BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
volunteer fire services should be harassed by news crews about money they have used

I was unable to finish my typing due to a malfunction on my device. Before I make another argument I would like to finish. Luxurious things like pool tables and Xboxs at home. Do you know that millions of dollars are spent on troops being entertained overseas? That includes battle ready rounds, rockets, and grenades just so they can have fun. There is money specifically set for buying ammunition that is used for fun and a different set of money used for training and battle. Or at least we pay for enough rounds so that they can be entertained. Does this bother you? (Now my next argument) People are putting their lives on the lines, and deserve to get entertained. Even if they are there for a few hours or overnight, every little stress relief with their 'brothers and sisters' helps them out. It is definitely worth it and fair. The individuals are not paid in money, which is why get the title volunteer.
volunteer fire services should be harassed by news crews about money they have used

If you look though at most fire services that are voulenteer the apparatus and equpitment is paid for by the district , town or villige. If you ever sat in at a meeting the fire service has to make requests to a higher power in order to replace, fix, and get necessary equiptment to help. Unless the fire service or rescue services are not apart of the villages , districts, or towns they either would have to use the money from fundraisers or grants. They usually go for the grants because if you think about it fundraisers only bring in so much and life saving equiptment costs alot more. For the other stuff that most people think are un necessary like back rooms, work out stations, and other things that vairy that's where the fundraising money goes. They do this so when the fire fighters most of which are at home , work, etc. can respond from the fire house when told they need to have voulenteers spend the night because of unsafe conditions on the road.
volunteer fire services should be harassed by news crews about money they have used

I accept. Our firefighters practically live at the stations. Not merely, but they spend a lot of time there waiting for calls, or training. Mostly they sell calendars to bring in money to maintain their apparatus and training equipment. But when it comes to the station, they have earned that. Volunteers in anything always gain something to added to their resumes, and get community service hours. These people put their lives on the line on a daily basis. Not all of them rich at home, and they don't always get luxurious things like
God does exist

The evidence I have against God's existence centers entirely on acts that can only be the result of the non-existence of God:1) The band One Direction exists2) Rebecca Black and her song 'Friday' exist3) There are Homophobic Chicago Church groups4) The Westboro Baptist Church has members5) M Night Shyamalan's directs movies6) Lebron was not in Miami to begin with7) You are unjustifiably allowed to make troll debates (which means there is no just God! )8) Marijuana was illegal9) Salvia was illegal10) The Giants and the Jets are still in the league 11) The Yankees won a world series12) Family Guy got canceledI conclusively proved that there is no God who actually cares about human beings.
God does exist

The evidence I have for the existence of God centers entirely on miracles and acts of nature that can only be attributed to an existence of God. These miracles consist of: 1) The band One Direction announcing they plan on splitting up in the future 2) Rebecca Black not making another song since 'Friday' 3) A Chicago Church group apologizing for being so homophobic (http://www.buzzfeed.com...) 4) The Westboro Baptist Church consistently losing members over time 5) M Night Shyamalan NOT making more 'Last Airbender' movies 6) Lebron coming to Miami along with Bosh 7) Me being allowed to make this many troll debates without getting banned 8) Marijuana starting to become legal 9) Salvia already being pretty legal 10) Both the Giants and the Jets missing the playoffs 11) The Yankees not having won a world series since 2009 12) Family Guy still being on the air after being canceled twice :)
macro evolution a made up belife or truth

Sorry about the long wait, I had to deal with a theft and a subsequent towing of my car. My opponent has clarified that he defines macroevolution as the theory that different species, such as apes and humans, had a common ancestor. He did not answer my other question, "why can't many stages of microevolution eventually add up to be macro?" However, I will still make my case now. First, I bring up the fossil record. It shows a multitude of seemingly small changes between different species. Intermediates, you might say. Fossils, such as these, can be dated. It just so happens that when you arrange fossils of a type of animal in chronological order, you see gradual changes that often lead from one animal to another. To some extent, this is true for humans and apes - a vast number of intermediates exist. However, there is a gap for which we have not discovered many fossils yet. This is the time, roughly 6 million years ago, when our common ancestor with other modern apes lived. However, mere extrapolation of the fossils shows that there was in all likelihood a common ancestor between humans and other modern apes. However, there is still room for doubt using only this evidence, so I will bring up more. Molecular studies of DNA show that there is a fairly predictable rate at which mutations in DNA occur and are passed on. The difference in DNA can be used to approximate the time since the common ancestor lived. Remarkably, this is quite accurate for other species for whom we have a more complete fossil record. Not only does it show the same data as to which species diverged in what order, it is often quite accurate when it comes to specifying how long ago the common ancestor lived. This is huge supporting evidence - a method that has nothing to do with fossils predicts the same order of events as the fossils do. Lastly, I will bring up retroviral DNA. Retroviruses often infect DNA. However, most of the time, they don't infect cells that will determine what gets passed on to descendants. These are called exogenous retroviruses, and they don't become part of the genome. However, sometimes a retroviruses will infect DNA in a way in which they will be passed on to future generations of that creature (or have the same chance of being passed on as any ordinary gene), these retroviruses are called endogenous. Remarkably, we share a great deal of endogenous retroviruses with chimps, in the same locations at that! The chances of the same viruses infecting the same spots in human and chimp DNA are close to 0. There are at least millions of spots each retrovirus could affect, and they generally affect a random location. The chances of the same viruses affecting the same locations in both genomes is next to 0 if we don't share a common ancestor. Back to you.
macro evolution a made up belife or truth

ok what i mean by macro evolution is my great*800,000 grandpa was a monkey but now i am a human its simple there is yet to be a single piece of evidence i can wrap my mind around all i hear from you evolutionist is there is so much evidence then i say show me and you say its everywhere then i say show me then once again well its everywere. well still not seing it. what i mean by micro evolurion is that im white and there are black people im blonde there are red heads
macro evolution a made up belife or truth

'Macroevolution' does happen, and it has happened. It happens by way of a great deal of microevolution. Since this debate is four rounds, I suppose I'll do only this for my first round, since I need the answers to these questions in order to form my argument: I ask my opponent to define what he means by macroevolution (there are many definitions). Since we both agree that microevolution happens, I ask my opponent why microevolution wouldn't be able to eventually bring about macroevolution. What would stop many gradual changes from eventually bringing about completely new forms of life? Once these questions are answered, I will make my case.
macro evolution a made up belife or truth

My opponent has claimed that my evidence is void simply because it relies on the earth being over 6000-1000 years old. However, the Earth IS more than 6000-10000 years old. Furthermore, my evidence does not rely on the age of the earth given by some other evidence. It just happens that the evidence I spoke of (fossils, molecular DNA analysis) both suggest that it has been 5-6 _million_ years since we split from chimpanzees. It's true that there is a wealth of other evidence pointing to an earth billions of years old. Modern geologists now believe that the earth is roughly 4.5 billion years old. http://en.wikipedia.org... "Modern geologists consider the age of the Earth to be around 4.54 billion years (4.54ï¿½109 years).[1] This age has been determined by radiometric age dating of meteorite material[2] and is consistent with the ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples." If you want to debate the age of the earth, please start another debate about it. Your young earth nonsense is not a valid argument against those I presented, nor is it true. If you want a refutation of the moon dust argument, read thisin full: http://www.talkorigins.org... Here's a quote from a creationist technical paper about the state of the moon dust argument: "It thus appears that the amount of meteoritic dust and meteorite debris in the lunar regolith and surface dust layer, even taking into account the postulated early intense bombardment, does not contradict the evolutionists' multi-billion year timescale (while not proving it). Unfortunately, attempted counter-responses by creationists have so far failed because of spurious arguments or faulty calculations. Thus, until new evidence is forthcoming, creationists should not continue to use the dust on the moon as evidence against an old age for the moon and the solar system." Not only is your young earth argument irrelevant, it is faulty. Feel free to start another debate with me about the age of the earth, I'd love to show you why modern science wholly agrees that it's billions of years old, and why arguments to the contrary are always lacking in information or logic.
macro evolution a made up belife or truth

ok here is the problem with all your evidence it is based on the belief that the universe is millions of years old in spite of the fact that there is ample evidence against it such as 6 million years ago the sun would have been past the current orbit of earth. That the eagle(the part of the Apollo ships that landed on the moon) were engineered to with stand 6 ft of moon dust because of how much would there would be in a couple million years but no there was a quarter of an inch guess what that's the amount that is with 6-10 THOUSAND years ok there are many more examples
macro evolution a made up belife or truth

I'll more concisely make my main statements again then. You only have one more round in which to counter, so please do so if you truly believe you're right. The fossil record: While it is not complete, we have MANY intermediates between humans and the common ancestor we share with apes. Also, many other instances of 'macroevolution' have a more complete fossil record. However, I'm trying to focus on the human/ape thing, since that seemed to be your biggest concern. Molecular studies of DNA: Our DNA is quite similar to that of apes (chimpanzees and bonobos especially). Based on the average amount of time it takes new genes to emerge and be integrated into a species' genome, we can predict how long it has been since two animals shared a common ancestor. In cases where there is a more complete fossil record, these molecular studies come up with roughly the same age as the fossil record indicates. It's rarely exact, but it's strong supporting evidence that two completely independent methods, the fossil record and molecular studies, would consistently come up with the same answer. If we suppose that evolution is incorrect, this is an astounding coincidence which is impossible to explain. Retroviral DNA: Retroviruses sometimes infect a host's DNA. They insert data into the DNA at a roughly random location. It's extremely rare that retroviruses infect reproductive cells, so it's quite rare for them to get passed on to the next generation. Also, there are at least millions of places in our DNA where each retrovirus could insert said data. Take this with the fact that we share data from 7 of the same retroviruses with chimps, and the data's in the same place, and you've got another astounding coincidence on your hands, if you say macroevolution is false. If it is true, it would simply be the case that our common ancestor with the chimp had been infected with the retrovirus (either by being infected himself or inheriting it from his own ancestors). I believe I've shown that there is an inexplainable ocean of coincidence that exists if we assume macroevolution is false. The only way to avoid drowning is to acknowledge macroevolution as a well-backed theory and the best current explanation for the diversity and similarity of life.
do we guys show a lot of appreciation for what girls do for us?... because i don't think we do

I agree but you can't deny there are women who are the same. A lot of women don't appreciate their husbands for what they do at work and feel they have it the easy way. This is not true of course as both housework and work outside take a lot to do. A healthy relationship isn't always about making each other feel special, it's about being special together. I personally don't believe in divorce because if two people break up because of a problem, it means they're too weak to solve it. In any marriage, there's always the good and there's the bad. It's easy to go through the good times but making it through the bad requires real courage and commitment.
do we guys show a lot of appreciation for what girls do for us?... because i don't think we do

i understand that many guys appreciate their wives and girlfriends but you gotta think about the guys that don't and they complain why their wives or girlfriends left them and that's why i made this debate because i think that guys think too much about themselves to think about their wives or girlfriends leaving them and they don't think why they left them that's why i think guys don't appreciate their girlfriends or wives but that's just my opinion
do we guys show a lot of appreciation for what girls do for us?... because i don't think we do

I understand your point. However, all guys aren't the same. I know for a fact because many guys really do appreciate their wives and some express it, some don't. A way a lot of guys show their appreciation is by taking her out to dinner or helping her cook, clean, etc. When divorces and break-ups happen, it's not because of a lack of appreciation. It's because of a lack of commitment and communication. I think women understand they way their husbands work and know they are appreciated for their work.
do we guys show a lot of appreciation for what girls do for us?... because i don't think we do

well yes i agree us guys have to do a lot but when we stay at home and there are at work since we are so used to working we should do some things for them. What i meant by show our appreciation is when the women do something for us that took forever and we dont show how much we appreciate what they do for us. Like say she dresses up for you or or she cleans the house for u and she cooks for u then we need to say you look beautiful, or the house looks really nice, and thank your for dinner you know as you go to work and she stays at home and does these things then we should tell her that we appreciate what she did for u so that way u dont have to worry about that later since its done already.
do we guys show a lot of appreciation for what girls do for us?... because i don't think we do

I think you're making a generalization of 3.5 billion guys out there. Everyone's different, whether it's a guy or girl. Some are more expressive than others. You have to realize that there are many girls who don't appreciate their SOs. While most men stay away from cooking, cleaning, talking care of the children, etc, it's a lot to do with work stress. Men in general are in the workplace and are the primary source of income for the family. Women usually take the house responsibilities such as cooking, cleaning, etc. This is especially true in in non-Western countries. So, do husbands appreciate what their wives do? Yes. But every man has a way he expresses himself so who are we to judge.
do we guys show a lot of appreciation for what girls do for us?... because i don't think we do

I think that us guys don't show much appreciation for what girls do for us and that's why i think most of girls freak out on there bf's or they leave them. girls if i can speak for the boys we do appreciate what u do for us we really do but we don't show it really because we think its not manly but guys honestly there's almost nothing more manlier than telling a girl how much she means to u and what she does for u. so do some things for her like cook, clean, ect. just do something to show that u appreciate them and what they do for u or u can even tell them that u love them and the reasons why and what they do for u so girls please dont be mad if we don't show it like i said we just think its unmanly to do that but we really do appreciate what u do for u and we love u very much thank u for reading this and comment what u think boys and girls.
Soccer is a more demanding exercise than football

He has gotten his definitions from google which really isn't a credible source. According to Oxford, effort is "a vigorous or determined attempt" or "strenuous physical or mental exertion". Therefore, cons assumption that football is "similar in this aspect (the one in which he got after reading his definition from google) to effort" is false. By going with Oxford's definitions of effort, soccer is clearly a sport that requires more effort due to the fact that it is vigorous throughout the whole game with minimal interruptions and with the ongoing requirement of "physical and mental exertion. " As con has stated, football is more short and abrupt while soccer is more lengthy at a time which is exactly the reason soccer is more demanding. There is only one break in between the two time periods in soccer while there are countless amounts of whistle-blowing in football. Also, there are only 11 players in a team with only 2 substitutions per game while in football, there is a defensive team and an offensive team. According to livestrong. com, an average soccer player runs 10 km per game and an average football player runs a mere 200-300 yards per game. Soccer does require more skill and it can be proven. In a game, the players are not allowed to use their hands which is one of the most useful parts of the body. They must do everything without their hands and penalized unless they do otherwise. Football as everyone knows is made up with a bunch of plays that have been pre-made. The coach yells out which play to execute after every down. However, in the game of soccer, anything can happen and the players must act quickly to the situation no matter how difficult. It just comes to show how much mental along with physical strength it takes. I have refuted all of con's arguments and stated why I believe soccer is a much more demanding sport with statistics. I look forward to con's next argument
Soccer is a more demanding exercise than football

While I am slightly confused as to whether or not the purpose of this debate is to prove soccer is more difficult (your first argument) or that it is a more demanding exercise (your title) i will assume you made a typo and will defer to the title, wishing you good luck as well. The first point to be made in a debate is to properly define the question. In this debate it seems fairly obvious to me that the objective of Pro is to prove that soccer is a "more demanding exercise than football, therefore in a lack of conclusion, Pro will have failed. Furthermore, the term "demanding exercise" is deemed to refer to an exercise (clearly referring to a physical activity) "requiring much skill or effort". Clearly, therefore, it is my job to prove that football requires more skill or effort than soccer. Regarding effort "a vigorous or determined attempt", one must be wary of believing that a larger amount of running or calorie burning equates to effort. Effort is clearly defined as referring to shorter bursts of greater power rather than the other way around. Football is similar in this aspect to effort, as it consists of short violent altercations, while soccer consists of lengthy time periods in which little can occur. Regarding skill "the ability to do something well", one can not very well make an argument either way because of the fact that the sports are extremely different. All definitions are found using _______ definition searches on Google. Good luck
Soccer is a more demanding exercise than football

I would like to conclude my argument and clarify any confusions throughout the debate Soccer is indeed a much more demanding sport than football because the energy required to play a full game, whether or not you are young or old, in an advanced "world cup" level game or a mere amateur game, is far more than the energy to play a full football game. This is because, as con stated above, an average football player plays 11 minutes total. That is. ..11 minutes of intense gaming and the rest of the time in between the 11 minutes to rest. Isn't that right? I am sorry that I have only put 1 of 2 definitions. That is because the source that I found my definition from was different from yours ( . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... ). I felt that the second definition in my website was unnecessary. Also, the two definitions that you have obtained from your website are not, as you say, "essentially equivalent" to the one you obtained from Google definitions. Using both of the definitions that you have provided, "needing a lot of skill, patience, effort, etc" or "expecting a lot of work or attention from others; not easily satisfied", soccer is more of both than football is for one. Soccer does require more patience and effort due to the fact that it is longer. You keep mentioning that we have to cut the amount of time played in an actual soccer game and make it equivalent to the amount of time played in a football game so that we can compare them equally (round 2 when con puts out a counterargument). However, you cannot do that. We are comparing the game of soccer vs the game of football. Therefore, the total amount of time played in an actual soccer game should be counted for. I was not stating a fact when I said that football players rest every 5 seconds of the game. I was exaggerating but not too much. A whole football game is consisted of 4 15-minute quarters with a 12 minute intermission between the 2nd and 3rd. (. http://en.wikipedia.org...). That is 72 minutes total but only 11 minutes are played during that amount of time. That's only 15.27% of the game. I apologize for the lack of a statement to go along with my logos argument. Ask yourself, which is harder, water polo or treading water? Definitely water polo because you cannot use your hands to tread water. That is an example of how restrictions define skill level. You are restricted from using your hands so it requires more skill. Same with soccer. You are restricted from using your hands and can only use your feet. Other than that and the intense tackling in football, the two games are almost identical. And con, let's say I accept your exaggeration for a football player to run 6 3/4 miles with 16lbs of weight. But let me also take your exaggeration on the 26 1/5 mile part. Ask yourself which one you would rather run because I would rather run 6.75 miles with 16 lbs. To the audience who is reading this as well, ask yourself which one. Thank you for the debate, I admit it was the best one I have had so far in this website.