BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Evolution should be taught in public schools

Second round for arguments only. Third round for rebuttals only. Fourth round is for counter-rebuttals and concluding statements. Evolution-the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth. Theory-a coherent group of propositions formulated to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world and repeatedly confirmed through experiment or observation. I await my opponent's acceptance.
Everyone sees the same colors. For example, my red is your red, and my green is your green.

Everyone seeing different colors would make no sense. If your argument is something along the lines of, "everyone's favorite color is the same exact color, even though they may call it blue, red, green, etc," you are perhaps wrong. People's favorite color changes all the time, therefore leading it so that not everyone's favorite color is the same. Although people most likely do see slight changes in colors, nothing is completely opposite or very different. For example, take the color wheel (whatever it's called). The wheel goes in colors that are like each other. Yellow, orange, red, purple, blue, green, and back to yellow. We say that yellow and orange are like one another, correct? Now if your yellow was my red, and your green was my blue, why would I say that they colors, red and blue are next to each other in the wheel? Because they are not!
Global Warming Exists

First, is global warming actually happening? According to NASA, the average temperature has raised by 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit since 1880. According to the United Nations, the past two decades have been the hottest in more than 400 years. Arctic ice is rapidly disappearing, and the region may have its first completely ice-free summer by 2040 or earlier. Polar bears and indigenous cultures are already suffering from the sea-ice loss. Glaciers and mountain snows are rapidly melting"for example, Montana's Glacier National Park now has only 27 glaciers, versus 150 in 1910. In the Northern Hemisphere, thaws also come a week earlier in spring and freezes begin a week later. An upsurge in the amount of extreme weather events, such as wildfires, heat waves, and strong tropical storms, is also attributed in part to climate change by some experts. Second, are humans causing global warming? The report, based on the work of some 2,500 scientists in more than 130 countries, concluded that humans have caused all or most of the current planetary warming. Human-caused global warming is often called anthropogenic climate change. Humans are pouring carbon dioxide into the atmosphere much faster than plants and oceans can absorb it. Third, what is likely to occur in the future? Sea level could rise between 7 and 23 inches by century's end. Rises of just 4 inches could flood many South Seas islands and swamp large parts of Southeast Asia. Some hundred million people live within 3 feet of average sea level, and much of the world's population is concentrated in vulnerable coastal cities. In the U. S. , Louisiana and Florida are especially at risk. Glaciers around the world could melt, causing sea levels to rise while creating water shortages in regions dependent on runoff for fresh water. Strong hurricanes, droughts, heat waves, wildfires, and other natural disasters may become commonplace in many parts of the world. The growth of deserts may also cause food shortages in many places. Source: www. nationalgeographic. com
Global Warming Exists

That's not the point. The point is that people are unsure about what they are talking about. When my children grow up global warming will no longer be an issue it's going to go back to being global cooling. Where I got this info you ask? Well from the satilight. The reason people think its melting is because it is, but it is melting out ward there for it is expanding.We are in what is called a temperate zone meaning if there was a change we would notice because we get cold winters and hot summers and if the earth was getting warmer we would be able to feel it but that's not the case we have had a cold winter and were are in for a hot summer.Completly normal.
Righties are Better than Lefties

Yes every person has as much a likely chance to die because we have no control over that. Like you said only God does, but I would like to say that if God is killing lefties at a younger age like your argument suggests wouldn't that mean that he favors the other. Indeed this is not so seeing that God favors none over the other. All are equal. .. My argument is though is that for one the righties are a more dominant species and therefore we could crush lefties if we had to and if for whatever reason a lefty develops the intellectual capacity that all the righties have stored then they could be better. The dominant species rules. This is proven in history with the genocide over in Rwanda how the Hutu were much more populous and therefore they ruled and killed. It was not a good choice but the majority has always ruled. Beside this righties have on average lived longer and because this is true the righties inherit more wisdom and we are able to have a decade more of experience. How this is not better and makes us more special I do not see. To say that lefties are a dominant species is to lie. To say they have more wisdom is a lie and to say they are special is a lie because to be different than the rest is nothing special. .. Thank you for this debate, I await your response.
Righties are Better than Lefties

Uh, okay. I agree with what you said. But in my opinion, I don't have a favorite hand, but it's kind of rude to just go up to a lefty( If you are right handed) and say" Oh I'm better than you because I was born this way" or " Ha ha oh your a lefty." or something like that. And also, we all have the same average chance of getting murdered or dying from natural causes because God controls everything that happens. But anyways, LEFTIES ARE MORE SPECIAL IN A GOOD WAY! Thanks =)
Righties are Better than Lefties

.. Righties are better than lefties for but another reason too. So you know how it has been proved that women live longer than men. .. Well righties have been proved to live longer than lefties. I ask how you think this is not a better thing. To live longer due to you using that side of your brain as well. In less of course you have a miserable life or you affect someone else's life. I thank you for trying but I see there is no point to argue when it is a proven fact. Source: . http://www.healthkicker.com... Kelly Zagorani (Registered Nurse RN)
Righties are Better than Lefties

This Debate is all for fun Rules 1. No cussing 2. Facts must be used not just opinions 3. This round is acceptance and opening argument for why the other believe the left is better. OK. so.... I support that the righty is a better more dominant species of human that the lefty. This being due to the fact that on this earth the righty is dominant in numbers and therefore we rule and thrive more often. If the brain is able to choose such a side of choice then if more choose right so therefore the brain must favor the right.
The Trinity

Alright for the sake of clarity is your position there are three gods and not three persons in one god??????? Because it seems to be common to all of your arguments. Physical YOU SAID 2. Physically Matthew 3:16-17 "And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." [3] We can see in this passage that there are three distinct members of the Godhead, and at the same time, they are in three different areas in time and space. 1. Jesus is on the earth itself. 2. The Holy Ghost in the sky in the form of a dove. 3. The Father in Heaven above both the earth, and the sky." The general response to this is God is three and one in different senses. He is three in persons "Matthew 3:16-17 "And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." But one in essence (nature). Scriptural YOU SAID "Isaiah 6:3, "And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, is the LORD of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory." Did you catch that? That's one "holy" for each person of the Godhead! If there is only one God they would not have repeated the worshipful praise three times. [4] Did you catch that holy holy holy is the LORD not LORDS but LORD. "I find it slightly amusing that the word ‘trinity' is found NOWHERE in the Bible itself, yet the word 'godhead' is found numerous times. :p" True although what the doctrine teaches is implied from two other teachings found in the bible. (1) There is one and only one God. Mark 12:29 (2) There are three distinct persons who are God: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 1 John 5:7 "My final point will be based on common sense. One truth that exposes this Trinitarian error with great ease; If Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and the Father are ONE SINGLE GOD combined, then answer me this. Why is it the Father knows the date of the second coming, yet Jesus does not? It's truly that simple! Jesus said plainly in Matthew 24:36, "But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only. [6]" Christ did not know the time of the coming while on earth because he lowered himself to our level while he was on earth. Sources 1. KJV 2. www.blueletterbible.org 3. Dr. Norman Geisler's Systematic Theology Volume 2
Should drones be banned from public use

You say it would be annoying to be injured by a drone well guess what I have, but as I said it was an idiot who attempted to FLY INTO NIAGARA FALLS HIT THE ROCK FACE AND IT FELL ON ME! And when you were talking about tourist areas with many in the sky and what would happen if it stopped working well then the owner 1. Forgot to charge it. 2. Didn't land it when warned by the controller battery is low. 3. Flew it into another drone. or lastly 4. Doesn't/didn't maintain it properly. and the owner would be at fault for improper use/ maintenance. also the prank thing that is something that could happen, but highly unlikely for the fact that WHY WOULD THEY PRANK SOMEONE THAT WAY IN THE FIRST PLACE! Also what farmer would want to rely on the government that much when they could just go ahead and use drones without government need, also the drones could help farmers learn about illegal things on their property that they wouldn't normally know. Okay so a professional hacked a drone a "EXPERT" someone who is trained and paid to do this stuff, but if you want to take that "evidence" and say that anyone can do this that's fine, but evidence that can be easily disproved is dangerous to use. and the fact that they are risky to use is something that applies to all public things they are all "Risky" to use such as vehicles, toys, really any physical substance. Also the video thing if you can get video of a non-professional hacking then your "Hackable" theory is proven right. and that's my GRAND FINALE!
Should drones be banned from public use

Alright, let's go back to your main arguments. You're saying you support drones because there will always be 'idiots' doing 'stupid stuff'. So what happens when you are the one getting affected by these people? When someone flies a drone over your house and forces you to shut the curtains, wouldn't you get angry? Why are you the one who has to hide away just because someone decided to spy on people. Sure, looking at people use drones in 'stupid' ways is fine, so long as you're not near them right? Ok, you know a lot more about drones than I do, I never claimed to be an expert. But if you're interested: http://securityaffairs.co... Your second point was that drones should be used for family pictures and photos. Sure, but why use drones? Unless it's a big group or again, you're Casey Neistat making beautiful shots. Just think how dangerous it'd be to be in a tourist spot and there'd be drones everywhere in the sky trying not to bump into each other. If one of those things stops working and falls on your head, wouldn't it be annoying? You also said only disturbing people will invade privacy, but do you really think so? You don't think somebody isn't going to pull pranks on people? Especially younger kids. I agree on your third point. Drones are fun and farmers can use them. But those things can happen even when drones are banned from public use. Farmers can get permission from government. We can use drones in our private property, or use some other property like a golf course. I want drones to be publicly used too, but I understand there's a lot of risk involved.
Should drones be banned from public use

Okay so you say there is an invasion of privacy. Well only people who are disturbing and such will invade privacy this way plus drones are kind of hard to control especially large ones. Also if your talking about injuries well then we should ban airsoft and Paintball. A lot of things today cause injuries and there are public things that hurt worse than drones also if drones are so "hackable" then prove it I mean how hard is it to hack a drone since you obviously have a site that says so. By the way only very experienced hackers can take out small drones I know what maldrone is and it is a drone malware that rarely works thanks to dur duh dur RADIO CONTROLLED UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES. So prove me wrong now "Smart One" so if you can show me that RADIO WAVES can be hacked easily then prove me wrong with video that shows it being done. Also there will always be idiots I mean ONE STRAPPED A GODDAMN AIRSOFT TURRET WITH AUTO-TARGETING TO ONE AND FLEW IT AROUND THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD AND INJURED THEMSELVES ATTEMPTING TO CAUSE HAVOC. If you can prove me wrong with the hacking then I'll admit your actually not quite as dumb as you may seem when it comes to physics and waves.
Should drones be banned from public use

This is an interesting topic. I'll play along as con to see where this goes. Drones violate privacy. Having them fly around whenever with almost 360 vision means most people's faces are recorded. Also, drones can trespass property and kids can plant random rubbish on people's rooftops. Unless you're Casey Neistat or someone using drones for film purposes, it can get hectic to fly drones whenever. Drones are hackable, meaning someone can use them to fly into a car and cause accidents, but not be blamed for it. Sources: ------------ http://computer.howstuffworks.com...
Does a meritocracy have any merit in an inherently biased society steeped in institutional prejudice

Pro makes an interesting point. Essentially, he is stating that in such a society, a meritocracy would not function optimally. This may be true, but it is my contention that meritocracy does have merit in such a society. In the US just fifty years ago, racism was still a powerful political force. It had a proud place in the Democratic Party and was not hidden or veiled but out in the open, fighting for government mandated segregation. [1] However, thanks to acts such as the civil rights act, businesses and universities were forced to treat people equally based on merit. [2] Since then, black Americans have had increased opportunities for success with increased homeownership, education, and political representation, with some becoming influential leaders like Pres. Obama, though they are not yet equal economically to white Americans. [3] Whilst some lingering racism may still exist, it is condemned by society and not nearly as bad as in the past. Meritocracy greatly improved life for minorities, although some contributing factors like affirmative action were not meritocratic. Does meritocracy have some merit? Clearly, the answer is yes. Although discrimination makes a true meritocracy difficult to achieve, steps towards this goal have improved many lives. When the alternative is judging people by an arbitrary factor such as skin color, a meritocracy has enormous merit. Now, I will take a brief moment to address con's argument. It doesn't have much substance to it. "If prejudice already exists, as the creation of programs like affirmative action suggests, the act of judging someone on their own merit would be clouded by suspicions of bias, racism, etc.." This is why anti-meritocratic policies like affirmative action are so bad. "Achievement" by someone who didn't earn it is rightly viewed with suspicion. This is why colleges need to judge applicants based on merit, not race. "Also, the unequal distribution of resources would prevent access to opportunities and experiences by 'underprivileged' members of the society who have been marginalized." This is why we need a meritocracy, not why it's bad. A meritocracy gives everyone equal opportunity and de-marginalizes skilled individuals. In a free market meritocracy, there is a strong incentive to tap in to all available potential. Please do not copy and past Wikipedia, a notoriously unreliable source. Wikipedia can and has been spectacularly wrong. [4] [5] Sources 1- http://www.senate.gov... 2- http://www.archives.gov... 3- http://www.csmonitor.com... 4- http://www.findingdulcinea.com... 5- http://www.pcworld.com...
Does a meritocracy have any merit in an inherently biased society steeped in institutional prejudice

I would be happy to elucidate... In such a society, the playing field would need to be equal. If prejudice already exists, as the creation of programs like affirmative action suggests, the act of judging someone on their own merit would be clouded by suspicions of bias, racism, etc.. Also, the unequal distribution of resources would prevent access to opportunities and experiences by 'underprivileged' members of the society who have been marginalized. Individual ability, in prejudiced and biased societies, is often ignored and superseded by actions influenced by nepotism, class-ism, etc.. The following is cited from Wikipedia: Institutionalized discrimination refers to the unjust and discriminatory mistreatment of an individual or group of individuals by organizations such as governments and corporations, financial institutions (banks, investment firms, money markets), public institutions (schools, police forces, healthcare centers), and other societal entities. It stems from systemic stereotypical beliefs (such as sexist or racist beliefs) that are held by the vast majority living in a society where stereotypes and discrimination are the norm (see institutionalized racism).[1] Such discrimination is typically codified into the operating procedures, policies, laws, or objectives of such institutions. Members of minority groups such as populations of African descent in the U.S. or members of the LGBT community, are at a much higher risk of encountering these types of sociostructural disadvantage. Among the severe and long-lasting detrimental effects of institutionalized discrimination on affected populations are increased suicide rates, suppressed attainment of wealth and decreased access to health care. Usually the bias targets specific, facile attributes including race, gender, nationality, sexual orientation, and age. Though direct discrimination is legally iniquitous by United States law, scholarship in the social sciences and humanities typically concurs that it exists in some of the social institutions and practices carried out in every day life. Institutionalized discrimination prohibits the attainment of societal meritocracy. Sources 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... If you are still interested...I leave further argument to you. If so... Good Luck to you as well...
Does a meritocracy have any merit in an inherently biased society steeped in institutional prejudice

As pro has not defined some terms, I shall do so now. Meritocracy- A system in which advancement is based on individual ability or achievement. [1] Prejudice- The act or state of holding unreasonable preconceived judgments or convictions [2] In a society plagued by prejudice, the perfect antidote is judging people by merit. If, instead of hiring by race or gender, a business forced itself to look for merit alone, it would be able to overcome the prejudice. A system that has strong prejudice is exactly where a meritocracy is needed most. Con claims, "It is impossible for a meritocracy to function properly in a society that is plagued with sexism, racism, classism, agism (sic) etc." I would like some proof of this, or at least an explanation. Why would it be bad to judge someone by his merits just because others do not? It would be beneficial if con would elaborate. Good luck! Sources 1- http://www.thefreedictionary.com... 2- http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Islam the true religion of God

If Allah created all things, then he would not have created things he would forbid with more perfection than anything else. Yet he did, thus Islam is false.Allah has created everything in the universe and in the heavens. There are strict protocols to follow as a Muslim but that is only to help us succeed in this world and in the hereafter.Beer"Most parents that do drink alcohol are abusive and may even abuse their own children"Really?In the US, 56.4% of people had drank in the past month.[http://www.niaaa.nih.gov...] Is Pro really arguing that at least 56.4% of all American parents are abusive and abusing their children? Pro's facts don't add up.[http://www.jimhopper.com...] Pro doesn't address my positive points on the perfection of beer. It is a great way to induce nausea and temporary amnesia. It may even get you laid.[https://en.wikipedia.org...] And it is an excellent social device, especially at college.BaconSaturated fats have been proven to not be harmful, and their connection to heart diseased thoroughly refuted in the 40 years since the 1970 study alluded to the connection.[http://www.nhs.uk...] Furthermore, bacon contains about 40% unsaturated fats, yet virtually all types of meat contain roughly this same ratio, e.g. ground beef with 45%,[https://www.google.co.uk...] chicken 32%, lamb 45%,[https://www.google.co.uk...]etc. Ergo, Pro's point fails here. All hail t3h glorious bacon, in all of its beauty!Porn & Scarlett JohannsonI am not sure how causing an erection is a "negative influence" - surely it "positively induces" turgidity in the penis? Furthermore Pro's alleged "porn causes rape" assertion has been thoroughly refuted, with it found to be a correlation-causation fallacy. Causation is actually in reverse, where rapists tend to watch more porn due to their sexual drive. Furthermore, men are in porn too! And it does not degrade women when it portrays their beautiful bodies for all of God's glory: Who the heck puts a pasterpiece in the closet for nobody to see? If you make a work of art - you ought to display it.