BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Nuclear weapons should not be abolished if you could abolish them.

The semi/non-lethal uses of nuclear weapons can save lives. There are many uses of nuclear weapons other than vaporizing a city. A nuclear weapon can be used as an Electromagnetic Pulse if detonated high in the atmosphere. When a nuclear weapon is detonated that high in the atmosphere there is no fallout, no soot produce to cause a nuclear winter, and no nitric oxides produce to weaken the ozone. Plus use of a nuclear weapon to produce an EMP produces few casualties, while some would die because of vehicle accidents and lack of electricity, it would over all kill fewer people than conventional weapon would require for the same effect. Nuclear weapons are the produce the largest explosion of all current weapons making them some of the best options to intercept a large number of ballistic missiles close together. While alternatives are cheaper for taking out single ballistic missiles, nuclear weapons are the best for taking out a volley or another nuke using counter measures. The shear fact that nukes are the best counter for massive amounts of ballistic missiles is a good enough reason to keep them. Low yield airburst nuclear weapons can be used to take out hardened missile silos. While conventional weapons have some capabilities to take out enemy ballistic missile silos, they don't have as high of probability of success as a single accurate nuclear blast. It is important to note that air bursting nuclear weapons produce little nuclear fallout and little nitric oxide. Also important to note is that low yield nuclear weapons produce less intense flash meaning they are significantly less likely to produce a firestorm and thus would not produce a nuclear winter. On top of that, enemy missile silos aren't filled with much flammable matter as a city thus producing no soot. Nuclear weapons can also be used to destroy incoming meteors and asteroids. It is important to know that meteors and asteroids can do several times more damage than any nuclear weapon can. Giving up the strongest thing we have against these forces of destruction seem like a bad idea. I much rather have a nuclear weapon and not need it than need a nuclear weapon and not have it.
Cheating on tests is ethical.

For clarification during this round I would like to offer the following definition: ethical is defined by Cambridge Dictionary as "relating to beliefs about what is morally right and wrong." It is known that plagiarism, is wrong because it is illegal. Cheating on a test is plagiarism. Plagiarism is defined by Oxford Dictionary as the "practice of taking someone else"s work or ideas and passing them off as one"s own." When you cheat on a test you are taking another person's information or knowledge and claiming it as you own. Tests are designed to test your knowledge on a specific topic and if a person just copies another's ideas, they are defeating the point of the test. Cheating on tests is not only unethical but also illegal as it is a form of plagiarism. For these reasons it is obvious that cheating on tests is not legal.
In the United States, organized political lobbying is a just check on government

Sorry for forfeiting, I haven't had much time. I'll start by attacking 1) "The argument that he makes here is that jury nullification isn't fair, makes mistakes very often, and isn't a check on government. It seems as if Pro has switched his position, and is now attacking jury nullification. So, you can flow through this first contention to the negative, since Pro himself is arguing against nullification as a fair check." I would kindly like to ask my opponent to read my Contention 1. I stated that jury nullification is a just check on government, no where in my contention 1 did I say that it was unjust 2) "a. This argument again seems to be in Con's favor, since it argues against the use of nullification in the Zenger trial, and against the use of nullification to make the application of law unfair, and thus, unjust." My opponent did not explain why the con gets the point. I stated that the Zenger case was unjust, and he should have not been set free. Again, he is misquoting me 3) "Once again, Pro's arguments work for Con, since he openly states that nullification does not stress the "right and duty of the people" to protest unjust government action." cross-supply what i said before finally, I would like to ask my opponent to read my case and see that I have not agreed with him. Please vote PRo! ~Radicalguy44
Evolution vs Creationism

Why did we evolve to become intelligent creatures?" Because a higher intelligence meant a higher chance of survival. After many generations, natural selection killed off the dumb, because they, being dumb, couldn't survive. "Why did our "common ancestor" give rise to two different species." Because us and monkeys/apes could survive. "Where did our intelligence come from? You see, we have a conscious. Where did this come from?" http://cognet.mit.edu... "Evolution has a lot to do with complexity. When you say it does not care about complexity, you are hiding the fact that comllexity has a lot to do with the explanation of our origin." Maybe you forgot what I said in the previous round: "Complexity is just a side effect of evolution." That's why it does a lot with the explanation of our origin! "He also said that we HAVE evolved. We have produced Lactose tolerance. This is correct but it took a very long time for that to happen. Anyways that is not proof of evolution. That is just an immune characteristic that has helped us adapt to this world. Those two are very different things." It is not proof of evolution. It was evidence for evolution today. And an immune characteristic that helps us adapt to this world is evolution! "God created the Heavens and the earth in six days. His omnipotent power is shown even today. The masterpieces he makes at dawn to the beautiful sunset at dusk. God created science, thus he is not part of science, which means that creation did happen." Your evidence for God, or for the Bible being true? I don't see anything.
Evolution vs Creationism

My opponent stated, and I quote, "Evolution does not care about complexity". Ok so lets say evolution did happen. Why did we evolve to become intelligent creatures? Why did our "common ancestor" give rise to two different species. Atheist's cannot explain another question. Where did our intelligence come from? You see, we have a conscious. Where did this come from? There was no factor that could have changed the process, thus disproving evolution. Evolution has a lot to do with complexity. When you say it does not care about complexity, you are hiding the fact that comllexity has a lot to do with the explanation of our origin. My opponent states that pseudogenes shows us our ancestry, it does not prove that we come from ape-like creatures. Pseudogenes makes minor changes in ones body, whether the offspring has different colored eyes from its parents, color of hair, ect. Its as plain and simple as that. He also said that we HAVE evolved. We have produced Lactose tolerance. This is correct but it took a very long time for that to happen. Anyways that is not proof of evolution. That is just an immune characteristic that has helped us adapt to this world. Those two are very different things. God created the Heavens and the earth in six days. His omnipotent power is shown even today. The masterpieces he makes at dawn to the beautiful sunset at dusk. God created science, thus he is not part of science, which means that creation did happen. From Evolution to Creation to New Creation
Evolution vs Creationism

if we supposedly evolved from apes and grew to be an inteligent species, why did the apes stop evolving." Because we didn't evolve from apes! Us and apes share a common ancestor, but we refer to that common ancestor as "ape-like" "Why did we evolve to be intelligent organisms and apes not. Have they built civilazations? No. Have they learned how to speak a fluent language? No." Evolution doesn't care about intelligence, civilizations, or fluent languages. It only cares about what survives and what doesn't. In short, EVOLUTION DOESN'T CARE ABOUT COMPLEXITY! Complexity is just a side effect of evolution. "My opponent also mentioned pseudogenes. These CANNOT CHANGE THE SPECIES IN ANY WAY OR FORM." You are right. They can't. But, what they can do is show us ancestry! Remember what I said, "If two species have the same pseudogene, it is very strong evidence for common descent." "But have you seen a human give birth to another species?" No. Evolution is gradual. In fact, if that happened, that would literally disprove the entirety of evolution! "So why haven't we kept evolving?" Because we have! We have evolved to develop Lactose Tolerance, (Yes, the first humans all had Lactose Intolerance) Blue Eyes, and Disease Resistant Genes! http://mentalfloss.com... "Let me just say the source that my opponent used is very unreliable." Let me just say that you can Google the transitional fossils listed in the article. About all of them should be valid.
Evolution vs Creationism

My opponent states that evolution is clearly a fact because of the evidence we have in fossils. We know for sure that there are organism's fossils in the ground and many of them are weird looking creatures. But they can't explain one thing. Why dont they exist today. Let me make myself clear. For example, if we supposedly evolved from apes and grew to be an inteligent species, why did the apes stop evolving. Why did we evolve to be intelligent organisms and apes not. Have they built civilazations? No. Have they learned how to speak a fluent language? No. I can say many other things. Now, I bet my opponent will say sopmething like there was a genetic change over time or something like that. Well, you still would end with the same product. There is no factor that could have changed the system. Logically if you breed two dogs your going to get a dog. Although maybe foxes or wolves are similar to dogs, you are still going to get a dog. There is no possible refutal in that. My opponent also mentioned pseudogenes. These CANNOT CHANGE THE SPECIES IN ANY WAY OR FORM. They can cause change in the genes and maybe change a few things. Without these we would all look impresively similar. But have you seen a human give birth to another species? I haven't. This does not strongly support evolution. Also, scientists estimate that it took some millions of years for apes to evolve into humans. This happened several million years ago, say scientists. So why haven't we kept evolving? Why hasn't our body genetically changed? Because evolution never happened. This leaves space for only one explanation. God created man in his image. (Genesis 1:26). We did not evolve, we were created by God. Let me just say the source that my opponent used is very unreliable. www pseudogene.org/background.php Evolution to Creation to New Creation by: Ted Peters
Evolution vs Creationism

Let's look through my "fossil record", so to speak... AHA! First of all, evolution is backed up by many discoveries and scientific papers. Here are two discoveries backing evolution: 1. Fossil Record The fossil record includes numerous fossils showing evolution. From tiktaalik to Australopithecus garhi, it is clear that evolution is a fact. 2. Pseudogenes Pseudogenes are like normal DNA code except that they are deactivated from a mutation. It is much like a spelling error in a book or a misplaced island on a map. If two species have the same pseudogene, it is very strong evidence for common descent, one of the key factors for evolution. Here is one more link that will basically sum up evolution's vast collection of evidence: http://en.wikipedia.org...
Minecraft is more realistic than normal life

Minecraft cannot be more realistic than normal life...... Because the only game more realistic then normal life is MARIO KARTThings that happen in Mario Kart that are more realistic then Minecraft:1) Mario Kart teaches you that life is unfairAnyone who has ever been hit by multiple blue shells in one race knows what Im talking about2) In Mario Kart you have friends and enemiesIn Minecraft you fly solo for your whole life and almost never see anybody else, not very realistic. 3) There is no God in Mario KartThis relates back to argument number 1 but is also its own argument since in minecraft you sort of are a God whereas in Mario Kart there simply is no God.... Of those two which seems to be more plausible in reality? 4) Some people are just naturally sh*tty driversAsians, Old people, Girls, all of them are awful at driving much like some of the characters in Mario Kart... Minecraft doesnt have that5) There are tons of different cars you can driveThey have tons of cars and different models in Mario Kart which is remarkable similar to how is it in reality, but the same cannot be said for minecraft.6) Abilities/PowersAs the game progresses, people in Mario Kart find out they have abilities or 'powers' that are unique and they can use to better themselves or to make their opponents look bad, causing the driver to rise through the rankings and make great achievements in life.... In minecraft it doesnt quite work the same way. ================================================================Those are my opening arguments, I would like to point out that the pro worded the resolution wrong though, the Resolution should be: 'Minecraft is more realistic then Mario Kart', I only noticed it after I had accepted the debate, so my badBack to you Pro ;D
Minecraft is more realistic than normal life

First of all, let me clarify that I am onlyh referring to single player and LAN survival mode. Let's begin :) And when I say realistic, I mean in attitude, accepted beliefs, and day to day practices. 1. Gathering resources In minecraft, gathering and using resources is a step-by-step, methodical process. You cannot skip any steps. You must first gather the correct raw materials (wood and more wood), craft them by yourself in a structual way, and then use that tool (pickaxe, shovel, etc...) to mine better resources, and continue the process. When a tool runs out, there's no insurance company. You have to build another one. This is what being realistic is all about. The currency in minecraft is rare, you need hard-to-get tools just to mine it after you find it, and even then, you need to find a village. The currency's value is assured because of how rare and hard to obtain it is. In normal life, you can get any resource you want if you can print something 3/100ths of the value of the thing you're going to get! It's faith based, and an illusion. 2. The world is accepted as ever expanding In normal life, we assume we know everything about the Earth. We've always assumed that. We assumed that we are the center of the universe. Even now, most of us believe that some omnipotent sky wizard made the entire universe just for us. How is that realistic? The best known theory besides omnipotent sky wizard is Big Bang. The universe magically appeared out of nowhere! In Minecraft, their is a clear, concise theory: It just is. We don't know everything, and can't know everything. That's pretty realistic to me. 3. Evolution holds up In normal life, even though humans have had no need for broad intelligence for a while now because of easier life, and things have been focused on strength more, we still maintain our intelligence. In Minecraft, evolution actually works. Steve (the man you play as) is evolved as intelligent, strong (he can break wood apart with his bare hands!), and resourceful because of all the monsters, and it stays that way only because of the monsters. In Minecraft, mankind staying intelligent actually makes sense. Intelligence serves a purpose, instead of lingering on for no evolutionary reason.
You can be good without God.

Thanks for the response. On the quick topic of Romans 2:14, it doesn't change the meaning of Romans 2:15. In fact it says pretty much the same thing: "(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law." [1] Anyway on with the other points you've made. Good is essentially being used in the same way as moral in this debate, moral being following morality so yes exhibiting morality and following it does make you a moral person. The example you give of Al Capone (interestingly a christian [2] ) is one of a person exhibiting tendencies towards morality but not consistently following it. On the subject of atheists who are generally not considered to have "done evil" I do not think you could say that a third of the British population are evil, this is a label which is usually applied in very unusual circumstances and to apply it to well over 100 million people (it's difficult to get precise numbers for the number of atheists as it is usually non religious that is mentioned rather than atheist, non religious being a label which includes many non affiliated theists like me) renders the term meaningless. Seeing as evil was a concept that had a meaning before the founding of modern Christianity in the 4th century AD it is ridiculous to claim that all non Christians are evil. My argument boils down to: 1. Morality is an innate human behavior more or less unaffected by religious affiliation. 2. No empirical study has ever shown theists to be substantially more immoral. On the subject of three things you single out as being immoral, murder, rape and adultery (things I would agree are immoral) theists are over represented in these groups. For instance increasing religiosity leads to higher rate of adultery [3]. [1] NIV bible Romans 2;14. [2] https://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://studysites.sagepub.com...
You can be good without God.

Thank you for your good argument, I hope I will be able to disprove it:It is true that all people show some for of morality, however, that does not make them good. Even the most evil people in history are moral in some way. For instance, what about Al Capone, who started Soup Kitchens during the Great Depression? Having some form of moral compass doesn't make you good. What is happening is that we are simply raising the bar above us:"Yeah, I do some pretty bad things, but I've never committed adultery! So don't you say that I'm evil!""Well, I do cheat on my wife sometimes, but so what? It's not like I've murdered anybody!""I murder people all the time! And it feels good! Hey, what are you looking at me like that for? Don't worry, I've never raped anyone, people who do that are the scum of the earth!"And so on and so forth...I see you've quoted Romans 2:15, however you have taken it out of context, not showing Romans 2:14 the passage before it.I would like to see you name one Non-Christian, let alone Atheist, who has not done evil.I look forward to hearing your reply.
You can be good without God.

Morality, specifically a moral compass seems to be something which is fairly inherit to humans. This is because of various selection pressures which have caused a tendency towards what Kropotkin termed mutual aid. Forms of basic morality have been demonstrated in multiple non-human species [1] [2]. Because of this I would posit that human morality is not only possible without a god but a natural human behavior likely not hugely effected by belief in a deity. There is also the issue of atheists being under represented in groups considered to have performed immoral actions (rape, murder ect [3]. Now this is likely nothing to do with theism and rather the socio-economic factors that differently effect various religious groups however it does show that atheists are almost certainly no less moral than their religious counterparts. And for what it's worth even the bible admits that people who don't believe in god can be moral [4]. [1] Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution by Pyotr Alexeyevich Kropotkin [2] Nice Guys Finish First, The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins [3] http://www.patheos.com... [4] Romans 2:15
Choose any Topic!!!!

My opponent clearly doesn't even *look* at the rules. It showed that I get to choose the side, but he chooses the topic, the 10 topics. He must have not read the part that I get to choose the sides. In the structure, and in few other places I have shown that *I* get to choose the side, not my opponent. If my opponent still desires to debate this with me, even though he misread the topic, he can. But I give him the option to just tie this debate, and go on with it, as he mis-read the rules. But if he stills wants to debate, (the topics are topics I don't like debating. .. ), then I will be choosing Euthanasia the topic, " Resolved: The USFG should legalize Euthanasia. " I will be Pro on this topic, and lannan will be Con on this topic. (Sorry lannan, but I agree or don't know the topics of all the things you gave)Euthanasia: the act or practice of killing someone who is very sick or injured in order to prevent any more suffering [1]. Legalize: to make (something) legal : to allow (something) by law [2]. So to rephrase the resolution, it is this. "Resolved: We are allowed, and it should be legal to kill to prevent any more suffering. "Now let's start the debate, or tie the debate? Another choice for Con! !! !
Choose any Topic!!!!

Resolved: The USFG should return to the Gold Standard. (Con) Resolved: The USFG should privatize Social Security Pension Plan based on the Chilean Model. (Pro) Resolved: The USFG should increase taxes on Stock Gains. (Con) Resolved: The USFG should abolish Capital Punishment. (Pro) Resolved: The USFG should legalize Euthanasia. (Pro) Resolved: On balance, civil Asset Forfeiture should be illegal. (Pro) Resolved: Apple should unlock iPhones of suspected terrorists for the FBI. (Con) Resolved: The USFG should bring back waterboarding. (Con) No-Fly-No-Buy (Con) Resolved: The US ought to introduce military conscription. (Con)
Choose any Topic!!!!

I made this possible to accept, so if you want to accept, just click accept.When you accept, you need to list 10 topics. I will pick one.Structure1. Pro makes the rules/ Con lists 10 topics2. Pro chooses the side, and makes definitions/ Con accepts3. Pro and Con makes arguments (No rebuttals)4. Rebuttals from both 5. Defense from both and Conclusion Just because it says that I am Pro doesn't mean I am Pro, I can choose Pro or Con.Structures are part of the rules.Rules1. No FF's2. Follow Structure3. No trolling4. No kritiks5. Sources can be posted in an external link6. No follwing rules= lossNow, let's start!!!
Religion is horseshit:

1). Even if it isn't true what is a weak minded person HAS to believe in an after life? There is sence there. Either that or they would stress and stress and be unable to sychologically function. 2). At least religion believes that everything came from some cause and not absolutly nothing or the "singularity's" self. And i do assume you are on the side of the Big Bang Theory just so you know. A lot of my reason is leveling how bad all ideas of creation are then isolation christianity as the most reasonable. Christianity models a perfect god and can be interpreted as non random. 3). You asked about religion, not christianity. All through history. Religion. Every society ever pretty much. Religion makes things happen. "Manifest destiny", "god" wanted the pilgrims to spread to the west coast. Does anyone believe that now? Now if the christian god existed then i guess it is plausable but seriously. I'm pretty sure we had gullibility there. But we are a country this large because of it. The crusades. People commit suicidal terrorist attacks in the name of their religion. Religion has a purpose. Religion is not for nothing. There is sence in religion however it is used.