fuels has little effect on global warming and does not speed up the process. In fact, studies show that humans burning fossil fuels actually account for aprox. 18% of greenhouse gases. Other sources are main contributors. These sources are volcanoes, trees, and even cosmic rays from space can greatly increase greenhouse gases. b.) New research involving ice core results allow us to distinguish which came first, temperature change or change in CO2 levels. Scientists from an organization called icecap concluded that temperature change actually preceded change in CO2 levels by over 800 years. So in fact, temperature change actually causes CO2 levels to rise and NOT HUMANS.
Are spoon deadlyer than sporks

Spoons can be made of metal. Spoons can be liked and stuck on your nose. Sporks are mostly plastic. And flimsy. Spoons can scoop out the eyes, sporks Would get stuck in the eye socket making it hard to remove eye ball without destroying it. Sporks are also known as foons, which is a FUNNY name. Not scary. Sporks are like a joke or toy. Plus sporks are rejects. Neither spoon nor fork. Making them not a threat. Sporks are not sharp, a fact most people don't realize. Finally I leave you with this question. If you were caught in a fight and had the option of a spoon or a spork, what would keep you alive?
The burka, hijab and the niqab are not a compulsory, or even a relevent, part of Islam.

"O Prophet! Say to your wives and your daughters and the women of the faithful to draw their outer garments close around themselves; that is better that they will be recognized and not annoyed. And God is ever Forgiving, Gentle." Was that verse suggesting that women should cover everything but their eyes? No, it did not! In fact the actual verses is: أقول يا النبي، الزوجات الخاص بك وبناتك ونساء المؤمنين إسقاط على أنفسهم [جزء] من ملابسهم الخارجية. وهذا أكثر مناسبة أنها سوف تكون معروفة ولا يساء. ومن أي وقت مضى هو مسامحة الله والرحمن الرحيم. Which actually translates to: O Prophet! Say to your wives and your daughters and all of the faithful women to draw parts of there clothes closer to them. This way is better as they will not be recognized and annoyed. Recognized by who? By enemies of Islam. This is basically saying: If you tighten your dresses the enemies won't recognize you and therefor wont kill you, rob you etc. The problem, Being robbed and attacked, was prominent in the periods of war. There's no war anymore so why would women have to tighten their clothes? There is disagreement in Islamic circles as to what extent Quran advocates the wearing of the burka. However, The Quran does not specifically mention the burka or tell women to wear such extremely confining clothes. Instead, it instructs men and women to dress and behave modestly in society (24:31). There are guidelines for women: Cover your chest (24:31); Lengthen your garments (33:59) and for both sexes: The best garment is righteousness and modest conduct (7:26). Also this is not compulsory: "There shall be no compulsion in religion: the right way is now distinct from the wrong way. Anyone who denounces the devil and believes in God has grasped the strongest bond; one that never breaks. God is Hearer, Omniscient." 2:256
The burka, hijab and the niqab are not a compulsory, or even a relevent, part of Islam.

"O Prophet! Say to your wives and your daughters and the women of the faithful to draw their outergarments close around themselves; that is better that they will be recognized and not annoyed. And God is ever Forgiving, Gentle." " Qur'an, Surah 33 (Al-Ahzab), Verse 59 Even if Burqas, Hijabs, or Niqabs aren't commanded by Islam, that does not stop them from being relevant, as they are. Feminists for one LOVE to debate whether or not wearing a burqa is good, and laws (like those in France) are very controversial.
The burka, hijab and the niqab are not a compulsory, or even a relevent, part of Islam.

My argument is simple yet it is regarding a very important part of the subjugation of women and the lack of integration in western societies today: The burqa, hijab and the niqab are not a compulsory, or even a relevant, part of Islam. All are welcome to debate with me however it would be better if you have some prior knowledge about the topic. You may utilise the Quran and Hadith as long as you provide the English translation. I look forward to the debate.
It isn't America's fault that the Middle Easy is destabilized.

you have failed to state that isn't the U.S's fault. You brought up Britain and I do agree with that. By 1914, the ottoman empire was the sick man of europe and its empire with one minor problem would collapse the entire thing. perhaps if ww1 it would've let the ottomans have a little more time to see what's wrong, then perhaps collapse naturally if nothing was done. Israel was going to happen as long as the allies were victorious in world war 2. no doubt but the u.s caught the unwanted attention when it supported israel. "This again boils down to the fact that Israel was placed in an area where they were hated because of the fact that they were Jews. The US promised to help Israel if they went to war with any of the bordering countries" In this statement alone, it is the u.s's fault in the middle east because why are they supporting a country in hostile territory. we will never win in the middle east the way we are going. The U.S is at the mercy of Arabic princes and israel. That right there is a major problem. As long as we have a presences in the Middle East, everything that happens there will be our fault. The middle east has many ethnic and religious diversity with a strong belief in their religious dogma. There will always be war there. But the west has an unquenchable thirst to spread their ideology of "freedom" and " globalism". And that is not the way to go. One day capitalism will fall and the west will fall. But in current event the U.S has been the sole superpower of the world and we have caused every war and every outbreak of social disorder. You have failed to construct a solid counter argument. Instead just stated some points to make my side stronger.
It isn't America's fault that the Middle Easy is destabilized.

You have made many of the points I planned on using, I believe it's the UK's fault, as when they cut up the Middle East they did not take in factors such as different cultures, different sects of Islam, and so on and so forth. (and they put a Jewish state right next to them, as we all know, Muslims hate Jews.) http://www.telegraph.co.uk... http://www.wnd.com... If Britain just put the Jewish state in what was then their land after the war, (Given them basically part of Germany.) It would have bee just fine. But, instead of the countries redrawing the lines they went to war. Not to mention that the Ottomans had several civil wars throughout the mid 1800's and during World War 1. This all boils down to the fact that instead of making lemonade when they were given lemons, they made extra salty piss. Now, back to the fact that the US went to war several times in the Middle East. This again boils down to the fact that Israel was placed in an area where they were hated because of the fact that they were Jews. The US promised to help Israel if they went to war with any of the bordering countries. Because of this Al-Qaeda attacked the US several times with no avail, (mainly because the US didn't give a flying crap.) So, they went out of their way and conducted the 9/11 attacks. We went to war, and after we won the already US hating Muslims hated us even more... And yeah... ISIS was formed because of our negligence and not caring because we didn't think they were a threat. (Again... We underestimated how salty that piss was.) and BOOM! We were brought into several wars against Islamic terrorism, because we didn't want another 9/11.
It isn't America's fault that the Middle Easy is destabilized.

I do believe it is America's fault that the middle east is destabilized. In general, it's western europe and America's fault. And it all started down in world war 1. When the british decide to destabilize the muslim empire called: the ottoman empire. that started the long term effects we have now. The Ottoman Empire wasn't "democratic" but it was a stable point of the middle east and after WW1 the west though it was right to also set colonies in Iraq and Saudi Arabia. What was a major down fall as well of Middle eastern tension was the setup of israel from the palestinians. When the fall of the U.S.S.R , that should've been the last time we should've been in the middle east. But soon terrorist attacks happened. You wanna know from who? American supported guerillas from the Afghan- Soviet war. This continues on to something major. Iraq. Iraq was a dictatorship but at least it was secular and a strong military to combat any type of religious extremism. But unfortunately, by 2011, Iraq was dismantled in a civil war, it had a leader who knew nothing about the religious, political, geographical, and ethnic problems . Also it became a breeding group for terrorist groups such as Al-Qaeda and ISIS. And the Arab spring destroyed the middle east completely. The middle east can not adopt western ideals because it's ideology has traced back to the Antiquity. Imagine if a foreign country invaded America, placed a man who had no idea of the country, and destroyed our way of life because theirs is better. you see where i am coming from. The usa didn't do it alone but it certainly did destabilized the middle east
Restricted abortion should be legal

"Con points out that being against abortion in of it's self doesn't make them misogynist or sexist, I agree, nor did I claim as such." Yeah, you actually did. You said it in Round 3. "If you ever wondered why some regard the 'Pro-life' as anti-woman, it's because of things like this." "As I said the actual numbers is just a red herring, there is no actual argument here." No, it's an argument. Think about it this way; if I told you that an intersection without a stop sign has only experienced one fatal car crash in it's history, you wouldn't think anything of it. But if I told you that same intersection has had ten fatal car crashes, any sane person would want a stop sign put up. Point is, the more deaths, the more the situation needs to stop. "Freedom not restricted unless justified" Your right; one's right to live should not be restricted unless justified, and I don't think abortion justifies it. Well, this is it; the end of my last round. Thank you illegalcombat for hosting this debate.
Restricted abortion should be legal

"This is a claim or something similar I hear all to often in the abortion debate. If you ever wondered why some regard the 'Pro-life' as anti-woman, it's because of things like this. " My disapproval of abortion does not in any way shape or form make me a misogynist. Does disapproving of what Casey Anthony did make me a misogynist? Of course not. So, why does my disapproval of killing children in the womb make me sexist? "Con laments about the number of abortions, I think this is a red herring. How many abortions would be acceptable to Con? " How about 100% less. "Freedom not restricted unless justified I take it Con agrees here." Yes. I do believe one's freedom to live should not be restricted unless justified, and I don't think it's possible to justify killing an unborn baby. "Con doesn't seem to dispute that the correct call to make here is to save the 5 year old child over 100, 3 day human embryos." Actually, I would save the 100 fetuses over the 1 child. I would not want either to die, but given the choice between taking the life of 1 or 100, I would chose only the 1. None of Pro's arguments can change the one simple truth of it all; killing is wrong, and it has no place in a civilized society.