BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Which One is Better Ayurveda or Modern medicine

My opponent would have you believe that modern medicine is comprised only of symptomatic treatments. A single example of symptomatic treatment is given and implied to stand in for the entire practice. This is patently false. Modern medicine has been able to uncover and effectively treat the etiology of a wide-range of disease and disorders, ranging from chronic, annoying conditions to acute, fatal emergencies. In addition to the persuasiveness of large body of scientific evidence, any patient who has had a bone set, their cancerous tumors removed, or their infections cleansed by antibiotics can attest to the capacity of modern medicine to identify and treat the source of disease. Ayurveda has only the anecdotal evidence to claim. I challenge my opponent to address the pseudo-scientific status of Ayurveda and persuade us why we should dismiss the proven effectiveness of modern medicine in favor of unproven practices.
Which One is Better Ayurveda or Modern medicine

I still think ayurveda is better. For ayurveda, they treat the cause/root for the disease unlike modern medicine in which they just treat the disease which could eventually create some side effects that might sometimes be worse than the first problem. For like in case of you having a minor problem like sneezing, u take some tablet like citrizin (i dnt knw the actual spelling), the sneezing problem gets solved, but the problem can occur later also. This is because the allergetic problem for the person is not cured but the sensitivity of your nose was neutralised for sometime so that you can have a relief from sneezing. The same thinfg happens for almost every disease. So i think ayurveda will be a better option for recovery from a disease permanently.
Which One is Better Ayurveda or Modern medicine

I contend that modern medicine is better than Ayurveda. I use "better" to mean the practice is more effective at identifying, treating, and preventing diseases and disorders. The most accurate and reliable method of assessing the efficacy of medicinal practices is the scientific method. Without clinical trials and experimental evidence demonstrating the effectiveness of Ayurveda, one must consider modern medicine the better practice on account of substantial evidence.
Which One is Better Ayurveda or Modern medicine

Now people around the world are looking towards ayurveda. The Indian healing theraphy. It is said that theres no side effects for ayurveda. On the other hand, all around the world modern form of medicine is used and practiced. even the manufacturers accept that the'll have some side effects one way or the other. Which one do you think is better Ayurveda or Modern medicine. I support AYURVEDA
God Exists

I'd like to start by saying, that we have no idea if a god exists in our realm of existence, at this present moment. There IS no tangible evidence that proves the existence, right now, but, there also isn't any evidence to claim that there isn't one. That's the burden of proof fallacy. But, i would like to mention the creation of the universe and how a powerful entity created it. At one point, there was absolute nothingness. I claim that, in the sense that the if there was a beginning, there must have been a starting point and something to start the Ultimate Clock. Since there "was" nothingness, the non-physical body of consciousness, or free will in itself, has the right to create itself. There are no laws of nature or physics that say otherwise. Consciousness, therefore, can create something from nothing. As for this moment, I prefer to believe that although the same entity has no physical body, it lives within all life. The idea that living beings, on a smaller, insignificant scale can move, think, and act freely, is this entity taking a physical body, it's own creation. We have the choice to manifest into the closest version of this entity as we possibly can, although, we are only human.
Alternate energy

This is the round for opening statements. Sorry didn't realize I only made 3 rounds. We will combine the question asking in the comments and the answers and closing statements can be in round 3. Sorry for that. Intro: We all know about water wheels, solar panels, wind farms, etc . . Let's talk about fossil fuels and alternate energy. 1: Why fossil fuel is bad for the atmosphere. Tons of CO2 is burned every year. CO2now.org says, "he 2014 average annual concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere (Mauna Loa Observatory) is 398.55 parts per million (ppm). The 2013 average is 396.48 ppm. For the past decade (2005-2014) the average annual increase is 2.1 ppm per year." 2: What are our alternatives. These alternative energies do us no harm. In fact outside Evanston, Wy we have tons of wind farms and it generates over 1/4 of our energy. 3: How these will help us. BBC news says, "Ozone layer 'shows signs of recovery', say scientists. The Earth's protective ozone layer is starting to repair itself, according to a panel of United Nations scientists. The main reason behind its recovery, they say, is the fact that certain chemicals, such as those used in aerosol cans, were phased out in the 1980s.Sep 10, 2014" This will help us by slowing emissions into the air and letting the ozone layer heal itself. Conclusion: Please vote for me.
Alternate energy

If you accept you accept all rules, terms, and conditions. Rules: 1: Use sources 2: Be respectful 3: Stick to rounds 4: Have fun 5: Breaking a rule results in automatic forfeit to me Rounds: 1: Acceptance 2: Opening statements 3: Questions 4: Answers 5: Closing statements and why the viewers should vote for you. Good luck and let the debate begin whenever my opponent is ready!
Modern Feminism

Modern Feminism in the united states has no place. I have heard a lot about it being about equality, and that women are treated less than men in society, they act and make the situation appear as if they were an African American in the late 1800's. What i would like to point out is that there are people in other countries, such as Afghanistan, or china, where women legitimately are objectified and they are oppressed, here in the United States they have many rights, we also have had a women's suffrage movement where they were granted rights they did not previously have. In the current day they act as if we are still in that day and age, when women get raped it's because someone who has serious mental issues was allowed that opportunity, some are under the influence of illicit drugs and or they're potentially more uncontrollable counterpart, alcohol. Not many men rape or even have thoughts of rape, nor any desire to do so. A simply hello or a casual comment that is meant in a flirtatious or even a courteous way does not signify or blow a whistle (that's ironic) signalling rape. Thinking in that way is a very paranoid and self destructive way to think. "Rape culture" is not a real thing and thinking so is downright delusional and signifies a very mislead mind.
The Death Penalty is a just punishment in certain cases.

First, I would like to apologize for not being able to submit my argument in the correct time frame. This will not happen again. With regard to the negation, my opponent says that chance of escape would be zero. However, escape from prison can and did occur, meaning that my opponent is incorrect in his reasoning. In one such case, Ted Bundy escaped from county jails twice and continued on his killing spree. [2] No amount of caution will ever make probability of escape zero[3]. Therefore, it sometimes is more reasonable to utilize the death penalty to prevent future death and to give just punishment. In addition, though my sources have parole in common, they all refer to a case where the death penalty would have been more logical. My opponent has agreed that prison management is poor, yet he states that the possibility of escape is zero, a major contradiction. Because of poor prison management, there are certain cases where it is beneficial to utilize the death penalty. Furthermore, my belief on equal retribution states that whatever the offender committed on the victim, his punishment should equal his offense. The debate here is about a just punishment, not what would be the best for the victims family, meaning a punishment that seems most reasonable for the crime committed. Therefore, for murder, the logical punishment is death. Moreover, my opponent still clings onto an incorrect belief of justice for the case of murder. And considering that almost all death penalties are punishments for murder, this idea of justice is very important[1]. In almost any other circumstance, where the victim can still retrieve benefits from the offender to make amends for damage done, then such an act is carried out by the law. However, for murder, the victim no longer exists to be able to collect retribution and therefore just amends can never be made. So my opponent claims that amends must be made to the victims family. However, the law does not involve the family. The bounds of law encircle only the offender and victim and therefore cannot extend to the family. ==Affirmation== The debate topic states that the Death Penalty must be just only in certain cases and not in all cases. Therefore, finding one such case where death penalty was just, which I have, affirms the resolution. Furthermore, the death penalty acts as a deterrent from future murders. [4] . If the death penalty deters crime, then how is it not logical to use it. Though it may not be the right solution in all cases, it is logical to use it in some. -Sources- [1] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3]http://en.wikipedia.org... [4]http://deathpenalty.procon.org...
The Death Penalty is a just punishment in certain cases.

== Regarding the Negation == My opponent objects that convicts should not work due to the chance of escape. This chance could easily be minimized through the introduction of controlled forced-labor factories, where all convicts can work efficiently and securely to make products to be sold on the market. A victim or victim's family could send their offender there to work until amends have been made. The chance of escape would be zero. My opponent also objects that amends cannot hope to be paid fully during the lifetime of the convict. If this is true, then the convict works until dead, earning for himself only subsistence, and for his victim, the rest. Regardless, the victim is repaid rather than left to pay damages himself, a less ethical and less achievable task. The affirmation also objects that my statement, that "it is preferable to deprive the offender of their rights until just amends have been made" includes the right to life, but depriving the convict of the right to life can make no amends to the victim whatsoever. == Regarding the Affirmation == All of my opponent's examples have one thing in common: parole. While his first quotation does not explicitly say parole, in the original quotation, it mentions it explicitly: "Karen's mom ran to the Atkins home nearby, where Joe then murdered his adopted father, Benjamin Atkins, 75, who had worked to persuade parole authorities to release Joe from the life sentence" [1]. All of my opponent's examples, therefore, are the result of poor prisoner management under the current system, which I do not support. My opponent misconstrues my statement regarding the case of murder. I did not state that it could not be repaid; in fact, I stated exactly the opposite. My statement was that, unlike fixing a broken fence, resurrecting a human is impossible. Damage still can be repaid to some people (as I already stated, this would likely be the family) "equal to the total expected income of the victim for the full duration of his life, plus other arbitrary damages for lost safety, happiness, utility, etc. " It is possible to pay retribution, at least in part, and my opponent's idea of killing the convict pays none. The convict may lose his life, but he cannot in the process give it to the person or people from whom he stole theirs. Therefore, the death penalty ensures that equal retribution, the agreed standard of justice, can never occur, even in part. == Conclusion == My opponent and I have agreed on an ideal for justice, that the offender is liable to the victim the damages done. The taking of the offender's life, therefore, can not achieve justice. The resolution is negated. Thank you. == Sources == [1] . http://www.prodeathpenalty.com... [2] . http://www.britannica.com... [3] . http://www.directionjournal.org...
The Death Penalty is a just punishment in certain cases.

== Parameters == just - guided by truth, reason, justice, and fairness http://dictionary.reference.com... death penalty - capital punishment http://dictionary.reference.com... capital punishment - punishment by death for a crime http://dictionary.reference.com... My opponent has the burden of proof in that he must provide the specific cases and the reasoning for them. == The Negation == A person seriously offended of their rights to govern themselves and their property is not compensated by a death penalty. Depriving the offender of his life only removes the person who must be held liable for his damages. Because of this, it is preferable to deprive the offender of their rights until just amends have been made. In the case of murder, one cannot expect to resurrect the victim by such means, but adding another death doesn't accomplish this either. The friends or relatives, can be at least compensated, by an amount equal to the total expected income of the victim for the full duration of his life, plus other arbitrary damages for lost safety, happiness, utility, etc. The offender shall be subjected to slavery until compensation is made in full. Surely, this is more just than capital punishment, for the victims receive amends equal to the damage taken and the offender receives just punishment equal to the damage done. Thank you.
Theme Songs for Movies/TV shows

What songs best suits different movies? Ignore the original theme song for the movies and pick out your own! Each round there will be a new list of movies to decide and argue the songs which best fit those. We will each give our own different and unique opinions. You may (it would be helpful and nice to) post YouTube videos of the songs which would you think would match the movies. READ INSTRUCTIONS CAREFULLY: 1st Round: Acceptance, Suggestions or Questions (you can add anything to the introduction of this "debate"), and List of Movies. -Pro gives list of the movies which will be debated upon in this round for designated theme songs and then chooses songs for them.* -Con gives another list (his/her own list) of movies which will be debated upon for designated theme songs. Con agrees/disagrees with Pro's theme-song choices; chooses his own theme song for the movies HE knows of which was mentioned by opponent. 2nd Round: Lists (of songs/movies) and "Rebuttals" -Pro agrees/disagrees with Con's theme-song choices; chooses his own theme song for the movies he knows of which was mentioned by Con. Pro makes a new list of movies with their appropriated songs. -Con agrees/disagrees with Pro's theme-song choices; chooses his own theme song for the movies he knows of which was mentioned by Pro. Con makes new list of movies with their appropriated songs. 3rd Round: Agreeing/Disagreeing (which songs bet fit which movies) -Pro gives best movie/TV show with chosen song of his lists and says why it's the best. -Con gives best movie/TV show with chosen song of his lists and says why it's the best *Minimum for the List of Movies in Round 1 and 2: three movies plus chosen songs LET THE DEBATING BEGIN! #1. TV Show The Walking Dead Song: "Monster," Paramore #2. Movie The Sandlot (first) Song: "Glory Days," by Bruce Springsteen #3. Movie Ever After Song: "Nocturnes, for female chorus and orchestra L. 91: 1: Nuages," Claude Debussy That concludes my first list! Now, you know what to do...
Theme Songs for Movies/TV shows

For my part (Pro's), the best chosen theme-song was... ..."Monster" by Paramore, to go with the TV Show "Walking Dead." It is equally tied with my choice for the kids' movie "Wall-E," by which I chose the song "Funhouse" to go with it. I like it because it gives me chills of the world being destroyed by a 'monster,' which in this case would be zombies, and it fits really well with the characters and plot. The Funhouse song was a bit space/sci-fi-ish so it worked for a story of a robot in a future world. For Con's part in this debate, I think the best chosen theme-song was... ..."Rock on the Radio" by firehouse, to go with the TV show "Secret Life of an American Teenager." I also liked his/her choice for the Seinfeld TV Show. It is fascinating how music changes the mood, dramatization, and even the plot of the stories told on screen. This has been a fun debate. I thank Adam2 for accepting and hope the votes to the winner! (Whoever that may be.) VOTERS/READERS: To score us you must say which of us chose the most fitting sound track songs for the appropriate movies. Conduct points and Best Arguments go to whoever had the best songs to go with the movies!!
Theme Songs for Movies/TV shows

Seinfeld, with "Got your Back," is a good choice in my opinion but I like the current music for it better! And you posted the same YouTube video by Danger Danger twice (I'm assuming accidentally).I didn't intend for it to be replacement. What I understood by the question is a song that fits well. Reason I chose that song was to reflect the funny, snarky nature of "Seinfeld." As for Danger Danger, you're correct. I meant to put "Under the Gun" for "Mississippi Burning." Reason I chose that one was it's a sad song that could easily reflect the reality of life in the Deep South. It reminds me of a local Kleagle, who in 1958, said, "They want to put white children and colored children into the melting pot of integration, from which will come a conglomerated, bladder, mongrel types of people."Continued ListMOVIES"Another 48 Hours"(Calloway -- "I wanna be rich") Fits well with the roudy, crazy nature of the movie. A racist, arrogant cop (Cates) and ex-con (Murphy) having to work together, but they eventually become close buddies in the end."Above the Law" (1988 Steven Seagal movie)(Winger -- "Madalaine")Reflects the hardcore nature of the movie well. Nico Toscani deserves this to be his theme song. A hot-tempered cop with big cojones.TV shows"Secret life of an American Teenager";(to show what an arrogant douche George Juergens is)
Theme Songs for Movies/TV shows

Seinfeld, with "Got your Back," is a good choice in my opinion but I like the current music for it better! And you posted the same YouTube video by Danger Danger twice (I'm assuming accidentally). Continued List #4. Movie The Illusionist Song: "Alpha Space music," Vangelis #5 Movie Wall-E Song: "Funhouse," Flim and the BB's #6 Movie Up Song: "Lisa," David Sanborn
Batman is better than Mojo

Yes they will. They will put him down to our level. But look at his powers, i.e., aging humans, and destroying plants. Maybe destroying's not the right word. How about wither? Mantis and Wasp are out of the battle between the Avengers, due to that ability. But now look at the famous ones he can literally crush, Iron Man, Hulk, Black Widow (already gone), Captain America, and Spiderman. Iron Man is gone due to his weapons and leg-guns. Hulk is gone due to his power of natural disasters, etc. Say
Should the alphabet be called abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz instead of the alphabet

Please note the moving the BoP fallacy. As the Alphabet is already named the Alphabet, pro's case must rest on reasons for the name change to the proposed alternative of "abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz." As for the attempted cross examination question. What you're referring to as the Alphabet, is in fact the Latin Alphabet, far from the first. Indeed many alphabets have different letters and sounds, yet each may be referred to by that key word alphabet. The proposed change is not actually a word [1], worse even were it hypothetically a word, it would bet nearly impossible to pronounce properly, and would take approximately 30 sounds to say. Alphabet on the other hand is a word [2], a very useful and easy to pronounce one. Sources: [1] http://dictionary.reference.com... [2] http://dictionary.reference.com...
self driving cars

My opponent couldn't go, so instead I will reiterate and put sources. 1.Cars can be hacked. Even cars that aren't self driving can be hacked. If a dumb car can be hacked, with relative ease, what's to stop a smart car from being hacked? Better security? Yeah, try telling that to any hacker anywhere. If people can hack into government agencies or bank accounts, then they can hack into your car.(1) 2. Point two is stupid, so I rescind it. 1 http://www.wired.com...-
self driving cars

Thank you for this chance to debate. I will be arguing that self driving cars are not the future, but instead are dangerous. They are dangerous for several reasons. First, we need to recognize that a self driving car is not a completely autonomous vehicle. It isn't controlled by magic, but instead by computers. This leaves cars vulnerable to hacking and being controlled by someone else. Second, there is no clear precedence for the law, leaving self driving cars in a grey zone. Good luck.
Evolution is More Probable Than Creationism.

creationism is in no way related to gay behaviour. Its irrelevant to this debate. Since there is not much else for me to do, I will refute my opponents chain of logic.1. Creationism is Bible.2. Bible is God.3. God is dog.4. Dog exhibit homosexual behavior.5. Therefore Creationism is related to gay. Premise 1 is flawed because creationism is not the bible, an account of creation is however, found in the bible. Premise 2 is wrong, no need to explain why. Premise 3 is wrong, God is God, not a dog. Premise 4 is correct, but does not help my opponentThe coclusion is wrong because 3/4 of the premises were wrong.
Evolution is More Probable Than Creationism.

Unfortunately since I have forfeited the last couple of rounds, I must concede, my burden of proof wouldn't be meeted correctly without my losing a significant amount of votes.I have conceded because:1. Moving cities has cause my schedule to change.2. My schedule changing has cause change in my sleep time.3. My lack of sleep has made me very tired and missing out on numerous hours of debate.4. Missing out has cause forfeits.5. Numerous forfeits has put me in doghouse.Other reasons:1. I have been carelessly making and accepting numerous debates when I have enough arguments due anyway.2. The numerous amount of arguments due has lead to me forfeiting certain debates.3. I forfeit this debate.4. I am in doghouse.Therefore I apologize to:King SmithereensTeh VotersTeh ViewersTeh Popolatione of World: 7,048,260,525When Voting:Conduct: Me.Why? Pro belive in god and is conservative, he think gay is bad and god is good, he think animal went on arc and man made from duct, i better.Spelling and Grammar: Me.con belive in god, and god is bibiille: well bible say gammar is bad and speling is god, con follow this h e sepl bad, ik better. Arguments: Mecon belive gay is bad, if he belive this he lose all argument caus thos so wong.Sources:con use no source and belive gay is bag and god is god and a dog so i won.
Evolution is More Probable Than Creationism.

If the emo turns up to this debate I will be advancing these claims:1) Creationism is more probable than evolution If God exists, God exists, therefore creationism is more probable.1.1 Cosmological argument for God1.2 Ontological argument for God1.3 Defense of Anselms ontological argument2) Evolution is highly flawed and therefore less likely than creationism2.1 Mathematical errors in population according to evolution2.2 Impossibilities of a big bang2.3 Other evidence against evolution3) Creationism is equally as likely as creationism if creationistic evolution occurred(The gist of this argument seeks to assert that God made the big bang, if so, the resolution: "Evolution is More Probable Than Creationism." Is negated due to them being equally likely)3.1 Evidence for a supernatural big bang.I will present the Cosmological argument and the Ontological argument next round.