BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Mandatory Drug Testing

Drug tests are about 40-51 dollars per individual test. A yearly cost of around 10,000 to 1,000,000 a year. While they might be "effective" they are very costy. At pleasent middle school in ohio, they had wasted about 1 million dollars, and had only got three positives. In a place with some people known to be druggards, you would have gotten more positives. There are chances for a False-Positive or a False-Negative. Meaning that person that did not do drugs is getting convicted, or someone who did drugs is getting convicted. According to WebMD, there is a 5-10% chance of someone getting a False-Positive, and a 10-15% of someone getting a False-Negative. That is too big of a costly zone to ensure that everyone is getting "the safest and most secure saftey they possibly can." Just not worth it, espesially with that wide of an error zone.
Members of this website should have to fulfill more requirements before they can start a debate

Currently, anyone who joins Debate.org can post new debates far too quickly. There are no time requirements or minimum participation requirements. I propose the idea that this is detrimental to the Debate.org community for several reasons. 1. Many new members are ignorant or misinformed on the proper procedure for a debate on this site. They join and think it will be fun to accept or create debates, but demonstrate their ignorance. They often do not understand round structure, and sometimes ignore the guidelines set out by their opponent (in the case of them accepting a debate). The lack of understanding of proper behavior hinders their and their opponent's abilities to debate intelligently. 2. New members who have not yet had the opportunity to observe good debates are more likely to post weak arguments. This is inconsiderate to the opponent hoping for a serious debate, and to readers and voters. It fills the site with lukewarm, half-hearted debates that aren't worth reading. 3. Many new members are not committed to their membership on this site. They may post several debates at once, and then find that they have bitten off more than they can chew, so to speak, and cancel their account. This could clog up the "Challenge Period" section for days, causing annoyance and confusion for members. If an opponent has already accepted the debate when they cancel their account, then the opponent has to wait for the end of each round for an automatic forfeit. 4. Another problem associated with not understanding the time required to debate and posting multiple new debates even if the member does not terminate their account. They could attempt to debate all of these debates, and the quality of the debates will go down. 5. Some new members may not be serious debaters at all, but just trying to troll or pick a fight before abandoning their account. Because of this, it would be far better if new members had to demonstrate that they had a serious interest in the site before they were allowed to start debates. If a member had to vote on a certain number of debates before they could participate in one, that would narrow debaters down to more serious contenders. It would also ensure that debaters would have a basic understanding of how a debate works, round structure, good conduct, and what works and what doesn't. I realize that the rules are currently the reverse of what I suggest now; members have to complete a certain number of debates before they can vote. But this way makes more sense for the purpose of people learning to be better debaters.
Members of this website should have to fulfill more requirements before they can start a debate

I was looking forward to my opponent’s rebuttals, but unfortunately she has forfeited. This is quite ironic considering the topic of this debate. Since this is the final round I will proceed to refute her case and summarize.Rebuttal Pro begins with 5 points demonstrating the nuances of allowing new members of DDO to start a debate. I mostly agree with each individual point, but her argument does not take into account the challenges that DDO would face as a result of her resolution. What is also interesting is that nearly all of her contentions would also apply to accepting a debate challenge as the contender. Does Pro feel that new members should not be allowed to debate at all? Pros proposal to solve the problem of not allowing new members to instigate a debate is to require that all new members vote on a certain number of debates before being granted this privilege. I have already explained some of the greater issues this would cause but will go further in this round. As I mentioned, the quality of the votes is the most important thing this website must protect. Also mentioned earlier, many members join this site because there is a topic or two in mind that they want to debate. By requiring new members to vote on a certain number of debates before they are allowed to instigate their own topics, there is little reason to expect that they would judge these debates seriously. More importantly, how do we expect new members to be qualified to judge a debate if they have never participated in one? While some members come in with prior experience many do not. There are many tricks and logical fallacies that may get a reader to go along with an argument. What helps to limit that on DDO is the fact that the judges will likely realize when these fallacies are being applied and understand when they are pointed out by the opposition. Experienced debaters recognize these tactics and will likely be much more capable of separating their own personal beliefs from the true strength of the arguments made by each side. To put it simply, experienced debaters understand what is going on, and thus are more qualified to vote. SummaryI actually do believe there are things that DDO can do to ensure better overall participation of new members. I would discuss them and explain why I do not feel that they affirm the resolution, but I will not get myself into a game of refuting my own arguments. Pro had that responsibility and she forfeited it in her final round. In comparing the lesser of the two evils brought up in this debate, it is clear that allowing new members to start their own debates as opposed to voting on them is the best option. Winning is certainly not everything, but debating seems pointless when you can not trust that putting together a solid argument is an indication of a likely victory. When the voters do not know what to look for, this would be much more common and will cause all debates to suffer, not just the spam ones. The resolution is negated.
The Christian Doctrine of Creation Ex Nihilo is not supported by the KCA.

CXN in terms of Christianity does state that God created and Christian theology states that God transcends nature. It is not incorrect to combine the two.The universe does not require a material cause. In fact, the space-time continuum and all included within it cannot have a material cause, but require a cause outside. Something cannot create itself because it does not yet exist. In order for matter to exist, which the KCA shows, there has to be a cause which transcends matter. Matter cannot have a material cause, as such would require it to be timeless and transcending of natural laws and limits, but it exists within the space-time continuum, so it cannot be timeless but is subject to time. It also cannot transcends the laws and limits it is subject to.Nothingness contains no potential, so that is why I stated that the universe was created from God, not from nothing, but out of nothing. God is not nothing, and therefore has potential. Because he is omnipotent and transcends space and time, he is not subject to any laws of nature or the fact that no matter exists. Besides an omnipotent and transcending creator, there is no way matter could be caused to exist without anything already in existence within space and time.
The Christian Doctrine of Creation Ex Nihilo is not supported by the KCA.

Premise 1:A table, car, and human are all things made naturally. Creatio ex nihilo (CXN) states that God, a being that transends nature, created all from nothing. There was nothing, he spoke, and then there was everything. His ability to do such is why we call him "God."Premise 2:It is not an acceptable way to end that sentence. The word "from" indicates origin, and saying that something came from nothing implies that nothin did nothing to make something. To say nothing was the origin of the universe makes no sense and goes against all logic. Nothing plus nothing is nothing, not something and certainly not everything. CXN states that God is the origin of the universe, so the phrase would be "The universe began to exist from God" or "The universe began to exist with God as the origin."The complete and correct way to word CXN is "The universe began to exist from God, but before there was nothing but God."The purpose of the Kalam argument is to show that the universe had a cause, that it just didn't appear for no reason. CXN states that the cause is God. It is one possible way to fill in the Kalam argument, and in no way do the two contradict.We know that mater exists. But why? According to Occam's razor, the simpleist answer should be considered unless disproven. The simpleist answer to the existence of matter is that it was made by something. As Pro has proven in his above argument, all natural methods of creation require somthing for the created to be created out of. This means that the universe has a supernatural creator: God.
The Christian Doctrine of Creation Ex Nihilo is not supported by the KCA.

Just to get this out of the way, I will tell you everything I stand for and any biases I may contain. I am a Christian who is a literal young earth creationist, that is, I believe God created everything in the universe in 6 days approximately 6000 years ago. My doctrines are most similar to that of Eastern Orthodoxy. Let the debate begin.
The Christian Doctrine of Creation Ex Nihilo is not supported by the KCA.

There is no good and valid argument that can be made for the Christian doctrine of Creation Ex Nihilo. The KCA (Kalam Cosmological Argument), for example, ambiguously attempts to establish the universe having an efficient cause. At face value, this seems acceptable on the grounds that all things within the universe exist causally like so:A: All things that come into being have a causeB: The universe came into beingC: Therefore, the universe had a causeBut, this can be reduced to "Stuff is made by stuff from other stuff" ...So? It is my contention that this argument cannot support the Christian doctrine of Creation Ex Nihilo. I welcome anybody to validly link the KCA to the Christian God. I look forward to a productive exchange of thoughts with any would-be challenger. Thank you for your consideration.The Con must accept that Creation Ex Nihilo is what Christian Doctrine posits as the cause of the origin of the universe. They must use the KCA to show this doctrine as more true than false.
creation v.s evolution

so n7 you are telling me i am a liar? note that person who did the video that claimed it was edited was an atheist so of course he is going to pretend the video is edited for the sake of evolution. also god is perfect and holy so he would not order everyone to kill babies. and everyone is saying nowadays "you have to have equality" so are you saying that that particular person because of what he did should not even be considered worthy of being listened to? yes i understand the fact that he did terrible things but if evolution is true and its all by chance everyone is worthless. we all came from soup so it doesn't really matter. another thing with equality is why does your theory eat up tax dollars while the truth is being pushed away? and another thing is the moon moves away about an inch away from us every year so why isn't the moon far extremely away? that makes no sense! back to you con
creation v.s evolution

yes sorry i was doing research on the second law of thermodynamics and got it mixed up with the law of angular motion. but anyway i have another question why are there over 6 planets going backwards (including moons) did they all get hit with asteroids? that seems very unlikely! also forks and spoons are similar did they evolve from the knife?also if there is a change in 3 nucleotides you will die well evolution needs a change in 3 MILLION nucleotides so how do you explain that? plus did you know Richard Dawkins himself says there may be proof of an intelligent designer here is the proof also is the big bang not an astronomical event in evolution? if it is not then your entire belief does not work. and one last closing question where do you get your morals from? because as far as I can tell there is no way to get your morals here is a quote from Jeffery Dahmer a mass murderer "If a person doesn"t think there is a God to be accountable to, then"then what"s the point of trying to modify your behaviour to keep it within acceptable ranges? That"s how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime. When we, when we died, you know, that was it, there is nothing"" Jeffrey Dahmer, in an interview with Stone Phillips, Dateline NBC, Nov. 29, 1994. i believe in the bible and that it is the TRUE word of god and that is where i stand my ground back to you n7
creation v.s evolution

Thanks creationismisright for initiating this debate. Pro’s argument attacks evolution on the basis of angular momentum, not the second law of thermodynamics. The second law deals with entropy increasing in an isolated system [1], not momentum. That’s the minor error in his argument, the major error is that the nebular hypothesis can perfectly explain why planets like Venus are rotating the wrong way. The conservation of angular momentum says that if a body is rotating in some direction, then some other part is rotating in the opposite [2]. With planets like Venus, an object hit it in the early chaotic universe and “the combined momentum between the two objects averaged out to the current rotational speed and direction.” [3] Anyway, the big bang and astrophysics have nothing to do with evolution. Even if Pro’s argument is correct, his conclusion doesn’t follow. I will now present an argument in favor of evolution Genetics We are very genetically similar to other creatures. The best explanation for this is evolution. One example is ERVs, which are short for endogenous retroviruses. These are sequences in a genome that come from ancient viral infections. They get passed down and remain inside the genome. So, if a common ancestor had a viral infection, then we should expect to see ERVs in similar places when we examine two species. Douglas Theobald said “There are at least seven different known instances of common retrogene insertions between chimps and humans, and this number is sure to grow as both these organism's genomes are sequenced. The picture below shows a phylogenetic tree of several primates, including humans, from a recent study which identified numerous shared endogenous retroviruses in the genomes of these primates . The arrows designate the relative insertion times of the viral DNA into the host genome. All branches after the insertion point (to the right) carry that retroviral DNA - a reflection of the fact that once a retrovirus has inserted into the germ-line DNA of a given organism, it will be inherited by all descendants of that organism.” [4] Here is the chart The best explanation for this is that humans and chimps indeed had a common ancestor. Evolution is affirmed. Back to Pro [1] http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu... [2] http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu... [3] http://www.universetoday.com... [4] Theobald, Douglas L. "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent." The Talk.Origins Archive. Vers. 2.89. 2012. Web. 12 Mar. 2012 <http://www.talkorigins.org...;
creation v.s evolution

hello i am starting a creation evolution online debate with you i believe (and am pro) for creationism con will be against creationists to start off the debate i will have a question why does evolution defy physics it defy' s the second law of thermodynamics if some high school football players spin some little kids clockwise on a merry-go-round here is what will happen step #1: the kids will say "faster faster" step #2: at about 30 miles an hour their hanging on for their life step #3: at 60 miles an hour their yelling but their yelling something different "STOP STOP SLOW DOWN" at step 4: they still go faster at step 5: the child will fall off but will spin off clockwise. until he hits resistance like a tree or a pole. notice how the kids spin clockwise well if the big bang is true why do we have planets spinning backwards?
Repairing a building is different than construction.

Let me elaborate here a little more: Construction- The act or process of constructing. Constructing- To form by assembling or combining parts. Repairing- To restore to sound condition after damage or injury. Pro said, "If I rip a piece of paper and then take another piece of paper and glue it to the ripped one, is that construction? " Based on the definitions that I said above, and most likely to others as well, it is construction. You are basically assembling your pieces of paper and combining them. That means that you are in the act or process of constructing, which is what construction means as stated above.
Repairing a building is different than construction.

Since this debate is based purely on opinion and my opponent doesn't want me to use sources I shall give you the definitions of the various words that I think fit the word. Construction- To assemble with parts or tools. Repair- To construct a fix on something that has been damaged. What I am basically saying is I don't believe that all constructions are repairs, but all repairs are essentially construction. Whenever you repair something, you still have to construct or assemble parts. The repair doesn't automatically happen, construction is what eventually makes the repair possible. However, whenever you construct something, it isn't always repairing.
Repairing a building is different than construction.

This debate is purely opinion. In a previous debate, my opponent said "Construction is to construct via parts. Construct (according to thefreedictionary. com) means to form by assembling parts. You can still repair by doing that because it is still in sense assembling parts" That may be the dictionary definition, but I believe that making repairs to a building should not be called "construction," to me and probably many others, when I see or hear the word construction, I think of people building a house or skyscraper, not simply repairing something, but actually making something that was not there before construction had started.
resolved that marijuana is bad for your health

In round one I provided a counter-point to his statement "while high on marijuana you could severly hurt yourself or worse" Based on my opponents answer he does not possess conclusive medical evidence that the person he knew actually lost brain cells, he is merely speculating based on this person's declining grades. Declining grades could be a result of many factors, such as family issues, mental stress, depression, or just plain teen slacking off among other things. I said "There have been injuries in all physical sports." Which there have been. Also, I made it a point to use the word "physical" ruling out sports that do not involve much physical contact I also said many users do so socially provided by their friends at no cost usuall
resolved that marijuana is bad for your health

before I refute I wish to point out that my opponent didn't ever say anything about while being high that one could severely hurt themselves or worse. while persons I know were under the influence they have lost brain cells and lost some of the ability to get good grades and in return get a good job for money and have a better future. my opponent said that all physical sports cause damage but forgot to mention recreational sports such as video games a a sport, also I would like to say you can get hurt in sports as much as you could get hurt by walking. but if one could see ahead and prevent getting hurt at all. he also said they would spend all of their money on video games which is not true they could borrow from their friends o
resolved that marijuana is bad for your health

Before I refute, I wish to point out that my opponent did not rebut my argument that marijuana is not proven to cause loss of brain cells, and did not contend with my argument that a large percentage of marijuana users do so in a social sense. It is the individual choice on what to spend money on. Making the argument that marijuana users spend so much money on the drug that they in turn have none to spend on necessities is mute, as a human could make that choice with just about any other thing. An example would be someone so enamored with video games that he spends all his money on them, leaving none left for food/water. There have been injuries in all physical sports. Adrenaline causes humans to not think clearly as well.
resolved that marijuana is bad for your health

No medical tests have proven that marijuana kills brain cells. This is pure speculation. In fact, recent experiments have proven that there is no correlation between marijuana usage (even long term) and the loss of brain cells. The very notion is based off of a speculative report. Yes, marijuana gets you high. You did not provide any reasons why this is "bad for your health." Care to provide any examples or cite any evidence to your third statement? When? Also, it can be argued that while driving down the street you could severely hurt yourself or worse. Same applied to almost any activity. In fact, I would argue that simply playing sports is more dangerous than "abusing" marijuana. A large percentage of marijuana users do so socially.
Choose Your Topic, Liz! <3

Greetings, Lizzie Liz, and welcome to the showI'll allow you to choose your topic an' side, yo yo yo! It's like a debating version of nomic, only for prosYou can accept round one or start makin' your caseBut in the latter situation, last round do you have to waiveI only request nothing religious or any old debate I've doneRepeating my side once more is just a dumb clone I trust in your judgement, lots of freedom I'm givin yarI know I'll probably lose to this amazing debating all-starBut I will gain much, I believe, as debatability--Will give me such knowledge as oxygen to a tree Go ahead, accept, but make your choice wisely For you cannot change it once you post your responseI don't really care when you accept, I'm free--speaking timelyBy accepting you agree that the creative rap above will play no part in the judges' decisions within arguments within the debate. Thank you. :DRap translation:Choose your topic. If you accept round one, then you can have the last round for rebuttals and conclusion. If you start round one, you leave last round empty. I believe this will be a good debate! Accept when you can.