BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The US and a Western Allience should declare war against Islam:

Islam was created for political purposes- you see,Muammad wanted political power, and he sought to get it through military strength, so he built an army and conquered territories. To be victorious in his wars and conquests, he instituted a number of techniques from Sun Tzu's The Art of War, among which was the invention of Islam. Sun Tzu said that you have to convince soldiers that the will not face any punishment in the afterlife by fighting for you. So, Muhammad invented a fonney religion of his own enable to get the undying loyalty of his soldiers, and so that they wouldn't fear punishment by God for the attrocities Muhmmad wanted them to commit. All Islam is is an ideology that was invented for the purpose of conquest against Non-Muslim nations suxh as our own. It's no different than the Nazi Regime and should be treated as such. My opponent attempted to say that Islam is no different than Christianity or Judaism because there are violent passages in the Old Testament, but this argument simply does not apply for 3 big reasons:First of all, none of the violence in the Old Testament actually happened, it was all made up. Second of all, Christianity and Judaism were not invented for the purpose of conquest, they just have violent verses in their books. Third of all, Christianity had a reformation in the late Middle Ages, and Judaism is having a reformation done right now, but there has been no such Reformtion attempted in Islam. No one said we should genocide Muslims, I said we should handle Islam just as we handled the Nazi regime- go in there with a massive military budget and a few million soldiers- then bomb them, shoot them, nuke them, invade them and topple the regime. After this, we divide the nation up into a few parts for different nations to control, and end the regime propaganda being enforced on their youth. This will take about 40-50 years, just as it did with Nazi Germany. Now look at them- there are no Nazis in Germany anymore!
The US and a Western Allience should declare war against Islam:

I greatly reject your views on Islam being a cult created for political purposes.Islam: The religion of the Muslims, a monotheistic faith regarded as revealed through Muhammad as the Prophet of Allah.Islam is a religious faith that is practiced by around 1.6 billion people in the world. Muslims themselves are typically peaceful people. Muslims that I know don't act worse than any other people. They simply have a different faith and choose to live by their religious principles rather than others. Personally, I feel that Islam and other religions like Christianity aren't that different, especially since both religious faiths may have some principles which we may regard today as being immoral and disgraceful, so the argument that "Islam is a religion founded on violence" can only be said if you can accept that the Bible is as well since it has passages such as one where, for making fun of a man who was bald, God sent two bears to murder 42 children.Your irrational views on how "Islam will destroy America," and other such boondoggle is nothing but hilarious. You're taking the radical Islamic terrorist group way out of proportion. Yes, ISIS is our enemy, and yes, they are strong, but they are concentrated in the Middle East. Their intent is to extend their power throughout the Middle East, and centralize their power. America and other nations have made great progress in suppressing them. They pose no threat to overtaking our government or ruining our democracy.A genocide of all Muslims would only spark outrage, giving ISIS a better reason to hate us, and likely using a Muslim genocide as propaganda for their cause, and create internal revolts in America.In the back of my mind, I'm still convinced that this is a troll debate.
The US and a Western Allience should declare war against Islam:

No- this is serious.First of all, we must understand that Islam is not a religion, it is cult, which was created for poliical purposes. It has its own set of laws, its own leadership, and decrees itself to have authority. This is a political group, and must be acknowladges as such. Second of all, Islam, as a political group, is ultimately no different than the Nazi Regime, and like the Nzi Regime, we must acknowledge it as nothing more than a regime which is blatantly hostile against America, and Western Democracy. We must treat it just like we did the Axis powers durring WW2, and declare an all-out war on it. Third of all, Islam is already an enemy of the United States- they have alreasdy declared war. We will not be able to survive a strategy of appeasement- it is eat or be eaten.
The US and a Western Allience should declare war against Islam:

Resolution:The United States should form an allience with all the free nations of the world, then, during a period of years, create massive economic growth through low taxes and low regulations enbable to create more GDP growth. We should then boost all of our military budgets to 20% of our GDP, and then, finally, declare war against Islam, and utterly destroy the Arab World until there is not one Islamic state left.
Biological Evolution across family, order, class...kingdom, etc.

The debate was over large scale evolution. Pro provided evidence for small changes within a species, but no significant evidence for changes large enough to create a definitively new organism, as would be required for traditional Evolution. He did not back his claims very thoroughly, and did not make a complete argument for how small changes due to mutation rather than selection of existing genes could result in major evolutionary changes. He did not provide a complete argument as to why polar bears and brown bears MUST have diverged due to mutation, rather than natural selection of a existing genes. He only argued that it is possible, but did not demonstrate exactly how. The vestigial human tail argument was based on speculation about what might happen, without solid evidence. I made an argument that it is more likely that organisms change into different versions of their common ancestors, but how far they can change is limited by useful genetic information latent within a genome. The proven method for tracking this is Punnett Squares. It is reasonable that major changes in organisms are more likely to lead to viable offspring if the major changes are already part of an existing useful genetic code. I would be interested to hear how Evolution squares with Pro's Christian faith.
Biological Evolution across family, order, class...kingdom, etc.

I couldn't find the video, but wasn't asking you to. I was merely recommending you to watch that episode if you haven't on your own free time. Not for this debate, but because it should be interesting. To answer your questions on the genetic code, the genetic code's assembling happens during reproduction. At some point during reproduction, it makes mistakes with copying the genetic code. We already observe this change and have even did it artificially to create the Belgian Blue cow. http://www.british-bodybuilding.co.uk... The flagellum is involving a biological mechanism. The pieces can if they find out what they can do to fix problems. Like recently, new anti bodies were produced in the two nurses who had Ebola. They no longer have it because of the anti bodies that their bodies managed to produce. This is evolution at it's core. (Source btw, was from Fox News a few seconds ago.) This process has and can still be observed if we look in certain cases like medicine and genetics. Then why would some people just magically lose the ability to have those teeth. We may have lost an advantage, but we gain one since big jaws are not the rage for some people's attractions. Sometimes you need to lose something, to gain another.
Biological Evolution across family, order, class...kingdom, etc.

We all have burden of proof of we make a claim. Correct. The tail would have been with us as a left over from the common ancestor and shows a distant relation to the monkey family or anything else. I do agree radiation could be a result, but so far, I haven't seen a case involving non radiation tails. The tail would most likely have come from a recessive trait from the common ancestor, or grandma of chimps and humans. The monkeys would use the tail and were more adapt for it, but the humans wouldn't. Size would possibly play a role in this since Orangutans and Gorillas and chimpanzees are equal in size of humans, they have no tails. The chimpanzees may be closely related, but the one distinct feature of the four monkeys in the family compared to others, is that we have no tails. But somewhere along the line, we could've been keeping a recessive allele. Now if the trait was completly killed off, then radiation mutations would be the only result of our tails. What may I ask is the purpose of wisdom teeth since people want them removed? They also happen to push people's teetg around so they are messed up and out of place. My source for this is my teeth doctor who recommended the surgery. And if only some people have it aligned, then this is natural selection. Only the fit for the teeth can keep it. And it can attract the male and female species with a big jaw, but that alone shouldn't serve its purpose. I only wish I could find the actual video. If you can find a way to watch it, this was from episode 2 or 3. Cosmos did explain this perfectly. A grizzly can develop white fur, but the polar bears did more than that. Their necks are longer, which allows an advantage in reaching for their food. They have differences than the brown bear, but have similarities that put them in the same family. Neil explained the hair color pigment because that was discussing one of the key features of its survival of the fittest. Camouflage. You can easily see a brown bear a mile away compared to the polar bears. If you want a mechanism that arises from natural processes, there is an example creationists have used to destroy evolution and failed doing so. Michael Behe has offered a term known as Irreducible Complexity, stating that complex systems are the result of an intelligent designer to design accordingly. He says that like a mouse trap, if any part is missing, it ceases to serve a purpose. He's correct that it wouldn't serve its original purpose, but it finds another. Kenneth Miller easily destroys this notion twice by showing that natural selection and adaption is what causes parts to continue. http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com...
Biological Evolution across family, order, class...kingdom, etc.

The theory of evolution is a scientific theory that has been proven because of the small observable changes we can observe today. The small changes like immunity to pesticides in bugs and bacterial immunity from certain vaccines is something called micro evolution. This is basically the first step to evolution. If you notice the year span, it takes millions of years for a species to diversify the way your demanding evidence for. Which means Ken Ham is right when we say we do need millions of years for evolution because that's how long the change takes. The polar bear got it's white fur from the fact that they have no melanin, which is what gives color pigment. So it's not necessarily that they are white, but that they are transparent. http://seedtofeedme.blogspot.com... Then if you know the Punnett Squares, I hope you know how the DNA (Genes) are made. DNA is in a strand ladder with the following letters. A, T, C, G. These codon base pairs are arranged into different strands. One small mix up when copying the information to an offspring can cause a change or mutation. Which is why new information in the genome is essentially a new pattern among the line of heritage. And if we keep allowing the good mutations to pass on, then eventually, the human race will advance or evolve into another species. Same for other animals.
guns should be banned for civilians

It is a lot easier to commit homicide with a gun than with a knife or any other melee weapon. Due to the guns nature of being a fast, ranged weapon it's so much easier to stand a couple feet away and shoot somebody since they can't do anything about it, then try to stab someone at close range. Also, the reason why we need to defend ourselves with guns is because the killers have guns. If we don't allow guns to anyone (and keep hunting guns at a hunting site ) the killers will have a harder time getting a gun and using it to commit homicide. Yes, there will be some people who get guns other ways, but this will decrease the population of people who have guns, which means less people murdering people with guns. I agree that police enforcement can't be everywhere, but if a cop sees someone with a gun they would automatically arrest the man if no guns were allowed, preventing a potential homicide.
Megan Fox isn't as hot as she was.

I did not mean to give the impression I was some sort of hand-fetishist. Honestly, I could care less about the appearance of someone's hands, as long as they are clean. However, I allege that there is some sort of genetic defect at work here, of which I'm apparently not the only one taken aback by. My point is that this 'toe thumb' renders even the most attractive people creepy and undesirable. I do have to agree with you that she looks like two different people in those pictures due to whatever sort of work she's had done.
Megan Fox isn't as hot as she was.

Different guys have different opinions. If you think a thumb is very attractive, then that is fine, but im concerned more of the rest of her body. Im just saying plastic surgery has done more than her thumb. http://www.google.com... ^as you can see megan has turned into, what seems, not far from a manakin. The cheek bones are too high and frankly unrealistic. Thank you for joining my debate.
Megan Fox isn't as hot as she was.

Hello Mr. Black, I welcome your debate. You've stated that Ms. Fox "has, almost literally, had steam coming off of her", in other words saying you find her attractive. Obviously this is a matter of opinion, but I'll take the challenge nonetheless. The fact of the matter is, Ms. Fox has not gotten plastic surgery in the one place she actually needed it: THE THUMB. I submit this link: http://liebchen11.wordpress.com... We could debate the authenticity of the photo, but I recall vividly in one of scenes of the Transformers reboot when she is driving a tow-truck, they show her hand on the wheel and that thumb is clear as day. My point is: perhaps Ms. Fox is/was attractive, and perhaps she has had plastic surgery. HOWEVER, something as glaringly wrong as those nails renders your argument invalid. She was never attractive to begin with.
Megan Fox isn't as hot as she was.

Every since we saw her in Transformers. Megan Fox has, almost literally, had steam coming off of her, boys suddenly paying attention to the movie, even girls getting jealous. But ever since she's been away from Transformers, she's gotten plastic surgery, her name has died down (from what I heard), and there's been talk of other actors better than her. This is and interesting topic, please answer.
There should be a moratorium on intentional breeding of cats and dogs.

moratorium "1 a : a legally authorized period of delay in the performance of a legal obligation or the payment of a debt b : a waiting period set by an authority 2 : a suspension of activity " [1]. This is a normative resolution. Resolution: There should be a moratorium on intentional breeding of cats and dogs. Pro will contend for and Con against the resolution. http://www.merriam-webster.com...
There should be a moratorium on intentional breeding of cats and dogs.

Con has won. Pro will explain why. A. Moral framework. Pro does not believe in morals. Therefore, its hypocritical of Pro to enforce morals on others. With Pro having no moral framework Con has the advantage. B. Pro"s Advocacy Pro forget that a moratorium could be indefinite. In future debates Pro will be more explicit in what the resolution means in round 1. C. Service Animals Again Pro forget about this factor. D. Black markets Again Pro forgot about this factor. E. Economic Impacts Again Pro forget about this factor. Thanks for the debate.
There should be a moratorium on intentional breeding of cats and dogs.

Claim: Millions of cats and dogs are euthanized each year in the USA alone. Warrant: "Average annual number of companion animals that are euthinized at shelters 3.5 million " [1]. "How many euthanized cats are there? Approximately 3 to 4 million cats and dogs euthanized every year in the US" [2]. Impact: There is an excessive cat and dog population. Intentional breeding must create some of this excess. Temporarily halting intentional breeding would help mitigate the problem. Links 1. http://www.statisticbrain.com... 2. http://www.numberof.net...
time to put the simpsons to bed

After the death of Marcia Wallace Mrs. K never returned, I can not remember if they killed Mrs. K or simply wrote her out and never addressed why she left. So I think they would have equal respect for any other character and not recast the voices. That would be good time to end the show. It would also be a good idea for them to have an episode in reserve to use as a last episode when such an event occurs. Since each episode does not build on the previous one that is very possible. I am not sure how old the people who do the voices are but that possibility is getting more and more likely each year. I know death threats against Homer is not original, but each one is still an original storyline. Since it is not a drama each episode does not build on another and should be considered independently. Also in each episode they reason for wanting each character dead is for totally different reasons and different methods are used thus not really repeating the same storyline. In the comments section you said. "I don't mind crossovers in Disney or kids show but primetime adult shows even when their cartoon should have some kind of realness to them." If you are looking for realness, no animated show is for you. Is the crossover is the only realness is issue you see? Think about any of the Halloween episodes, any episodes concerning nuclear power like the three eyed fish and glowing Mr. Burns, or just any time Homer chokes Bart. Or the conflict in the ages of Abe Simpson, Homer and Marge. It suggests that both Abe and Homer were young fathers. Homer just out of High School and Abe just out of War after the draft. In early episodes it suggested that Homer and Marge were in High School in the 60's, then later in the 70's. I believe Bart is in the 4rd Grade and 10 years old. Which places Homer and Marge at around 29-30. Though their appearance, actions and everything else has always suggested they are much older. Going by that time frame and consider the show start date they would have Homer and Marge born no earlier than 1960. So Teenagers in the 70's and but not the 60's and Bart Born in 1979. That would also suggest Abraham Simpson is not nearly as old as he appears or old enough to have been in WW2 as many episodes portray him. For him to have been in WW2 and had Homer in 1960 he would have been well into his late 30's before Homer was born. Again all of this is based on it being 1989 when the showed first aired. However it is animated and realness is not a big priority for any animated show. Nor is being the same as it was in the beginning. You say it should be like it was in the 1990's but also say it should be original, those tow criteria is hard to master at one time. Also I think Family Guy is a rip off of the Simpsons not the other way around. Also while we are at it I think American Dad is just Joe Swanson with good legs and a better job.
time to put the simpsons to bed

Somebody trying to kill one of the Simpsons is hardly original. Frank Grimes jr trying to kill Homer, Sideshow Bob constantly trying to kill Bart and also Bobs brother Cecil are just a few I can think of. This shows that the writers struggling for new ideas and are repeating themselves. Con mentions the aging voices but doesn't respond to my point that if something was to happen to one the main actors. Dan Castellaneta voices not only Homer but also Abraham Simpson, Barney Gumble, Krusty the clown, Groundskeeper Willie and more. Should something happen to Dan it'll be hard to find somebody who can do all those voices. But more importantly it would be right to end the show at that point as a mark of respect. http://en.wikipedia.org...
time to put the simpsons to bed

There actually has been Futurama crossover, it was done recently. Bender showed up to kill Homer to protect the future. The primary target audience for "The Simpsons" was not yet born when it premiered, they still enjoy the show. The Nielson ratings is the only critics that really matter. With the age of the show, the aging voices and half of writers leaving, mostly to Futurama of course it will change some. However like I said the only critics to matter are the Nielsons. The quality of the show is not a provable fact one way or the other. So let the viewers decide whether or not it is good enough to stay or to get cancelled. There are two very notable things about The Simpsons nobody can deny. It has never tried to push some horrible spin off like Family Guy did with Cleveland Show. Also, all animated shows that are not cartoons has it to thank for their existence. Its success opened up the possibility for all of them like The Family Guy and King of The Hill.
time to put the simpsons to bed

Crazy storylines such as Ned Flanders marrying Ms Krabappel suggests that the Simpsons writers are really scraping the barrel for ideas. Storylines have become far fetched and ridiculous ideas such as the Simpsons/ Family guy crossover episode(plus I believe there's also going to be a Simpsons/ Futurama crossover) shows that they are desperate to hold on to what viewers they have left and attract new ones because they know there old fans are not coming back. The writers of the Simpsons have for some years now been ripped to shreds by critics for the on going decline of the shows quality. The Simpsons is Matt Groening's baby. He will always defend The show and I can fully understand why he wouldn't want to end it but Id say its time to stop the rot and end the show with dignity. The age of the voice actors is another reason the show cant keep going forever. The decline of the show is partly down to the fact that some of the voice actors of secondary characters such as Marcia Wallace( Ms Krabappel) and Phil Hartman( Troy McClure/ Lionel Hutz) are sadly no longer with us. Should something happen to one of the main voices actors the show would then surely have to end. The Simpsons has been going now for 25 years. So far 559 Episodes have been broadcast. If the shows production stopped there is no reason whatsoever why old episodes cant be repeated for many years or even decades to come. Its not like there was only a few episodes made which if shown over and over again would get repetitive very quickly. Even if an episode was shown every weekday in order starting with episode one it would be close to two years before episode one was shown again. I think this would be the best solution all round.