BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gay marriage should stay legal in all 50 states

I concede this round as well.I truly apoligize to all viewers for the forfeiture of the entire debate. I simply don't have any time on weekends, and this has forced me to another forfeiture. Because this isn't the first time, and it probably won't be the last.Anyway, would my partner accept a repeat of this same debate? I do want to argue this topic, and it seems that we both could improve on formatting and participation....Thanks,
Gay marriage should stay legal in all 50 states

But the voters will decide if you broke the rules. Please keep your opening argument short at the max 3,500 characters. For the opening round. (I will post sources in comment section) Road map: Economic growth, Personal freedom, How does it affect you? , The Religious argument. Economic growth: According to the Huffington post same-sex marriage would help the economy grow one of the ways it would help it grow is by bringing in 20 million to 40 million more taxes! Also, catch this when New York legalized same-sex marriage they pulled in a whopping 259 million dollars by License fees and wedding related spending. And, the more weddings the more money for the government. And, over 60 companies signed a document supporting same-sex marriage because it would make it easier for them to hire people because gay marriage being illegal changes the job application dramatically. Personal Freedom, How does it affect you? , The religious argument. First lets take a look at this: That is 60% of the US population now agrees with Same-sex marriage. People are realising this because everyone deserves to be equal the government doesn't have the right to reach in to someone's private life and tell them who they can marry this is a free country we have the right to make our own choices if we want to marry a person of the same sex we can marry a person of the same-sex. Lets look at something else Abortion religions are against it but it is the ethical thing to do to give woman their rights! The government doesn't have the right to tell a female "You have to give birth" and how are the religions affected? Are they performing the abortions? No. Religions have the right to their belief's I will say that but there is a clear separation of church and state. Gay marriages can be performed but churches won't be forced to perform them! A religion has the right to reject a marriage if they so choose. But that shouldn't affect someone's love and companionship for each other. A person has the right to personal liberty and freedom the government would take away those rights if gay marriage were illegal. That is my short opening argument I hope you keep yours short as well or else that would be a violation of rules. Good luck to you!
Gay marriage should stay legal in all 50 states

RESOLUTION: "Gay marriage should stay legalized"As requested, I will be arguing that "gay marriage should be illegalized in all 50 states". Some basic rules to keep the debate friendly an prevent subversive tactics from either side. RULES:(1) No Trolling(2) No Kritiks (challenging basic assumptions: Ex. "The government doesn't exist")(3) No deconstructional and offensive statements in neither the comments nor the actual posts. (4) No arguments may be presented in the final round. (5) No changes to the debate's structure, definitions, or rules can be made without public consent from both debators. Any offense will signify the forfeiture of the entire debate, unless a middleground is agreed upon by both debators (it probably will be)(PS - to my partner - since this is pretty much your debate, feel free to edit the rules in the comments. I'll probably approve of everything. )DEFINITIONS:Gay - HomosexualStay - remain in a specified state or positionLegal - permitted by lawALL DEFINITIONS INFLUENCED BY GOOGLE*END OF SETUP*
Voluntary Euthanasia

PrefaceVarrack approached me about doing this debate, and I think it will be an interesting discussion. Euthanasia is an important question now more than ever, as more and more places begin considering the merits of some form of euthanasia. I look forward to an engaging and insightful discourse.There is a minimum of 2,500 ELO needed to vote on this debate. Debaters have 72 hours and 10,000 characters per round to make their cases.Full TopicVoluntary euthanasia is morally justifiable for terminally ill, adult patients who have a reliable prognosis of 6 months or less to live.TermsVoluntary Euthanasia - when a life is painlessly ended or allowed to end at the request or with the volition of the patientMoral - concerning principles of right and wrong behaviorJustifiable - capable of being justified, where "justified" means having a sufficient or good reason for somethingTerminally Ill - indicating that a person has a disease or injury that will eventually end their lifeAdult - a person who is 18 years or olderReliable - believable; more likely to be true, accurate, or correct than notPrognosis - a judgement by a panel of doctors that estimates the amount of time a person has remaining to liveRules1. No forfeits2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be individually provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final round; R1 is just for acceptance4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere5. No trolling6. No "kritiks" of the topic (i.e. arguments that challenge an assumption in the resolution)7. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add resolutional definitions8. Debaters may propose competing ideas of what "morality" means and how it should be interpreted9. The BOP is Shared; Con must argue that Voluntary Euthanasia is not morally justifiable10. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a lossStructureR1. AcceptanceR2. Pro's Case, Con's CaseR3. Pro rebuts Con's Case, Con rebuts Pro's CaseR4. Pro defends Pro's Case, Con defends Con's CaseR5. Pro rebuts Con's Case, Con rebuts Pro's Case, both CrystallizeSources Consulted1 - http://www.merriam-webster.com...2 - http://www.bbc.co.uk...3 - http://www.nhs.uk...4 - http://www.euthanasia.com...Thanks......again to Varrack for this debate and to anyone who reads/vote on it.
Evolution is a ridiculous theory

"My opponent is denying scientific fact! They can't just "grow", or "form respiratory, digestive, and circulatory systems." He is not applying modern science. He agrees with the basic laws of genetics. How then can a resp. system be formed, if it is not in the genes? The offspring inherit what the parents (or parent if the organism is unisexual) pass on to them through genes. If the bacteria don't have a resp. system, they can't pass one on to the offspring! If we agree on modern genetics, how then can my opponent blatantly ignore them for the sake of his precious theory? Cold hard fact: If its not in the genes, its not going to be in the offspring. Plain and simple science." They had the genes through the adaptions, it is simple science. They got the respitory system through need, and possibly, mutation. But the adaptions do happen, like in the bacteria examples I provided. They became resistant to the antibiotics, even though they weren't before, and they passed the trait on to the offspring. "To all onlookers, these may seem pretty legit. However, not a one of them is. Please note that they ALL are only a partial fragment, (too small to make any assumptions on it) drawings, (NOT photographs, but a scientist's depiction of it) or have been filled in using clay. Do you see the large areas fill in with artificial substance, or clay in some cases? More than half of the piece has been filled in BASED ON WHAT SCIENTISTS THINK WOULD GO THERE. These are evolutionary scientists, who obviously want to prove the theory. This IN NOT legit evidence, since it is massively biased." All the fossil may not have been the real thing, but they were based off of the real fossils. For obvious reasons, it is not possible to pass the fossil around so everyone can get a look. As onlookers we must trust that scientific models are accurate and up to date. If PRO wants to show me ACTUAL evidence disproving these fossils I urge him to do so. ACTUAL EVIDENCE IS NOT BIAS. "Now, the affirmative side proposes a rational conclusion, based on solid facts. The negative, on the other hand, offers fake data in an attempt to uphold his theory. He denies modern science, science that we both agree on. He contradicts himself throughout his case. Therefore, you ought to vote Pro." My data is not fake, your conclusion is not rational, and modern science stands firm. Vote CON "Resolved, Evolution is a ridiculous theory." Negated.
Evolution is a ridiculous theory

So, my opponent and I agree with all but two main things in this debate. Here is the first: Your statment has a common problem. Most people ask how these changes are made. The changes are a series of small changes. Now all these changes are made because of a cause. For example, Single celled organisms needed to get more energy (food) so they grew larger into multiple celled organisms. Then they needed to transport energy and nutrients through their body so they formed the respitory, digestive, and circulation systems. It is through this cycle that they developed body systems in order to make their lives easier, somewhat like the bacteria in my sources becoming resistant to antibiotics. All organisms change due to our environment, like dogs shedding. Then, they pass these changes on to their offspring. My opponent is denying scientific fact! They can't just "grow", or "form respiratory, digestive, and circulatory systems." He is not applying modern science. He agrees with the basic laws of genetics. How then can a resp. system be formed, if it is not in the genes? The offspring inherit what the parents (or parent if the organism is unisexual) pass on to them through genes. If the bacteria don't have a resp. system, they can't pass one on to the offspring! If we agree on modern genetics, how then can my opponent blatantly ignore them for the sake of his precious theory? Cold hard fact: If its not in the genes, its not going to be in the offspring. Plain and simple science. Now to address your fossils. To all onlookers, these may seem pretty legit. However, not a one of them is. Please note that they ALL are only a partial fragment, (too small to make any assumptions on it) drawings, (NOT photographs, but a scientist's depiction of it) or have been filled in using clay. Do you see the large areas fill in with artificial substance, or clay in some cases? More than half of the piece has been filled in BASED ON WHAT SCIENTISTS THINK WOULD GO THERE. These are evolutionary scientists, who obviously want to prove the theory. This IN NOT legit evidence, since it is massively biased. Now, the affirmative side proposes a rational conclusion, based on solid facts. The negative, on the other hand, offers fake data in an attempt to uphold his theory. He denies modern science, science that we both agree on. He contradicts himself throughout his case. Therefore, you ought to vote Pro. "Resolved, Evolution is a ridiculous theory." Affirmed.
Evolution is a ridiculous theory

First let me define evolution as: The Development of higher species (Such as humans) that have evolved (or changed) from lower species as a result of natural selection and the passing down of common genes to the next generation. (Common ideas of "evolvees" are fish, apes, and even yeasts) My opponent has challenged me to prove why this is implausible. Now, to fully understand the theory of evolution, one must first have a basic understanding of genetics. Traits are passed down from one generation to the next by alleles. Alleles are located on the chromosomes, and determine the phenotype of an organism. Here is an important part: The phenotype of an organism is dependant on the genotype, or the genetic makeup of an organism. If the gene is not present, that neither can the phenotype. So, lets apply this to common evolutionary theories. One common theory is Lamarck's proposition of evolution. This basically says that phenotype is based on usage. He givs the examples of the blindness in moles, and the large claw on some crabs. Applying proven scientific facts, this cannot be true. Since phenotype is based on genotype, this cannot be the case. Another common theory is Darwin's. Similar problems occur within his theory. He says fish started walking on land, and turned into little crawlers, which turned into bigger critters, which turned into apes, which turned into humans. Again, science is against this theory. How does a fish get oxygen-competent lungs? Or even legs for that matter? How does it get toes? Lose its scales? Lose its fins? Get hair?! This is an absurd theory. Granted, neither Darwin nor Lamarck knew what we do now about genetics. They could not have know. But, with what we know for fact, these are absolutely implausible ideas. Another problem with the theory of evolution is the lack of intermediate-staged fossils. If evolution were true, there would be unmistakable fossil evidence. Because there are no such fossils, given a few mutated examples, Evolution is again proved false. IF it were true, there would have to be ample amounts of the fossils. So, combining what we KNOW FOR FACT about the fossil record, and genetics, we see evolution as COMPLETELY ridiculous. There is no way that this theory is even plausible. "Evolution is plausible." NEGATED. Now I leave my opponent with a challenge. I have proven evolution to be false. The burden is now on you to show I am wrong. You must deny scientific fact, for the sake of this absurd theory. (An impossible task for any man in his right mind) If you fail to do so, you surely have lost this debate. http://biology.about.com... http://www.bible.ca...
Evolution is a ridiculous theory

Though I feel that in this instance you have the burden of proof, I will start. Evolution is a theory that consists of small changes or adaptions to a species in order to make itself stronger and improve its life overall. This can be proven by changes that bacteria have made to be able to resist vaccines. My opponent must prove that this is implausible. SOURCES: 1. http://www.answersingenesis.org... 2. http://www.newscientist.com... 3. http://www.textbookofbacteriology.net...
The Christian birth story of Jesus is contradictory with other information in the bible.

I am greatly looking forward to this debate! Burdens: In the first Pro speech, the speaker will first accept and than lay down his arguments on why he believes the Christian birth story of Jesus Christ is contradictory with other parts of the Christian bible. Likewise, I will argue that this story is not contradictory. The reason I limited it to the birth of Jesus Christ was because it would be too broad of a debate to discuss the entire bible. Rules: Please remain ethical- I created this debate for an intelligent discussion, not a contest to see who could pointlessly mudsling the most. Only bring up external links with additional information if you are running out of characters...I would appreciate you posting as much of the argument in the text. Finally, have fun! I look forward to debating this controversial issue.
Employers should hire people with tattoos/minor body modifications.

Employers SHOULD hire people with tattoos and minor body modifications, such as piercings. It is known that there is always a line that should not be crossed when going for a job. Don't wear your ripped up work shirt and "booty shorts" But, the work force has had a tight reign on body modifications, and it is unacceptable that people who need a job to feed a family or put themselves through school, etc, cannot get a job because of a tattoo or piercing. The line, it seems right now, is anything can get in the way of getting a job. If you have a tattoo of nearly anything, or a simple piercing such as a nose stud, you are most likely not going to get the job. Why is the line so high? If the person has the requirements or standards to get the job, the only thing that should get in the way of that is if the tattoos are offensive (contain profanity, etc) or the piercings are obsessive.
This House Believes that "Krishna Or Jesus could soon join the Avengers/ Justice League

My first Principle Argument will be: P: Krishna being on the Side of superheroes would give spiritual teaching and winning strategies to ensure good wins over evil. E: Krishna is a god of compassion, tenderness and a guide. He would make the Avengers believe in themselves as a team and help them in letting go of their ego and work as a team to stop the evil forces. E': Krishna has been a guide to Various devotees and has guided them to success Eg: The Mahabharat War was fought between Pandavas and Kauravs, Lord Krishna was a charioteer for Arjun and Guided him to the right path instead of Forfeiting himself. L: As a Neutral Protector, he guides everyone to the right path which makes us believe that Avengers could finally fight with all their might and strength as Avengers have one mission: Save the World from Evil When Superheroes come together they become mightier, but when a Spiritual leader comes and guides them they become Worthy.
The God Of The Bible Exists

*No round rules*No acceptance round; just start debating.ResolutionThe god of the bible exists.ProHas 4 sets of 10,000 characters to demonstrate that the god of the bible exists.ConHas only 3 sets of 10,000 characters to refute Pro's resolution that the god of the bible exists.*Definitions can be changed, before the debate, in the comments section, as long as both Pro and Con agree to them.Otherwise*Definitions below are agreed on by posting your first argument.Definitionsgod - the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority.http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...bible - the Christian scriptures, consisting of the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments.http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...exist - have objective reality or being.http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...May the better argument win.
The Resurrection of Jesus is a historically valid event.

In the final analysis there is no evidence that the biblical character called "Jesus Christ" ever existed. As Nicholas Carter concludes in The Christ Myth: "No sculptures, no drawings, no markings in stone, nothing written in his own hand; and no letters, no commentaries, indeed no authentic documents written by his Jewish and Gentile contemporaries, Justice of Tiberius, Philo, Josephus, Seneca, Petronius Arbiter, Pliny the Elder, et al., to lend credence to his historicity." (Source: http://www.truthbeknown.com...) & ALL CLAIMS OF JESUS DERIVE FROM HEARSAY ACCOUNTS No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus came well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings. Although one can argue that many of these writings come from fraud or interpolations, I will use the information and dates to show that even if these sources did not come from interpolations, they could still not serve as reliable evidence for a historical Jesus, simply because all sources about Jesus derive from hearsay accounts. Hearsay means information derived from other people rather than on a witness' own knowledge. Courts of law do not generally allow hearsay as testimony, and nor does honest modern scholarship. Hearsay does not provide good evidence, and therefore, we should dismiss it. http://www.nobeliefs.com... & The legitimate evidence ANY acclaimed ' holy-text ' is the words of ANY god(s) given to men remains a constant zero! ||popcorn||
The Resurrection of Jesus is a historically valid event.

As this is our last round, I wish to once again thank Conductor for attempting to debate this with me. Con: As I successfully predicted and successfully proved, your claims are all fraudulent and as a bonus you also exposed yourself as a malignant Sinner and hence a proven Story book jesus' reject and the combination of your lack of integrity and illegitimate claims and sins by resorting to personal name calling and Ad Hominem attacks against me (Conductor not Composer) only reinforces the illegitimacy of yourself, your preferred Story book and your arguments that ultimately rest upon insults in lieu of a shred of credibility for your ultimately defeated cause! According to your preferred Story book, you remain a proven Sinner and hence a proven jesus' reject (cf. 1 John 3:6,8) KJV Story book ) and ultimately a most Unworthy adversary = dishonest Satan! Conversely, you now have the excellent and successful examples of the extremely high standards I set of Truth, legitimate facts, high moral and intellectual integrity and no need to ever resort to personal attacks or insults or name calling as do you!
It is likely that a God or gods exist

My opponent graciously concedes the debate to me. Nevertheless, my opponent made a couple brief claims, so I feel compelled to answer them. In response to the Kalam Cosmological Argument, my opponent concedes that the universe had a cause of its existence. My opponent claims that it is illogical to assume that God was the cause, but I gave an argument for God being the cause, which he never responded to! He also claims that a causeless being is problematic, but I have established that the God or gods who created the universe never began to exist. Hence, they do not violate premise one of the argument; they do not necessarily require a cause of their existence. There is practically no response to the Fine-Tuning Argument other than questions on why the dinosaurs were there before humans. I am not defending a specific religion, and I see no reason how the answer to that question would undermine the fine-tuning argument. Again, my opponent gives very little response to the Argument from Religious Experiences. He does nothing to show how on atheism we would expect people to have religious experiences at all. Nor does he give any reason to believe that they are the result of aliens or that the experiences are in any way not veridical. His only attempts at arguments against the existence of God or gods consist in mere questions. Different religions give different answers to these questions. Since I am not defending a particular religion, I see no reason to address them in this debate. I am happy to talk to my opponent about such things through private messaging, however. My opponent graciously concedes the debate to me.
It is likely that a God or gods exist

Before I start, let me apologise. You probably have your strategy all worked out for the next 3 rounds. I will argue that its illogical to assume a god exists just because we dnt know what caused the universe. Not to mention the existance of a causeless being which creates its own set of improbabilities. As for fine tuning.... so what is the rest of the universe? Background noise? Created so we can see stars? And what's the deal with dinosaurs???? God created an entire species just so there decomposed bodies could supply us with petrolium? Lastly you bring up religious experiences. Many people have experiences they cant explain. So their minds try to give meaning to it. Some pick aliens. Some ghosts. But most choose religion as the majority of people are religious.... in return I will throw the paradoxes the existance of such a being would create. You'll say possible, I'll say not... Been there, done that....not interested. Lets go a different route. NOT SEMANTICS. You claim a God or Gods created the universe. Why? For what purpose? For us to worship him/them? Why would an immortal need us to worship him? wouldn't we be more likely to worship god if he showed himself? It doesn't make sense. Winning this debate is not important to me. I concede. Dnt bother pointing out that I'm not following the rules. You already win. Lets just debate. What is our purpose?