BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Chicken and Waffles Are Better Than Bacon, Egg, and Cheese

Bacon and eggs is only a more time consuming meal because you allow for microwavable/toastable versions of chicken and waffles, but not similar versions for bacon and eggs. To actually prepare chicken and create waffle batter is more time consuming than to fry bacon and eggs. Microwavable bacon and eggs are just as fast as Eggos and chicken strips. Your assertion that chicken is more nutritious than bacon is unsupportable. Bacon is certainly more calorie dense, but there is no support for the idea that that makes it "less nutritious." The nutrient profiles of both meats are similar. A much stronger argument could be made for Eggo waffles being essentially poison. You also suggest that chicken compensates for the "boost of protein." Yet, you present no evidence for this, or in fact, no evidence of the benefits of a "boost of protein" anyway. That's crock science. Your arguments for heat retention and "cheese" are baseless non sequiturs unworthy of comment. You, sir, have no argument.
Chicken and Waffles Are Better Than Bacon, Egg, and Cheese

For those unfamiliar: http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... Obviously, chicken and waffles are better. Why? One, bacon and eggs take longer to fry and take more attention than just sticking a couple of Eggo waffles in the toaster and frozen chicken strips in the microwave. Two, for kids waking up for school and adults commuting to work, time and attention are important. Three, chicken is more nutritious than bacon, and while bacon does taste awesome (NOM, NOM, NOM DUH), the amount of bacon you get for the same amount of effort just isn't worth it. Only an irrational person would prefer bacon to chicken. Four, chicken easily compensates for the boost of protein you get from eggs. Five, chicken doesn't lose its heat as easily. Six, there's no cheese to melt and ooze over. Note: This debate does not consider the possibility of using pepperjack cheese which is admittedly a close call.
the right to bear arms

Bear-mammals of the family Ursidae. Bears are classified as caniforms, or doglike carnivorans, with the pinnipeds being their closest living relatives. http://en.m.wikipedia.org... Arms- upper limbs of a body. http://dictionary.reference.com... I'm not sure what the 2nd amendment has to do with bear arms, but I'm sure my opponent will explain. I don't think people should be allowed bear arms. Many species of bears are endangered and it would be a shame to make them go extinct for this wierd fascination to own parts of their bodies, plus owning bear arms, has no benefit to anybody other than the bear.
Spinkos tourney,Partial Semi-Finals: Assasination of US citizens is constitutional

Resolution: The assasination of US citizens is constitutional(n) assassination (murder of a public figure by surprise attack) ========Burden of proof========This debate is about a grant of authority within the constitution; the BOP rests on pro to show where in the constituton the Government is granted the authority to assasinate it's citizens. ========Rules/set-up======== No semantics allowed. No using the supreme court as an arguement; you may use it as a source. One forfeit results in loss of the conduct point. Two forfeits results in the loss of the debate.
Being Gay ISN'T Wrong

Being gay does not mean there is a sexual desire between two men/ or two females. It doesn't have to be anyway, Being gay means showing AFFECTION towards that of the same gender so technically it doesn't have to be anything sexual. LOVE IS LOVE that is something not even god can change. it is completely normal and people should be completely open about this. have you forgotten that they can start families too? of course the process is difficult but it's only worth it in the end, so being gay does not have to be based off sexual desire and it isn't wrong in the slightest degree.
Being Gay ISN'T Wrong

Love does not need to be expressed in sexual acts. Insisting sexual acts are a foundation of Love and a healthy relationship is wrong, and thus having Gay desires may not be wrong, But manifest, the actual BEING of Gay is incorrect, and thus it is Wrong. It is selfish, corruptive, non purposeful, unhealthy, misused politically for atheist agendas of wealth embezzling, the purposeful promotion of womanizing and disrespecting women. God said that you may sin, and you will die because of your sin. God did not say you are blessed in all your decisions. In fact the world suffers from our sins now and in the next life. Being Gay is not wrong for desiring men, as it is a sin to desire woman, But it is still Wrong to BE Gay in a active sense. Promoting homosexuality only advocates perverted conflicts in society such as rape, abduction, pedophiles, neglectful relationships, political injustice, and the corrupting and stumbling of Children who are subliminally informed anal and oral sex are now permissible, despite testosterone causes menopause, and unbalanced hormones cause mental dysfunction, all this leads to neglectful citizens, in both regards to relationships and societies conflicts with war, crime, famine, and lifestyle. Being Gay is Wrong.
Being Gay ISN'T Wrong

Being homosexual isn't wrong and should be expressed openly rather in secret, I myself am not gay but I will not discriminate against fellow human beings because of their sexual orientation. I know the bible prohibits such acts, but last time I check god doesn't decide who you fall in love with. We were given free will to choose who we fall in love with, and if that so happens to be a member of the same gender. OH WELL it was a right given by god to choose who we fall in love with and it can never be taken back. So I believe we should respect the queers for they have done nothing wrong therefore being gay isn't wrong
The Cosmological argument is evidence for a God.

Interesting... To everyone at debate.org, hope you've had a merry christmas. Have a happy new year. Well for my rebuttals Resolution: The Cosmological argument is evidence for a God. "I will herein define God as a supernatural, personal being that is not subject to the laws of nature, and so can perform miracles." I do not accept this definition, for its not from an adaquate source. You tried to set barriers to my argument. That's basically like stating this resolution, and then later stating "By god I mean Thor, god of thunder." Ooooooooh no you don't. "Correct me if I'm wrong, but in agreeing to participate in this debate, you agreed to argue for the God I defined." Your wrong. I just stand affirmative on the given resolution. God is best defined as one who is worshipped as creator and supreme ruler of the universe (merriam webster). I'm only arguing his existence, not his abilities other than to create the universe. First of all, you say the universe doesn't require a cause. That's practically saying it doesn't have a beginning. Explain to me how something can exist without a beginning. "However, even if we assume that the passing of time is not an illusion, the universe did not begin to exist in this way. The current cosmological theory of the universe's origin is that there was a big bang, that spawned the universe as we know it, arising from an initial big bang singularity. before this big bang event, there was no time; the big bang is the beginning of time itself. So, there was no actual time at which the universe did not exist. Before the big bang, there was no "empty" state where time existed but the universe did not. Hence, the universe did not "begin to exist" in the conventional sense, as there was no transition from non existence to existence, or from potentiality to actuality." 1) So, before the big bang, there was no time? 2) So what existed before the big bang? 3) A singularity of all the matter in the universe just existed infinitely before the big bang? 4) So that singularity had no prior? 5) What caused it to start? 6) It just "happened". I guess your right. Things can start for no reason. Without a cause. It doesn't make any sense though, does it? No, it had a beginning, and whatever it may be, it will fit under the definition of God. Therefore, the cosmological argument is evidence for a God. I win unless my opponent can prove how the universe is exempt from the laws of causality Sorry if I was rude at all. I urge a PRO ballot :)
The Cosmological argument is evidence for a God.

Supernatural as defined by merriam - webster means: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe "Is the universe infinite? We cannot see past the observable universe, and so cannot know whether the universe is infinite or not" That only proves my point. Let me be a little clearer. I was pressed for time, and I meant not to define God creator of the universe, but the creator of the universe as God. Think about that for a second. Whatever created the universe, call it God. Now, as far as the cosmological argument, it's simple causality. Everything that exists does for a reason. THIS is the argument, 1.Whatever begins to exist has a cause. 2.The Universe began to exist. 3.Therefore, the Universe had a cause Whatever caused the universe to exist is god. I think my opponent will need to explain how something can exist without a cause, which to me or to the laws of physics logic doesn't make any sense. Otherwise, I'm the victor of this debate.
The Cosmological argument is evidence for a God.

Alright then. On to the counter arguments. "First, I would like to start by stating that as not only a christian, but as an educated philosopher and one with a passion for science, the definition of god is creator of the universe. Therefore, god would exist no matter what you believe, simply because the universe is something that was created. To clarify that, if you believe that the universe created the universe, the universe would be god ^_^. Amit Goswami calls the universe "self aware," therefore the universe as whole is intelligent and has control of the universe, so therefore god is ruler of the universe, and of all existence." I didn't define God as the creator of the universe; that's pretty much what we're arguing about, whether a being which I defined in my opening post created the universe. I don't think the universe can be defined as a supernatural, personal being that can perform miracles. Amit Goswami, a theoretical physicist at the University of Oregon [1], does believe that the universe as a whole is conscious, though he is in the scientific minority, and has been criticized by fellow scientists of "quantum quackery" [2]. Nonetheless, stating that Professor Goswami calls the universe "self aware" isn't evidence for this claim, and one would be hard pressed to argue for pantheism (The belief that God is the universe) scientifically. "Supernatural as defined by merriam - webster means: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe The universe being infinite, something we can never fully observe, god is therefore something we can never fully percieve or observe, and is therefore still supernatural" Is the universe infinite? We cannot see past the observable universe, and so cannot know whether the universe is infinite or not [3]. Finally, the universe is constrained by the laws of nature, and hence, if the natural universe is all that exists, then it seems that miracles, interruptions of the laws of nature, are excluded. For these reasons, the universe itself couldn't be called God, as I have defined the term God. I am grateful for my opponent's reply, but I think it would be easier to tell whether his arguments are valid or not if he put them in the form of syllogisms, like the general cosmological argument I alluded to in my opening post. Basically, my opponent needs to show that premises (1) and (2) are more likely true than false. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.csicop.org... [3] http://www.nasa.gov...
The Cosmological argument is evidence for a God.

First, I would like to start by stating that as not only a christian, but as an educated philosopher and one with a passion for science, the definition of god is creator of the universe. Therefore, god would exist no matter what you believe, simply because the universe is something that was created. To clarify that, if you believe that the universe created the universe, the universe would be god ^_^. Amit Goswami calls the universe "self aware," therefore the universe as whole is intelligent and has control of the universe, so therefore god is ruler of the universe, and of all existence. Supernatural as defined by merriam - webster means: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe The universe being infinite, something we can never fully observe, god is therefore something we can never fully percieve or observe, and is therefore still supernatural First debate, critics cut some slack, cheers.
The Cosmological argument is evidence for a God.

I intend to argue that the cosmological argument does not count as evidence for a God. A cosmological argument is an argument derived from one particular piece of evidence: the origin of the universe. Generally, cosmological arguments go like this: 1) If the universe requires a cause, then the cause of the universe must be God. 2) The universe requires a cause. 3) Therefore, the cause of the universe must be God. This argument is valid, because the conclusion logically follows from the two premises. But is the argument sound? That is, are the premises true? My opponent will need to show that the existence of God can be inferred from the fact of the origin of the universe. I will herein define God as a supernatural, personal being that is not subject to the laws of nature, and so can perform miracles. Having laid out my position and the definitions of the debate topic, I feel it pertinent to wait for my opponent to lay out their argument from the origin of the universe to God's existence, as I would not like to attack 'straw man' versions of the cosmological argument. That being said, I eagerly await my opponent's opening statement, and from thereon, will attempt to show that their argument is not evidence for God's existence.
A defense of moral skepticism

What this debate is onAs Pro, I will be arguing in defense of moral skepticism in relation to the possibility of moral knowledge. Con will argue that moral truths or facts can be or are known. Burden of Proof The BOP shall be shared between my opponent and I. We must both not only refute the other's case, but must bring and defend our own case in order to win.Rules ---Forfeiting of any round will constitute a loss of all seven points.---Drops will count as concessions.---No semantic arguments(arguments where one tries to win off of definitions alone or other forms of wordplay)---No new arguments in the last round.Definitions Moral skepticism: the specific form of moral skepticism that I will be defending in this debate will be of the variety, Dogmatic skepticism about moral knowledge. This view holds that nobody ever knows that any substantive moral belief is true.[1]Justified: to defend or uphold as warranted or well-grounded[2]Infer: the process of deriving the strict logical consequences of assumed premises.[3] So when one is justified in believing something inferentially, it means that would be justified in holding a position that they arrived at through "logical consequences of assumed premises".Noninferentially will then mean that one draws a conclusion through some other method other than the one stated above.Moral claim: A claim making either a prescriptive or descriptive moral statement(ex. It is good to be nice.)Believe: to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability ofsomething[4]Argumentation will begin in R2. Good luck to whomever accepts this debate.[1] http://plato.stanford.edu...[2] http://dictionary.reference.com...[3] http://dictionary.reference.com...[4] http://dictionary.reference.com...;
DC's Comic Books are better then Marvels Comic Books

Sadly, what could have been a fun, intense, short debate became another forfeit.All that remains is to point out that my opponent did not present a single argument for her resolution that DC makes better comics and Marvel better films. All she said was that Marvel made ONE successful movie. No word on the comics.While I pointed out that ALL superherocomics depict something that does not even exist, making the comics and films equally pointless.There remains not a single bit of evidence that DC makes better comics or Marvel better films.Thanks for reading!
DC's Comic Books are better then Marvels Comic Books

Financial success has nothing to do with quality or meaning. If that WERE the case, then McDonald's and Burger King would be serving the best and most "meaningful" (?) food in the world.I've read enough comics to know Stan Lee's onvincing argument on why you should write "comicbook" rather than "comic book".None of those were "fantastic". Take, for example, the death of Gwen Stacy. http://f-origin.hypotheses.org...http://www.superherostuff.com...How is the tragic death of an innocent girl a "fun read"? How cynical does one have to be to ENJOY a depiction of wasted life, at the hands of a so-called "superhero" and her boyfriend?What does any of this teach other than that superpowers WOULD bring death and destruction? IF they were real, which they are not, which makes it all meaningless. Where's the moral values and relying on your friends?There are countless other examples.
DC's Comic Books are better then Marvels Comic Books

May I ask you a question, What was the highest grossing movie last year? The avengers. And I do not believe that they are pointless. Have you ever even read one single comic book by either of the companies? They are fantastic, I just believe that comic books are just a fun read in general. And how are they pointless again? it teaches you that you have to rely on your team or your friends. so it brings up moral values. So there's my case.
Is Reverse Racism Real

Yes, that's what I mean. And here's my argument why it isn't real. I want to establish that while prejudice and racism are similar, they have different connotations. It is true that white people can experience prejudice, offensive opinion not based on reason. Anyone can. However, racism is much more complicated: It is a concept that operates on both an individual and institutional level. Racism is an institution where a particular race is dominant, and uses this dominance to oppress the other races in order to benefit. Instances of this are slavery: White people had oppressed Blacks in order to gain profit off of Black people's labor. Then later there was segregation, which was less direct but still oppressed blacks. Today, the oppression that racism creates is more on an economic and educational level. Job discrimination makes it difficult for Blacks to earn more money, which makes it more difficult for their children to get a better education, and therefore get a good job when their children are older. You can clearly see a cycle, and this is only one instance that the system of racism creates. White people do not experience any of this, and in fact benefit off of this. If African Americans and other minorities are refused from jobs due to their skin color, then white people have a higher chance of obtaining a job. Usually without even knowing it. White people do not experience police brutality at the same level black people do. More than 100 unarmed black people were killed by police in 2014. (http://mappingpoliceviolence.org......) They also don't experience incarceration at the level either. While people of color make up about 30 percent of the United States' population, they account for 60 percent of those imprisoned. They're targeted by society and poverty because of racism on a structural level. (https://www.americanprogress.org......) So while blacks can be prejudice against whites and say bad things to offend them, they're not being racist because they don't have the institutionalized power to protect them and their statements. Furthermore, if black people make negative statements or act negatively towards white people, it doesn't affect the power, rights, and opportunities that white people have. On the other hand, if white people act negatively towards black people, the power, rights, and opportunities of black people are restricted.
Abortion

"I provided evidence to oprove you wrong. " Where is this "evidence" you talk about? I already rebutted your "evidence" you presented from that website. That website has insufficient evidence for your entire "argument" to be based around it anyway. "Rape victims are often forced to coparent with a rapist, and what are you doiing about it? " There are many flaws with this question. First off, it is completely off topic since we are supposed to debate whether or not abortion is okay. Also, I can think something is wrong without actively doing something about it. For example, I can think that people in 3rd world countries not being able to eat enough is bad, but I don't have to go over there and feed them myself to be eligible to hold that opinion. I have the right to hold any opinions I want without actively doing anything about them. To sum it up, you should vote con because: - I tried my best to stay on the topic of abortion, but pro did not. - I answered all of pro's arguments and rebutted them, but pro didn't really rebut my arguments. - I answered all of pro's questions while pro did not answer mine. - Example: "'Also, what if the mother is pregnant with 5 embryos by nature, and that is too much? ' Please give more detail on this idea. " (Me, round 3) Pro never brought this up later as I asked. - I went more into detail and didn't respond with just one or two sentences.
Abortion

All you did to "rebut" my argument in round three was to provide an article where you got one of your pieces of information. That should have been given in round two since the burden of proof was on you (because you provided a fact about a certain law in certain states, so you have to give an article to show it wasn't made up) for that given fact. You did nothing to counter the rest of my argument. "31 states deny the victim's right to choose adoption without her rapist's consent." (you, round two) In round three, you gave an article to back that up... except the article you gave said not one word about abortion. It just had two short paragraphs about a rapist's visitation and custody rights. "I just proved my opponent wrong." No, no you didn't. My previous arguments still stand because neither you nor your provided article addressed them. Please, with your next turn actually rebut my arguments. I await an actual rebuttal.
Abortion

You don't have to coparent with the rapist; you can give it up for adoption. Please cite your source that says adoption is illegal in 31 states if the rapist doesn't give consent. Also, even if this is true, you can get help with the child from family and friends. "I have the right to not coparent with my rapist." The baby's right to live overrules that right. Also, you should "This ios not true choice." Neither is someone getting coerced into an abortion by abortion providers, family, and friends. "Also, what if the mother is pregnant with 5 embryos by nature, and that is just too much?" Please give more detail on this idea. Again, they could be given up for adoption. "What if the mother is mentally ill like I am?" If you don't feel ready for kids, don't *ahem* do anything with a man. Also, what does that have to do with anything? Abortion is still murder and thus is still wrong! "What if the mother ius in a violent relationship?" Once again, you can give the baby up for adoption, discontinue the relationship, and *ahem* not do anything with a man. The father's actions do not justify your killing of the baby.
Abortion

I was raped, and if I conceived something, I would have had the right to choose abortion because I have the right to not coparent with my rapist. 31 states deny the victim's right to choose adoption without her rapist's consent. This ios not true choice. Also, what if the mother is pregnant with 5 embryos by nature, and that is just too much? What if the mother is mentally ill like I am? What if the mother ius in a violent relationship?