BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Tim Tebow will be a starting NFL quarterback in 3 years (or less).

I would like to take Demosthenes for taking this debate. I look forward to debating about the future of Tim Tebow's career in the NFL, or perhaps lack thereof from your perspective. I am new to debates since this is my first official one so please bear with me. I would like to start off by saying that Tim Tebow will be an NFL quarterback within the next 3 years. We are not debating whether or not he will be a great qb in the nfl, but merely good enough to be a starter. I am not sure if any other ground rules need to be laid. I will let my opponent begin with his argument. Thanks.
Tim Tebow will be a starting NFL quarterback in 3 years (or less).

However, I only have 3,000 characters so I'm going to try and make them count. 1. Delivery - My opponent claims that Tebow has shown improvement in his throwing motion. This is purely and completely 100% wrong, evidenced by his extremely poor showing at the Senior Bowl where he committed MANY of the errors I have already attributed to him, i. e. missing open receivers with poor throws, inability to hit receivers in stride, and poor general accuracy. His motion requires FAR MORE than a "tweak", his motion requires a COMPLETE rebuilding. 2. My opponent has referenced Tebow's YPC average, which I believe is an EXTREMELY misleading statistic, as Tebow operated a spread style offense which clearly and obviously inflates the stats of most QBs who run it. The key to the spread is YAC, or yards after the catch. The system forces college corners who are NOTORIOUS for playing a solid 5 yard cushion to simply stay off of wideouts and tight ends who are free to rack up free yards as they have a sizable advantage in speed, strength and momentum against the corners and safeties designated to cover them. This is the strength of the spread offense, but it also leads to inflated statistics which are not always reflective of a player's talent level. It also brings in the addition of YAC, or yards after the catch, a staple of any effective offense and ESPECIALLY the spread which utilizes a great number of quick throws and screen passes. So do not take YPC at face value. 3. QB rating is a VERY poor statistical argument, ESPECIALLY for college where the QB rating is significantly different from the formula the NFL uses. On that basis it should be discarded from this discussion. Tim Tebow is an extremely talent young man, there is no debate from me. But he is not as physically gifted in arm strength he is not gifted in accuracy, and he is not mentally prepared for the changes the NFL will bring to him. The resolution states that Tebow WILL start in 3 years. That is possible. But my opponent's opening statement says that he will be an EFFECTIVE starter in 3 years. That, sadly, is not. I feel that it is more likely that he will be a starter in 5 or 6 years, when he has had time to speed up to the game, has had time to grow into the needs of his position, and has shown that he is prepared to shoulder the burden of running an NFL offense, leading an NFL team, and learning the inner workings of a pro-style offense. Most spread-style QBs take a long time to develop in the NFL and some do not make it at all; a few names come to mind quickly, Eric Crouch, Jamarcus Russell, I believe the biggest bust in NFL QB history, Ryan Leaf was a spread style QB. It is a long road and it is extremely unlikely that Tebow will be good enough to start on an NFL team in 3 years.
Abiogenesis Is a Likely Explanation for Life on Earth

Creationtruth had his argument made out. Unfortunately, he did not submit it in time. Thus, we will simply skip defending our own arguments (originally planned for round 4). The new debate structure is as follows:Con's round 3 - Present argumentsPro's round 4 - Refute con's round 3 argumentCon's round 4 - Refute pro's round 2 argumentI ask that voters not penalize creationtruth for his mistake.
Abiogenesis Is a Likely Explanation for Life on Earth

Full ResolutionAbiogenesis is a likely explanation for life on Earth. DefinitionsAbiogenesis: "The supposed development of living organisms from nonliving matter. "[1]Likely: "Possessing or displaying the qualities or characteristics that makes something probable. "[2]Explanation: "Something that explains. "[3]Life: "The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism. "[4]Earth: "The third planet from the sun. .. "[5]Rules1. The first round is for acceptance.2. A forfeit or concession is not allowed.3. No semantics or trolling.4. All arguments and sources must be visible inside this debate.5. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed in the middle of the debate. Voters, in the case of the breaking of any of these rules by either debater, all seven points in voting should be given to the other person. Debate StructureRound 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Presenting all arguments (no rebuttals by con)Round 3: Refutation of opponent's arguments (no new arguments)Round 4: Defending your original arguments and conclusion (no new arguments)Sources[1]: . http://www.thefreedictionary.com...[2]: . http://www.thefreedictionary.com...[3]: . http://www.thefreedictionary.com...[4]: . http://www.thefreedictionary.com...[5]: . http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
NFL Preseason Football.

On the radio some guy was declaring that if you love football, you have to be excited about preseason games. Why? If you love movies, do you have to watch footage of the actors' stand-ins holding their marks while somebody meters the light? Or listen in while the writers talk about how to revise the third draft of the script? By the second half the guys who are going to make any difference in NFL games this year were already gone. Is it really so tough to wait and see what actually happens, when things count? The Arizona Cardinals went to the Super Bowl last year and nearly won it. Who had that one in the preseason?
Leibnizian Contingency Argument

Resolution: Kalam Cosmological argument is sound.Rules :-no trolling-no forfeits-no semantics (tweaking definitions in the dictionary)Rounds :Round one - acceptanceR2) argumentsR3) RebuttalsR4) Rebuttals R5) RebuttalsDefinitions:God : The necessary, immaterial, spaceless, timeless cause of the universe.Universe : Spacetime and all of its contents including a multiverse and colliding branes of M theory.BOP : Pro
Will Sunday worship be the downfall of many Christians.

I fail to comprehend (forget Sunday) why worship can lead to downfall? I want to remind Jesus' words "Judge not or thy shall be judged". We are not engaging in Terrorist activities, we are just praying, spending our Holiday in the House of our beloved, and deepening our connection with the Holy Spirit. Pro's arguments taints God's character, using Biblical passages to make God appear non reciprocating and vile(what else to call someone who brings downfall to his devotees). This is untenable. Even I can quote verses from the Bible supporting incest, misogyny etc. but that does not make them relevant. Pro seems to be forgetting "God Loves You" Read John 3:16. Everything will be fine when Chris comes. Hallelujah!
Rap is music

I'll admit, I never had a strong argument, so I'll go from a different perspective. It's time to truly define what music is. Firstly, where does music come from? Looking back throughout history, we can see that music has two basic origins, those being from nature and the Church So what is music from nature? Another name for it is Prehistoric Music, and basically consists ofthe sounds made by animals. It is debatable how far exactly this dates back to, but it could be anywhere from 6,000 years ago to several hundred million years ago. So yes, basic Prehistoric Music didn't really have a melody, it was just sounds; random noises produced by nature. This is one form of real music. And then there's the Church. This is a music sung/played to worship God. So it could be believed that another form of "real" music is anything made with the purpose of worshiping God.
Rap is music

Haha well crap. I pretty much refuted the point you made in your opening statement in my last round, so there isn't a lot more to say. I would just like to reinforce the fact that melody alone cannot constitute music. As I said earlier, there is a Stomp musical based solely off of percussion. A musical implies music, and therefore shows that rhythm can characterize music, which my Merriam Webster definition affirmed. Rap does have rhythm. Listen to this track by Eminem if you get the chance: http://m.youtube.com... This track demonstrates the rhythm, rhyme sequence, some melody in the chorus, and technical skills needed to show that rap is music. It's also a really good song. Therefore, by the same points I used above (it fits the dictionary definition without a flaw, and falls in line with societal standards of music), rap is music.
Rap is music

Secondly, music CAN have melody, but melody is not required. Merriam Webster Online Dictionary Defines Music as: a : the science or art of ordering tones or sounds in succession, in combination, and in temporal relationships to produce a composition having unity and continuity b : vocal, instrumental, or mechanical sounds having rhythm, melody, or harmony [. http://www.merriam-webster.com...] If you listen to any rap track, a beat is played in the background, a syllables are uttered in a rhythmic fashion. According to Merriam Webster, a track does not necessarily need music to be characterized as music. Rap indeed contains sounds uttered in succession and combination, and indeed contains unity and continuity. Rap is a rhythmic type of music rather than a melodic type, requiring a lyrical genius. Furthermore, all rap tracks contain a beat, normally interlaced with melodic elements as well as rhythmic, drum driven ones. Do you not consider the drums and chanting of Native Americans music? What about all-percussion groups such as stomp? No melodies are required there, yet stomp even has its own musical. A musical in its name implies music. Therefore a lack of melody cannot be considered a lack of music (even though most rap does contain melodic elements) Therefore, according to Merriam Webster's definition of the word music, rap cannot be excluded.
Rap is music

Music uses various elements, in this round I will be focusing in melody, and how rap music does not use this. Imagine a beautiful Beethoven Symphony; feel the violins playing long continuous phrases, and the way it blends with the surrounding instruments. The line that the violin is playing is called the melody; if you are able to whistle, hum or play it on a pitched instrument, it is a melody. Now imagine a bongo drum concerto; you can't, they don't exist. Why? Because the bongo drums are unpitched percussion instruments; they are unable to sustain a melody. If someone were to play a basic rock beat on a drum kit, would you be able to whistle it back? Now, think of a rap song. Try and hum, whistle or play what the rapper is rapping. You simply can't, because like a drum kit or a bongo drum, the rapper is only singing a couple of different pitches. Rapping is like playing an untuned percussion instrument; rappers are unable to sustain a melody. Without a melody, a piece of music simply isn't a piece of music. It's like making a banana cake without bananas; it would just be a cake that wouldn't hold together very well, the way Rap as a genre does.
Murder is Okay

My opponent says that "laws needed to be changed and do quite a lot". He doesn't explain why murder should be legalized. Of course people that need organs are important, but THAT ISN'T A GOOD IDEA TO LEGALIZE MURDER. My opponent fails to provide a reason, therefore you must vote Con. He brings up abortion but promised in the previous rounds not to mention it, so we can drop that attack. Point 4 has been refuted, therefore can also be dropped. Point 5 is sooooo easy to refute. It's simple enough to show that homosexuality has (1) nothing to do with this debate, and (2) is not comparable to murder. Done. Drop that argument too.
Murder is Okay

2. Lets examine Con's arguement in round 1, if you say "I murdered someone" and are given 25 years in prison, it doesn't mean it is not okay to murder, it just means it's illegal, anything can be made illegal, it doesn't require a majority vote, smoking is legal despite it killing you, is that acceptable? There is a reason behind every law, and murder just happens to be based on outdated reasoning. Laws need to be changed and do quite a lot. Con says murder deprives someone of their life. What about the other lives who are awaiting a transplant, and their loved ones? Aren't they important too? It is selfish to allow more people to die and to allow more people to suffer. I've proven that there are more life-years that could be saved through murder, more lives saved etc, yet this point is simply ignored. Just because someone says you have a right to life doesn't mean it's not okay to murder, a fetus can have a right to life, but is abortion okay? 3. The point I made about atomic bombs is that the majority of people believe that the lives of the many outweigh the lives of the few and still holds. 4. All life is valuable, so we should do whatever saves most lives, no matter how cruel it may be e. g. if you have 9 dogs and 8 of them need an organ immediately, one of the dogs should be killed so the other 8 can live. This applies with humans too. It is the right thing to do. There are animals who kill their own babies if they have defects, murder is a natural thing. 5. Con says that murder is disgusting, this is perhaps his weakest arguement, some people say that homosexuals are disgusting, but does it mean it is not okay to find the same sex attractive? Should we make it a crime to be gay? No, so why should we make murder illegal, and think it is wrong, just because you find it disgusting? Nobody would sign the NHS organ register if they knew the truth about how it devalues life. Consent rate is high because the majority of people believe the lives of the many outweigh the lives of the few, therefore if people were murdered and their organs were harvested I don't think they would mind. I think most people would want to live, the dog in my example would want to live, but should it if that means more life will die and suffer? My answer to that is no!
Murder is Okay

My opponent argues a few points in Round 2 that I will refute: 1. Thank you for agreeing not to debate the other terms. 2. I show in Round 1 how it is not morally correct to kill anyone in the action of "murder". Therefore, Pro's point is faulty. 3. Atomic Bomb argument has nothing to do with "murder" as defined in Round 1. We can drop this argument. 4. The fact that Pro first says all lives valuable then says the lives of the many outweigh the lives of the few means that he is contradicting himself. The Pro is for murder. So which is it? All lives or most lives? 5. The Donor argument disgusts me. He is essentially saying that murder is "okay" if the person is on a donor registration list. This essentially means that the Pro is advocating for killing people in the action of "murder" so we can harvest their organs. Absolutely not. He even says, "The fact that most people want to save lives through dying, proven by the fact they signed the organ register, makes their death and the act of murdering them acceptable." Are you kidding me!?! Of course not. That's horrifying to even think of, much less bring up. The Pro's logic to come up to this conclusion is flawed. If people were asked the question, "Would you like to be murdered to donate your organs?," would the consent rate be as high as the Pro says? Looking at the Con case, extend all arguments as nothing is refuted in Round 2. You, as a judge, simply can not vote Pro for two reasons: 1. His false logic that is horrifying on a moral standpoint, and 2. The drops of all refutations in Round 2 against the Con case.
Murder is Okay

In The Wrath of Khan (1982), Spock says, "Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. " Captain Kirk answers, "Or the one. " I, as the Con, therefore must defend that Murder is not "okay". To answer the Pro's two questions, 1. The lives of the many do outweigh the lives of the few on a general basis. 2. I can't answer for other people and neither can you, so this question has no weight in the debate. Soldiers every day lay down their lives to protect their countries, therefore upholding the notion that the lives of the many outweigh the lives of the few. However, these two questions have literally nothing to do with the question at hand for the debate, "Is Murder Okay? ". Let's first define acceptable as something that is morally correct. If murder can be justified to a moral standpoint, it therefore falls under the premise of Consequentialism, and is therefore no longer a "moral" act. Let me provide an example from . http://philosophy.stackexchange.com... The judge asks you whether you committed murder. You respond by saying, "yes". The judge further asks questions to find out why you committed the crime. He finds out what the true reasoning the murder was and thus, merely sends you to a rehabilitation center to prepare you to re-enter society. This, being a consequentialist scenario, is therefore not acceptable in the debate. We must look at a juxtaposing scenario to see what must be examined in the debate today: The judge asks you whether you committed murder. You respond by saying, "yes". The judge then immediately sentences you to 25 years in prison. That's moral absolutionism, and is the scenario we examine for the debate. ----- That being said, I now attack why murder is not "okay" (i. e. not morally acceptable). Murder cannot be justified through logic, reason, emotion, or any other means. If it can be justified, it's not murder-- it's justifiable homicide, or manslaughter, or an act of combat, or self-defense, or capital punishment, or euthanasia, etc. In general, societies consider "murder" to be "wrong" because it is depriving someone of the one thing that nearly every human being holds sacred - their life. Since in the United States, we have the unalienable right to life, murder is therefore also not legally acceptable, and therefore receives the maximum punishment. Now, let's also point out that we will disregard abortions and assisted suicides in the debate. Although both can be considered both premeditated and killings, they don't count. All being said, those are the reasons why murder is not "okay" nor morally acceptable.
Murder is Okay

I will argue that murder is okay i.e. acceptable Murder definition: the premeditated killing of one human being by another. Rules: Con must answer the following two questions in round 1 otherwise the debate will not continue and I win 1) Do you think the lives of the many outweigh the lives of the few? 2) Do most people believe the lives of the many outweigh the lives of the few? Good luck Con, I look forward to having this debate
phones

Honestly, I do not know if this debate was meant for the usage of cellular phones in a school environment, Or generally everywhere. But using my own judgement, I shall put forward that the pro contender means in a school environment. I do wish I was able to write more than the limit specified. Children in a school environment shouldn't be required at any point to need their cellular device in the school environment due to the use of their cellular devices not being used for educational purposes only when they are on school grounds. According to a survey study, Cellular phones would be taken advantage in the use of illegal cheating such as copying answers to tests and homework. (cite: https://files. Eric. Ed. Gov/fulltext/EJ847358. Pdf)
Trash picking should be illegal in the U.S.

DEFINITIONS: Trash picking -- Keeping the local laws and ordinances in mind ... When you see a likely piece of garbage, simply stop ... and take it. http://www.associatedcontent.com... *Obviously this is not an orthodox definition. But, I assume you know what I mean by 'trash picking'. Do not use semantics. Here are some more sources on what 'trash picking' is: http://www.ehow.com... http://www.lime.com... http://www.thelivingweb.net... should -- used in auxiliary function to express obligation, propriety, or expediency http://www.merriam-webster.com... illegal -- not according to or authorized by law http://www.merriam-webster.com... U.S. -- United States of America ========== I was walking with my friend last night. And we saw a trash picker. My friend proclaimed that trash picking should be illegal. I disagreed. So, I would now like to debate this on DDO. My opponent will be taking the place of my friend and will argue why trash picking should be illegal in the U.S. My opponent has the BoP, so I will allow my opponent to go first. Thank you and good luck to whoever accepts the debate.
Human Population Levels Must be Drastically Reduced

Fantastic, but obviously mass genocide is not the only solution. A birth control system with, say, maximum 1 child per couple with another allowed for adoption ought to do the trick, although enforcing it would be the main challenge. Thanks for agreeing, but obviously you can't argue against me if you feel the same. You should have posted your viewpoint in the comments section, not accepted my argument. Watch what you're doing.
Human Population Levels Must be Drastically Reduced

I agree, the human race does need to be reduced. Within the next few decades, we will have to resort to a "purge" like solution. We will have to do mass genocide to fix the population. After this, we would have to reduce the amount of children couples can have. Since humanity is the top predator, we have no one to fix our population, except other humans, which will involve, sadly, a lot of death. Our children, our grandchildren will be apart of this crisis that can not be averted. As humans, we are creating to much waste, and have nowhere to put all of it. Our planet itself will eventually become a desolate wasteland years from now, because no one in power believes that genocide is the only way to fix the population. The only other way we can avoid this, is find a new planet. Which we will not be able to do in time. It is a very dark idea, but it is the only option that can keep our population in check.
Human Population Levels Must be Drastically Reduced

The human race has reached a point where roughly 7.3 billion humans live on this planet. Throuh our own selfishness, the atmospheres and ecosystems of our planet are already altered unchangingly.Even if the current trends are reversed the planet has been irreversably brought to the point where no one can reverse the effects. The global population is expanding unsustainably and natural disasters have huge effects of millions of people dying as a result of this. While in theory enough land mass and technology to feed the world exists, in practice the resources will never be allocated well enough to acheive this, as the first world is full of high energy users who feel that they cannot survive without their consumption, and the developing world is full of those who wish to acheive the same high levels of energy consumption.The only way for the human race to survive, equally, and remain relatively content is for the population levels to fall below one billion People.