BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
It is most rational to believe there is a 'Bigfoot'

This debate is over belief in the Sasquatch. I, Pro, will be arguing you should believe he exist at least within times as recent as European settlement. recent enough to ensure we are talking about its existence overlapping that of homosapiens. Not recent as in 40 thousand years ago. whoever accepts, Con, will be arguing against belief in Sasquatch existing in any such recent times. I thank whoever accepts this debate in advance I will now proceed with my case It is not in question if Bigfoot has ever existed, for his fossilised bones have long since been found. its species is called Gigantopithecus blacki. http://www.wynja.com... But according to the fossil record it did indeed go extinct 300,000 years ago. http://en.wikipedia.org... Yet sightings of this beast have been occurring since before the discovery of the fossils for Gigantopithecus. How can people be seeing a creature that has gone extinct? More important still to ask, How can people be hallucinating something or just making it up when it really exist without foreknowledge of the creature. Are we to believe the existence of Bigfoot is a hoax that time travelers who already know about the creature living 300,000 years ago? To me that would take a lot of faith in relying on the possibility of time travel we have yet to learn about. But as long as that rely's on unknowable factors you may ask isn't it still more reasonable to call it that hoax when the fossil record is a known fact. it had to have gone extinct far to long ago for people to have been sighting it to be telling the truth? Actually the fossil record indicating its extinction does not rule out its continuing existence because Gigantopithecus would not be the first creature we know about to defy it. These creatures I refer to are called 'living fossils' http://en.wikipedia.org... and they are lots of known unquestionable examples of other living fossils today. http://www.cryptomundo.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.cryptomundo.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... The most famous of those is probably the Coelacanth and you may remember learning about it in science class. seeing as there is no lack of recent sightings http://albertasasquatchsightingreports.com... it really is more reasonable to conclude some of them have got to be legitimate rather than pass them all off as hoaxes like some conspiracy theorist. I await my opponents response.
Emotional abortion for men

Chance-pregnancies (and regular) and the occurance of abortion happens. If one is looking to deny that go to a church and deny the modern world we live in. In the world we live in we have science and knowledge, but that doesn't mean that you should use abortion instead of birth-control, of course not. Not taking the necessary precautions, no matter what you do, is usually not mature. And in such case, the logical thought would be, that if a person is not mature enough to think about using a condom, how should they raise a child? (see link) Accidents happen, with and without birthcontrol, but we live in a world where we can afford to get abortions, no matter how it occured. There are, nowadays, safe procedures to abortions, which means there are minimal costs on behalf of the female having it. As for the ethical questions. What is most ethical? That a woman gets an abortion and, usually, learns from her actions, or that she's forced to keep a child she cannot take care of or perhaps even wants to take care of? Medically the fetus doesn't feel pain until well into the pregnancy and therefore the ethical issues about "pain and cruelty" is removed. (see link) The only reason I can imagine denying anyone the right of abortion, physical or emotional, is the ethical in it, which modern science has basically cleared up. It is indeed a difficult job for a woman to raise a child on her own. But most women manages it. While I agree that if you've added a child to the world it's YOUR responsibility. The problem, however, is that women can freely choose to have or not to have the child, irregardles of how the man's feelings. Men have no say and are forced to comply. I realise I have to add something extra: If a man is to denies responsibility of a child he can only do it a certain number of times. It should not, in any way, be fair for a man to trick women into pregancies and slip away without taking his responsibilty. That of course means that in a world were this would be possible it would also be necessary for a woman to attend a doctor if she's had more than x abortions, to check her mental status and update her on the current facts of abortion. So, when it has happened X times there should be a legal procedure questioning his motives and attitude of both men and women. As for the health risk of divorced family I need evidence for that. It should be on everyone's minds, that you should NOT stay together for the children. Logically, it's more likely a child suffers if their home enviroment is split due to the distress of the parents. I wonder how many women would want to get pregnent if they knew they would stand alone. I realise this might seem inscriminating towards women, but it's not meant to. The point is merely, that women have a lot of control and it's not fair towards the men. A universal law should be made, allowing men to get an emotional abortion, though, if it happens too often he should get a hearing of sorts and the same with women and abortions. http://www.babycenter.com... http://discovermagazine.com...
Emotional abortion for men

Hi, I've been looking for a open debate for a while and I came across this one. Id like to state before hand these are not my personal beliefs and I'm just debating for the experience. Resolved: Emotional abortion for men should be legal and an option. I am here today to prove that emotional abortion for men should not be legal or held as a option. Abortion is defined as "the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus" the word is also closely linked to the word "Abandonment." If the evidence proves that emotional abortion for men are unjust and unfair, then the judge shall determine us, the negates of this resolution, the winners of this debate. Accidental pregnancy's don't exist. If you are toughening part in a sexual relationship, regardless if you use birth control or not. The chance of pregnancy is always possible. Therefore the man and the women (unless in the case of rape) understand the possible risk they are taking. Taken by a recent poll by ProChoiceForum.com, 31% of women said they weren't planning on have a baby. But they had one didn't they? Regardless if you and your partner were trying for a baby or not, engaging in sex, has it's undeniable possible consequences. So both persons taking part are responsible for the outcomes. Such as a child. A women who has to take care of a child on her own has a extremely difficult job. If a man is going to have an emotional abortion, he should have to pay child support. The child is his, shouldn't he have to contribute to its life and well being? Also a child with one parent or a divorced family has a 45% higher chance of developing a mental disease or depression later in life. No child should have to feel unloved or neglected by one family member and feel that, that one person does not want them. In this case, the women and the childs well being is the most important. If a man gets a women pregnant, then he should be held responsible and take some part in the child's life.
Emotional abortion for men

This will be an emotional debate, primarily based on the philosophical question as to men's rights concerning abortions. I cannot imagine anyone being against this, but for fun try to deny this. Who knows what we might've misses NOTE: this debate can be easily denied, as there are certain countries with poor health-system. However, in DK, where I am from, woman attends a doctor when pregnant and so the debate is based out the system where women attend such places or, at least, when the fathers name is to be added after the birth. I am fighting for PRO. Debate:::: There should be a general timeframe from when men can deny responsibility, emotion and economical; the timeframe being from when he's told and X-weeks ahead. It should be legal for a man to claim, from the date of receiving the knowledge, that he wishes to have an emotional abortion. This should be based on the humans involved, meaning: if the man chooses an abortion the woman has NO claim on him and he's free to leave. If he doesn't leave, or comes back, the emotional abortion is null and void within and he cannot call for it again. To ensure the women's interests if a man choose to come back, and she allows it, they must add his name to the birth-certificate. After this he cannot emotionally leave again and he will be bound economically, at least, till the child is off age. While there can be problems making sure the woman isn't denying just having told the guy, to expire his "thinking-time" it could be checked by possibly a doctor who attends the pregnant woman. From the first attendance the woman must notify who the father is, and if she doesn't know she cannot claim him later on. If she does the doctor can call for a meeting with the father to ensure he knows his options. If above seems impossible then, when filling out fathers name on the birth certificate, the father must be present and if not he is requested to attend a quick meeting to ensure that he knows his options. If that is not possible the name of the father should be illegal to add. If the father denies knowing, and the woman claims he did, the man can request for a hearing, as in courts.
The Death Penalty should be abolished

Well the Death Penalty does cost more. That is due to the numerous appeals. Now some Death Penalty supporters might say that prisoners shouldn't have those appeals. However if that were the case than approx. 30 out 100 prisoners would be wrongfully executed. In fact thanks to the appeals, about 30% of prisoners sentenced to death either get free due to lack of proof, or just have to serve some years in jail. So if we didn't permit those appeals we would be killing 30 possibly innocent people out of a hundred, and that is really unacceptable. Now when it comes to the nature vs. nurture debate, I understand that you're concerned about the 20% that seem to never learn their lesson. But do you think that it's right to kill 100 prisoners knowing that 80 of them could potentially become model citizens, just to kill 20 that probably won't? There is no reason to kill them, we can keep them in prison. But then you said that keeping people in jail for the rest of their lives is more inhumane than killing them. I think that depends on what kind of prison you think of. Prison doesn't necessarily mean that we have to lock prisoners in a 10m2 cell all day. We could try the scandinavian model, where prisoners can participate in recreational activities that would also benefit the society they live in. Now I know that the US vs. Europe example wasn't the best argument, but still in most european countries society tries to look at crime in a different way than in America. Instead of punishing criminals in the harshest way possible, society tries to help criminals become better persons, and we certainly won't make criminals better persons by killing them... So the US should definitely try that approach. Also isn't it quite shameful that the US and Japan are the only two countries in the G8 to have Capital Punishment (especially if we consider that even Russia has a moratorium on it).
The Death Penalty should be abolished

Hi, I wanted to discuss a very important issue: the Death Penalty As a progressive I'm against it and my view is getting more and more support as I see that those in favor of the Death Penalty have little or no valid argument. Here are some fact: _The Death Penalty costs more than life imprisonment _There is absolutely no evidence that it deters crime (just look at crime rates in the US compared to Europe wich abolished it) _For every 100 executed prisoners there are likely 4 innocent people being executed _It diminishes society to the same moral level as the criminals _Human behavior is mostly determined by the environment and can be changed by a caring environment (in approx. 80% of violent criminals) -The countries who abolished it usually have lower crime rates then those who didn't _The Death Penalty creates a society that promotes revenge and bloodthirst After all these arguments I know no Death Penalty supporter who was able to give me a valid reason why I should support it. So I'm asking the the Death Penalty supporters in the Debate.org community if they are able to do so (I don't think so but I'm an open-minded individual)
Logan Paul Needs to Leave You tube

This just goes back to my argument about not having to alter content for children" I countered that argument, animated censored genitals is no where near as bad as seeing an actual dead human corpse, and their is physical evidence that a child is traumatized, so you tube can take it as an offence. and yes, it was the suicide video. their are 2 offences actually, one graphic violence, and 2 traumatizing a child, and these are major offences in the community guidelines in just one video. and he did abuse you tube as a service, he used their tags with unstoppably stupid tags, since that is a you tube service. it counts as an abuse I'm pretty sure that the policy would gladly make him not ok if the entire website was in danger, which is what is happening right now take a look at this: https://www.wired.com... "The policy is vague, and requires a bunch of value judgements on the part of the censor," says Kyle Langvardt, an associate law professor at the University of Detroit Mercy Law School and an expert on First Amendment and Internet law. "Basically, this policy reads well as an editorial guideline" But it reads terribly as a law, or even a pseudo-law. Part of the problem is the vagueness." so its possible that the people can sue the website into making it a law to not show a censored real, dead body. and it also means that while it is true that you tube's policy is fine with it, the entire websites (and the American and Japanese government) policy is not, which is what you tube works for.
Logan Paul Needs to Leave You tube

my opponent says that my points so far do not count in order to get banned from you tube, but sexual explicit and hate speech is, if you look at one of his latest vlogs in Tokyo, here is a link that shows what exactly how he treated Japan: https://twitter.com... as you can see in the video, he is wearing the most stereotypical Japanese clothing, while mocking Japanese people for not speaking, which should act as low-key hate speech, he also showed his genitals in the middle of the street, the censor isn't even good. that's 3 violations including the suicide video listed, I'm about to add one more. my opponent has countered almost all of my arguments, ALMOST, remember when he traumatized a child? possibly MULTIPLE children with a video, which is against community guidelines, here is the link of the video again, just to remind you. https://twitter.com... that's 4 offences on his list, you say you disagree that multiple offences equals no ban, but I have a question for you, if someone broke a law 4 times in just a few weeks, shouldn't you put your foot down and give him a punishment?
Logan Paul Needs to Leave You tube

Logan Paul has gone too far this time, if you haven't heard of him, boy, do I have some stories to tell you... Logan steals songs: Recorded an ACTUAL dead body, AND LAUGHED: http://www.independent.co.uk... not to mention he is a KIDS CHANNEL and is making UNBELIVABLY inappropriate content, like for example, in his "Santa disstrack" he said that he had an affair with Santa's wife. this man should not be welcome on the platform and is constant proof that the people in charge are corrupt.
The drinking age should be raised to 25

Hello, The stance I will be taking on the subject of the drinking age being raised to 25 is that not only should the age limit not be raised, but gotten rid of entirely, or at least lowered to an age in the range of 12-14. I feel that it is also necessary to point out that we are presumably talking about the drinking age within the United States, though my stance applies to every country, not just the US. The Pro bases their argument entirely on studies showing that the human brain is not fully developed until the age of 25, and most alcohol related incidents/accidents (in the United States) occur under the age of 25, however I would like to point out that correlation does not equal causation. In many other regions of the world, I will use the United Kingdom as an example, the drinking laws are much more laxed and yet there are significantly less deaths each year and the most affected age group is 55-64 [1]. In 2012 there were 8,367 alcohol-related deaths in the UK, compared to the US where an average of 88,000 alcohol-related deaths occur each year [1 & 2]. This can be attributed to the culture difference and the way alcohol consumption is integrated into society as opposed to age correlation. In other cultures and societies drinking is portrayed very differently from how it is in the U.S. In the United States alcohol consumption is commonly seen as something you would do at a party, and it is usually consumed in excessive amounts. It is also viewed as an activity that is "cool" to partake in among underaged people, mostly due to the fact that is illegal. This brings us to the real root of the problem when it comes to drinking alcohol in the U.S.; Alcohol is viewed as a society as something that should not be done at all until you hit a certain age, and because of that parents tend not to teach their children safe drinking habits, as it is presumed that they should not be drinking at all. In places, such as the UK, where children are taught that it is okay to consume alcohol as long as it's done responsibly, children view alcohol consumption not as something that's cool or rebellious to do, but rather just as something that most people do. Adults allow their children to share a drink with them at relatively young ages, and this sets an entirely different attitude towards drinking. To summarize, alcohol related incidents and accidents would not be lowered by raising the drinking age due to the general attitude towards drinking in the U.S., in fact this may only add to the problem. A much better solution would be to lower the drinking age and allow parents to teach their children the dangers of alcohol misuse and how it can be responsibly consumed. [1] http://www.ons.gov.uk... [2]http://www.cdc.gov...
The drinking age should be raised to 25

The legal drinking age should be raised to 25 because the human brain does not mature until roughly the age of 25. "According to recent findings, the human brain does not reach full maturity until at least the mid-20s.The specific changes that follow young adulthood are not yet well studied, but it is known that they involve increased myelination and continued adding and pruning of neurons. As a number of researchers have put it, "the rental car companies have it right." The brain isn't fully mature at 16, when we are allowed to drive, or at 18, when we are allowed to vote, or at 21, when we are allowed to drink, but closer to 25, when we are allowed to rent a car." http://hrweb.mit.edu... People between the age of 21 and 25 are the most responsible for Drunk driving accident's The rate of drunk driving is highest among 21 to 25 year olds (23.4 percent - See more at: http://www.madd.org...)
Ben Carson would be a better president than Donald Trump

So I have come to a reasonable conclusion that I can not have a logical argument with you. This is because you simple say false or no when you disagree. But let me try. My first several points were how he can't make sense able comments. Comparing slavery and Obamacare isn't a correlation anyone should make. Obamacare is a bad program, both in how it was implimented and what it is. This though, does nit mean that because it is a bad institution we should compare it to another bad institution, especially one that is arguably the worst scar in America's history. Also,you can't just disprovee by saying no. You need to explain why. I left links to show he said that, and you say it no. Finally, if you are not going to argue, but rather just say so what it is bad, without having a debate that debate.org is made for, please don't waste my time.
Ben Carson would be a better president than Donald Trump

You want a link? Here have some links. 17ebook.co aladel.net bpwhamburgorchardpark.org clicnews.com dfwdiesel.net divineenterprises.net fantasticfilms.ru gardensrestaurantandcatering.com ginedis.com gncr.org hdvideoforums.org hihanin.com kingfamilyphotoalbum.com likaraoke.com mactep.org magic4you.nu marbling.pe.kr nacjalneg.info pronline.ru purplehoodie.com qsng.cn seksburada.net sportsmansclub.net stock888.cn tathli.com teamclouds.com texaswhitetailfever.com wadefamilytree.org xnescat.info yt118.com
Socialism is better than capitalism

==Objectives==Pro: In this debate, pro is going to argue that socialism is better than capitalismCon: Con is going to refute my statements and build a case of his own to prove capitalism is a better form than socialism.==Structure==Round 1: Acceptance onlyRound 2: Opening arguments, pro will give definitions.Round 3: RebuttalsRound 4: RebuttalsRound 5: Closing arguments and final rebuttals.Thank you to whoever accepts this debate. I hope the person I am debating is a capitalist or a supporter of capitalism.
An open discussion about religion in general

I personally am neither an athiest nor a theist. I havent quite found a label for what I am, but I do not practice any specific religion, nor do i go to church. Just putting that out there so that you dont think im a crazy religious freak or anything. One thing that I do believe is that everyone should have an open mind about everything. You should never shoot something down immediately just because you feel differently. How does this apply to religion/the current conversation? Well, i think that athiests are a bit closed minded. Just because science doesnt back up certain aspects of religion does not mean that they are not true. After all, people thought that flies came from rotting meat and that the earth was flat. Science can be wrong. Im not saying that science is wrong about God or religion, but who are you to say that God doesnt exist? Who am i to say that God does exist? We are all entitled to our opinions. God's existance can not be proven by anyone or anything, not even science. Now, to accept your challenge where you stated "Name me a moral action committed by a believer, or a moral or ethical statement uttered by one. That could not be made or uttered by a non-believer." You ready for my answer? I shall respect all of God's children. Above you stated that you dont believe that we are all God's children, therefore you could not say that unless you were a) lying or b) being hypocrytical. All in all, religion is a personal thing. It's not just the Catholics and the Muslims and the Jewish people. Religion is what you believe and why you believe it. Even atheism is a religion, afterall.