BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Evolution is real and is happening

Genesis 1:1- In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Genesis 1:11- And God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth." And it was so. Genesis 1:21- So God created the great sea creatures and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. Genesis 1:26- Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." Genesis 1:27- So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. This is my proof. Where's yours?
Evolution is real and is happening

1 .The bible proved and disproved a lot the age if earth according to the bile explain that when we have proven the earth Is mush older then 6000 years . 2 .Humanity has had many gods and many be,ides in its history what makes are belief so right and others so right . 3 . Why give humanity such a s small space to live in and leave the rest of the world void . 4 . Sience have proven the earth to be much older then humanity By billions of yearsif so why create such wonderful beings and then destroy them and. Are humanity in his own image billions of years after the universes creation .
Evolution is real and is happening

To answer your question "how do you know god is real," here it is. The existence of God cannot be proved or disproved. The Bible says that we must accept by faith the fact that God exists: "And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to Him must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him" (Hebrews 11:6). If God so desired, He could simply appear and prove to the whole world that He exists. But if He did that, there would be no need for faith. "Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed"" (John 20:29).
Evolution is real and is happening

Questions for u Christians and just becouse I'm atheist I hate religion I just chose not to believe in God or any god I have a gf who is Chatloic and we get along quiet well . 1. The bible says the earth is about 6000 years old give or take a few hundred years but scientist have proven the earth is 4.5 billion years and the universe has been proven to be 18 billion years so yeah . 2 . Why would God create his ultimate creation to live on earth for less then 0.0001% of its life and for it to inhabit 0.00000001 less of the galaxy make so much sense . 3 . Why and how do u know God is real explain why in all of all of human history all the gods we had of all history of there no being multiple gods what makes the idea of this one God so right what makes it diffract then the past why is humanity trying to tell themselves there specials and have a reason to be here is to be the most important we told are self God is real to feel important . I see gods not real for all the pain and punishment I suffered and for what I was a good kid never was rude to anyone And yet j was treated like crap I see all the suffering to those in this world who are dying for no reason yeah there's someon who I have prayed to so many times to end my misery and nothing I got nothing .
Evolution is real and is happening

Because my opponent did not respond with a real argument, here's a few questions for all of you evolutionists and atheists to think about. Living things are incredibly complex, so how could chance or natural processes produce organs as complex as the eye, ear, or brain of even a tiny bird? Explain how something can come from nothing in contradiction to the first law of thermodynamics. Where has macro evolution ever been observed? What's the mechanism for getting new complexity such as new vital organs? How, for example, could a caterpillar evolve into a butterfly? If the solar system evolved, why do three planets spin backwards? Why do at least 6 moons revolve backwards? Believing you must have some proof for evolution, otherwise you probably wouldn't have started this debate, either try to answer these questions or give me some proof for evolution.
Black is a skin tone, not an ethnicity.

You appear to have become moderately upset. . Do you require soothing? The forums are a great place to express those deep inner feelings of pain. The Moose has no color, The Moose is omipotent/omnipresent. Your arguement is invalid for I will it to be so. Return to your pathetic tumblr account and weap to the ancient lords you hold so dear. Filthy trash mongrels such as yourself are worth not the Mooses time. .
Resolved: That the Employee Free Choice Act of 2009 serves the best intrests of the American people

Alright then opponent. I post my arguments with these 3 contentions: 1) Card check system is flawed 2) Binding arbitration is flawed 3) This bill will ultimately hurt American business 1) Card Checking Now lets talk about card checking. Under EFCA as long as unions have majority of signed cards, the union would automatically become a representative among the employees and a private ballot election would become illegal. By doing this, employees are left open to intimidation and coercion. According to the Testimony of Jen Jason, who was a former union organizer from Unite-Here, she along with other organizers were instructed to use mainipulation tactics that would agitate employeese into signing cards. She even ADMITS that EFCA is a powerful advantage to unions to be recognized, and later states that the amount of signed cards is usually disproportionate to pro union ballots. They are actually far less. According to an inside study by AFL-CIO, unions dont have a 50% of winning until at least 75% of employees sign cards. What AFL-CIO admits is that just because you sign a card doesn't necessarily mean you want to join a union, otherwise 75% of signed cards would mean a certain victory. 2) Binding arbitration Under the EFCA if an initial contract isnt made in 120 days, a government appointed arbiter will make a decision binding on the parties for 2 years. Basically this tells businesses "you better let us mess with your wages whether you like it or not." The unwise thing about this bill is that it puts an arbiter, who has no stake in the matter or financial consequence for making a poor decision, in a position to manipulate wages, therefore behind the wheel of your business. This bill assumes that the arbiter is trustworthy and immune to all forms of corruption (specifically bribery), and that the arbiter is educated enough to make a MARKET based decision that wont hurt business. Also, this bill takes away power from the employers and the employees. The employees cannot hold a vote to terminate the contract, and employers may not terminate the contract without consent of the union. The business and employees may suffer dire consequences as a result of a poor decision, as they cannot terminate it no matter how bad it is. 3) Business Unionizing has its benefits, but is not necessary at ALL COSTS. Increasing wages and benefits for the employees may not be suitable for the company. One example of an industry torn by mindless overuse of collective bargaining is the American auto industry. Thanks to the contracts made by the United Auto Workers union, the big three pay as high as $70 an hour to support worker salaries and benefits. Now since the automotive industry has had to suffer the financial consequences of a greedy union, it is on the brink of bankruptcy, and must cut jobs in order to stay afloat. From the year 2000 till today, in attempt to stay afloat the big three have cut over 250,000 American jobs. :) I humbly await my opponents arguments
Resolved: All US Citizens from high school onwards should be taught how to handle a firearm.

My opponents only two contentions really circle around the fact of actually using a gun, not learning how to, which is what I base my case on. "Pacifists: For some people, such as really extreme pacifists, it may be against their beliefs to handle a gun, even if they won't actually be firing it. These people would be forced against their will to handle guns (or at least be penalized for not), which is wrong." This would not violate pacifism, first off pacifists don't believe in violence or killing, but this is not what these classes would teach, they would only teach how to use a firearm. "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" is the quote I would respond with to that with because what would be taught is not how to kill. This argument would also make them not able to use knives for something as simple as cutting vegetables because they too are used for killing. Due to the overly presumptive and illogical nature of this contention, it is not relevant in the debate. "Handicapped: How is a guy with both his arms chopped off supposed to handle a firearm? This means it is impossible for "all" citizens to be taught to handle firearms." This is a trivial objection and is therefore fallacious. a handicapped person would not be in normal classes in the first place as all academics require writing, such students are already on special courses in which they are exempt from many classes which they cannot compete in, such as P.E. and health. Therefore, the contention falls. "Once again, if someone wants to learn to use a gun, there's nothing stopping them from joining a class" You can join a class for just about any subject in school, but that's not the point, the point is that this has to do with public safety, and I have yet to see any source that contradicts my statement that the country will be safer. "Most schools ban guns and even things that resemble guns. If the resolution was to become the law right now, there would be a contradiction" Schools also ban having sex on campus yet we still teach sexual education in school. The contention fall because it is irrelevant. "Also, just because Switzerland has a lower crime rate doesn't mean it's the result of gun safety lessons. It could have something to do with the fact that the U.S. has more guns than any other country, with almost 90 guns per 100 people. Switzerland only has 46." This is a misstatement for a couple of reasons. 1. this is only small firearms, when you add all weapons (i.e. assault weapons that are banned here), the rate for the Swiss nearly doubles, leveling it with the US. 2. In America, only 30% all households have a firearm (http://www.gallup.com...), whereas in Switzerland, every household by law has a firearm by law. Your facts only took weapons vs. people not weapons per household or they would be much different. Switzerland and the US as I said before are very similar, so this wide variance in crime can only be pointed to gun education and matters of self-defense, it is the only logical explanation.
Resolved: All US Citizens from high school onwards should be taught how to handle a firearm.

I am going to start with a few of my own arguments, and then rebut Pro's arguments. As I stated in my opening, being taught how to use a firearm isn't necessary in most situations, as many people will never operate guns. If a person wanted to learn how to operate a gun because he wanted to go hunting or learn to defend himself or join the military, he could easily learn this through separate gun lessons, or in military training. Pacifists: For some people, such as really extreme pacifists, it may be against their beliefs to handle a gun, even if they won't actually be firing it. These people would be forced against their will to handle guns (or at least be penalized for not), which is wrong. Handicapped: How is a guy with both his arms chopped off supposed to handle a firearm? This means it is impossible for "all" citizens to be taught to handle firearms. Firearm Training: Once again, if someone wants to learn to use a gun, there's nothing stopping them from joining a class, such as this one: http://www.saginawfirearms.com... It isn't necessary to make this a mandatory part of education, especially since most people don't need to know the proper way to handle a gun. In some places though, it might be good to have an optional gun class at school. School Gun Ban: Most schools ban guns and even things that resemble guns. If the resolution was to become the law right now, there would be a contradiction. Several school's rules would have to be changed, and this could become very complicated. All of your arguments are basically talking about better safety and lower crime rates as a result of gun operating lessons (you gave no sources by the way). Instead of forcing high schoolers to handle guns, I think it would make more sense to simply teach kids to not play with guns as a regular part of elementary school. Teach them that guns are not toys, and promote against violence. This would decrease accidents and violence without anyone being required to operate a firearm. Other safety issues, such as the proper way to hold a shotgun, can be learned elsewhere if the person decides he wants one. Also, just because Switzerland has a lower crime rate doesn't mean it's the result of gun safety lessons. It could have something to do with the fact that the U.S. has more guns than any other country, with almost 90 guns per 100 people. Switzerland only has 46. http://en.wikipedia.org... That's all I have to say at this point. I look foreward to my opponent's arguments.
Pirates are better than ninjas.

This debate largely hinges on the word 'better'. I define better as being more versatile and successful and my opponent has not provided a definition. Pirates search for treasure and have ships, but most pirates were brought to justice and killed. They did not achieve very much. Ninjas functioned as spies and assassins in Imperial Japan and had a major effect on politics. Pirates are only good for robbing ships. Ninjas have a wide variety of roles which include spying, assassinations, diplomacy, and defending VIPs. In pop culture, ninjas are considered far more skilled than pirates. Jack Sparrow, for instance, is inept is only survives because of luck (he actually dies once). Ninjas in movies often possess extremely awesome abilities like jumping between trees. Batman is also pretty much like a ninja (see Batman Begins) and he is a bigger cultural icon than any of my opponent's pirates. Sources: http://www.entertheninja.com... (read on ninja awesomeness here)
Pirates are better than ninjas.

Pirates are better than ninjas because pirates have this: . http://www.partyjunction.co.uk... and this: . http://lparchive.org... Ninjas also do not search for treasure with the incredible accuracy that pirates have. You don't hear of ninjas looting entire ships either. Ninjas also don't say "arr matey! " or other such slang. Nobody can beat a classic "arr matey! " Some of the most memorable characters in movies/literature have also been pirates: Captain Jack Sparrow, Captain Hook, Long John Silver, along with appearances in various other movies, T. V shows, books, and comics. . http://en.wikipedia.org... Pirates rule pop culture! Enough said. I look forward to my opponent's argument. :)
Runaway laws for teens should be abolished

1. This of course ignores age limits by the states and federal government that would not permit a 13 year old to have active employment. I believe a 13 year old should be able to get a job and make a good salary. 2. Lastly, parents should be responsible for the actions of their children as these children have no capacity to represent themselves or pay in a law suit. We can change the laws allowing rational 13 year olds to be sued and sue. 3. What Pro is advocating is the transfer of responsibility from a mature party to an immature party who has not cognitively developed due to the growth of the prefrontal cortex and other related brain structures. Before the industrial revolution it was common for people to marry at the age 13. Adolescence is a recently invented concept. Many people believe that the brain is not fully developed till 25. I will cite a link to this study but 1st a quote from the link (1st page, last paragraph). “The researchers speculated in their article that this may be due to a plethora of life experiences in young adulthood such as pursing post-secondary education, starting a career, independence and developing new social and family relationships. http://www.news-medical.net... Elliot Valentin, a retired neuroscientist wrote a book called Blaming the brain, published in 1998. He wrote, “A persons mental state and experience can modify the brain just as surely as the other way around. When there is a correlation between these two events, we should not assume that we always know which way causation flows…. It has been shown in numerous experiments, for example. That exposure to stressful situations can produce long lasting brain changes.” And there was a study that showed that even when you're 40 and you become a taxi driver your brain rewires itself and new neurons grow in certain areas to help settle into your new career. If adolescence was a recent invention by society, so is the teen brain. Teens brains are influenced by their outside environment, including schooling, and all teens are required to go to school, so it makes sense that all their brains are the same. Lets compare those brains to the brains of teens in countries where they don't go to school and are married young. We might see a big difference. If it were the norm to finish high school at 25, there would be a new study saying the brain has not matured till 30. I will use shoe shopping as an example. We don't go to the shoe shop to buy 12 year old shoes, 13 year old shoes, 17 year old shoes. We buy shoes based on our size, not our age. When someone hits puberty, they start making more and more rational decisions, but every once in a while, they would do something immature like they were ten years old again. The frequency of those "regressions" decreases with age (in most people, anyway), and hopefully goes away at some point -- that's when they should legally be considered an adult. Once someone hits the biggest maturity "size" (equivalent to the biggest shoe size), they become an adult.
Runaway laws for teens should be abolished

Hello there,Hope you're having a fantastic Tuesday!It appears you are appealing to pratices done in the past as justification for future legislation. Most of these child marriages of the past were arranged, which infringe upon women's rights and have little to do teens or children who would run away and get married. They would be more likely to run away, because their parents were trying to force them to marry a much older man.[1]My opponent then attempts to draw a comparison between 13 year olds and 18 year olds who cannot support themselves. This of course ignores age limits by the states and federal government that would not permit a 13 year old to have active employment.[2] Lastly, parents should be responsible for the actions of their children as these children have no capacity to represent themselves or pay in a law suit. What Pro is advocating is the transfer of responsibility from a mature party to an immature party who has not cognitively developed due to the growth of the prefrontal cortex and other related brain structures. This would be extremely destructive for the youth of our nation and these laws should be kept to protect the next generation.Kind Regards,TrueScotsman[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://www.dol.gov...;
Runaway laws for teens should be abolished

Before the industrial revolution it was common for people to marry at the age 13. If someone is at least 13 and is fully rational (at an adult level) they should be able to leave home without their parents' permission. One can argue that youth cannot adequately support themselves but many 18 year olds cannot adequately support themselves and are allowed to leave home without their parents' permission. Parents also won't be responsible for their child's actions. If a youth destroys a car or vandalizes property, the youth gets sued and has to pay. All the other laws that hold parents responsible for their youth's behavior will be abolished.
The United States should continue exploration of outer space.

I will first begin by attacking my opponents case. In their speech they didn't provide any sources just comments that could not be true. Without any sources their entire 1st speech falls. I will now go on to build my case. My 1st contention is that it creates jobs. Another popularly cited benefit of space exploration is "job creation", or the fact that a space agency and its network of contractors, universities and other entities help people stay employed. From time to time, NASA puts out figures concerning how many associated jobs a particular project generates, or the economic impact. Here"s an example: in 2012, NASA administrator Charles Bolden published a blog post about the Curiosity Mars rover landing, which was picked up by the White House website. "It"s also important to remember that the $2.5 billion investment made in this project was not spent on Mars, but right here on Earth, supporting more than 7,000 jobs in at least 31 states," he wrote. It"s also unclear what constitutes a "job" under NASA parlance. Some universities have researchers working on multiple projects " NASA-related or not. Employment can also be full-time, part-time or occasional. Now onto my 2nd contention which is education. Teaching has a high priority for NASA, so much so that it has flown astronaut educators in space. (The first one, Christa McAuliffe, died aboard the space shuttle Challenger during launch in 1986. Her backup, Barbara Morgan, was selected as an educator/mission specialist in 1998 and flew aboard STS-118 in 2007.) And to this day, astronauts regularly do in-flight conferences with students from space, ostensibly to inspire them to pursue careers in the field. NASA"s education office has three goals: making the workforce stronger, encouraging students to pursue STEM careers (science, technology, engineering and mathematics), and "engaging Americans in NASA"s mission." Other space agencies also have education components to assist with requirements in their own countries. It"s also fair to say the public affairs office for NASA and other agencies play roles in education, although they also talk about topics such as missions in progress. Anecdotally, however, many astronauts and people within NASA have spoken about being inspired by watching missions such as Apollo take place. And the same is true of people who are peripherally involved in the field, too. (A personal example: this author first became interested in space in the mid-1990s through the movie Apollo 13, which led to her watching the space shuttle program more closely.) It's for these reasons that I strongly urge a pro vote in this debate.