BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Evolution (Pro) VS. Adam And Eve (Con)

DEFINITION:Evolution Definitions:a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better Case 1: Proving EvolutionFirst, I would like to prove how evolution is real. In a shocking discovery, we share 98.6% of our DNA with an ape. (1) if you click into link, you can barely tell the ape and human chromosome apart! Yet, when you compare it to a mouse's chromosomes, you can clearly see the difference. This proves that the ape and humans are greatly related. This proves evolution. Still not satisfied? Well, we should prove evolution using man's best friend. It is proven we share 5% of our genome sequence with dogs and mouse. (2) this again proves evolution. Even dogs and mice have a scientific similarity! Here you can see the images of the human, mouse, and ape chromosomes. As you can see, this points towards evolution, as you can barely see the difference between the human and ape chromosome, but you can clearly see the difference between the mouse and the human. Here you can see the similarities of our brain. However, you will see our brain is considerably larger. This gives us the power to communicate and give us a sense of right and wrong. Here you may see how the skulls start out with a little similarities, but then has a bigger and bigger resemblance Here you can see the beginnings and current human skulls. When you look at the first one, you see it is very different. It then gradually evolves into the human skull we know today.Case 2: Adam And EveThe Bible self-destructs with everything science has taught us. The science of forensics disproves Adam and Eve 100 times over. If we are from Adam and Eve, We would practically be cousins with everyone in the world! No. This is scientifically impossible. Instead, forensics states that we are not all related. Adam and Eve also don't explain race. If we are all descendants from Adam and Eve, we would all be one race. Adam and Eve states they have two sons, Kain and Abel, but, WHERE THE HELL ARE THE GIRLS?!???!? They must have had something to repopulate with. It is also said Adam and eve knew how to speak, but even cavemen had no idea of the simplest languages! Wouldn't Adam and Eve have taught their children to speak their language? They also say that Adam and Eve eat from the tree of knowledge, yet, man has never found a tree that give knowledge of everything in the universe! The tree had a fruit, which means it probably had seeds, which would have made other trees similar to it, giving infinite knowledge of everything. They also say that the snake spoke at one time, yet, the snake has no vocal cords! (5) There is also evidence that the Earth is older than 4,000 years. Human footprints believed to be 40,000 years old have actually been older! It is 51,000 years old. (3) Even a tree shows the Earth is older than 4,000 years! (4) That is all Adam and Eve should be taken as. A story.1. http://www.amnh.org...2. http://news.nationalgeographic.com...3. http://www.berkeley.edu...4. http://www.dailymail.co.uk...5. http://www.infoplease.com...
Evolution (Pro) VS. Adam And Eve (Con)

I meant to take the pro side on this. Since this is a one sided argument really. We can debate all we wish about religion. When in truth it had to have been evolution. We have proof of the fact that it is real, All the skeletons and such. But in truth those cant be true solid facts, This argument is ridiculous. Since there can not be solid proof of either side that one is right. Since the historians can only claim that we have evolution through the skeletons, But written records of back then are just as good. If Adam and Eve were the ones doing it, it means everyone on the earth is apart of incest. If it was evolution it is further proved through that there are people were different colored skin. and not two people from totally different families will look the same. There is no solid evidence on who is right.
Is abortion bad

Thank you Con (Pro? ) Again, Con's argument suffers from the same flaw in her first and second round - no sources. My points stand - Vote Pro(Con? ) A few pointers for the future to Con 1. ) Sources, sources, sources. You absolutely need to use sources, and not just let them do the work for you. Also, check the biasses(? ) of your source- and dig deeper into it if needed! 2. )Structure. You seemed to just be having a sort of 'rant' - make sure you say things like 'now on to the points' 3. )Rebuttal is very important. If you do not rebut, then your opponents points always stand, meaning they autowin the debate!
Is abortion bad

Since life begins at conception, abortion is akin to murder as it is the act of taking human life. Abortion is in direct defiance of the commonly accepted idea of the sanctity of human life No civilized society permits one human to intentionally harm or take the life of another human without punishment, and abortion is no different. Adoption is a viable alternative to abortion and accomplishes the same result. And with 1.5 million American families wanting to adopt a child, there is no such thing as an unwanted child. An abortion can result in medical complications later in life; the risk of ectopic pregnancies doubles, and the chance of a miscarriage and pelvic inflammatory disease also increases. In the instance of rape and incest, proper medical care can ensure that a woman will not get pregnant. Abortion punishes the unborn child who committed no crime; instead, it is the perpetrator who should be punished. Abortion should not be used as another form of contraception. For women who demand complete control of their body, control should include preventing the risk of unwanted pregnancy through the responsible use of contraception or, if that is not possible, through abstinence. Many Americans who pay taxes are opposed to abortion, therefore it's morally wrong to use tax dollars to fund abortion. Those who choose abortions are often minors or young women with insufficient life experience to understand fully what they are doing. Many have lifelong regrets afterwards. Abortion frequently causes intense psychological pain and stress. P.S. im doing this so i can pass my debate class. sorry im not that good. btw your really good dont give up on debate.
Is abortion bad

okay here's my arguments. !. abortion can not only kill the baby but may cause future medical problems for the mother. 2. abortion promotes a culture in witch human life is disposable 3. the original Hippocratic oath traditionally taken by doctors when swearing to practice medicine ethically, forbids abortions 4. if women should become pregnant they should accept the responsibility that comes with producing a child. 5.women should not use abortion as a form of contraception. Many women have undergone three or more previous abortions. using it as a contraception method many women are using contraception are using it as birth control. links 1.http://afterabortion.org... 2. http://www.jillstanek.com... 3.http://www.abort73.com... 4.http://abortion.procon.org...
Is abortion bad

I feel like abortion is the most horrific way to hurt a child. I am against abortion no matter what. Abortion is a sad cruel way to end a baby's life. Over 1.2 million babies die because of abortion each year. What if the child that died could have grown up and become a doctor or cure cancer. While you are reading this a child is dying because of an adults ignorance. As early as 12 weeks a fetus has already formed a small full human body. By 8 weeks a fetus has formed a spine which means the fetus can feel pain. Dr. Nathan's an early proponent became a pro-life campaigner after he saw a 12 week old fetus scream during an abortion. If murder is not allowed, neither should abortion. In 2011 7.3% of all abortions occurs between 14-20 weeks gestation. 1.4% occurred 21 weeks gestation according to the CDC. The birth of a child is beautiful. Every year 2.4 million women or 14% of women are wanting to adopt, at least 1% of these women manage to complete an adoption.
ROBLOX Vs MC: Which one is better? (NOTE: This is not a copy)

First off: ROBLOX has a special type of word filter called SafeChat, this doesn't only censor words like f*** or sh**, but it also censores sites that are NOT from ROBLOX, (F inst. imgur.com) Second; Minecraft infact DOES end, only the world is VERY big (2 or 3 million blocks). But indeed, many ROBLOX games do end, but a lot of the popular and good games, either take longer, or do infact have no end at all (For inst. Phantom Forces, Dayz.). Third, indeed, ROBLOX is indeed less portable. Fourth: In ROBLOX you have SO MUCH freedom, the only limit, is your imagination (or your scripting skills, but then you can ask a developer). You don't have the hassle of going through plugin/mod installment/config, you just script it. Fifth: In ROBLOX yes, you have to pay annually or monthly for BC/TBC/OBC. But in MC, most plugins cost money, and keeping your server up costs money. Plus, in most Minecraft servers, you can donate real money for more/better stuff, which kcan inda refrence to BC/TBC/OBC.
ROBLOX Vs MC: Which one is better? (NOTE: This is not a copy)

Hello thank you KevinTOC for the opportunity to debate on this topic. For my first contention I would like to state that minecraft is way more kid friendly. In roblox there are no filters for the words that go through in a lot of games. Children shouldn't be exposed to such content. For my second contention, I would like to state that Minecraft is a game that is never ending. There is always more you can do. What I have noticed while playing roblox is that it "end" at a point for a lot of games. For instance the emojii, and donut tycoons. Once you have your factory finished there isn't much left to do. While in mine craft you can still build, mine, and explore more. For my third contention I would like to state that mine craft is more portable. What I mean by this is that you need wifi to play roblox on the other hand mine craft you can take anywhere. For instance I recently was on a plane for 10 hr. I couldn't play roblox on the other hand mine craft was available. Thankyou
ROBLOX Vs MC: Which one is better? (NOTE: This is not a copy)

First off, let's look at the pros: ROBLOX: -No paid server-hosting -Original -Unlimited game storage -Free -Great Dev community -Active community -Kid-friendly -Clothing/Model Catalog/Library -Inspires creativity -No hassle with mods/plugin installment/downloading -You can create ANYTHING -Group hosting -Free models ALWAYS -No limitations MC: -Offline (not needed to play multiplayer) -Online -Original -Kid-friendly -Inspires creativity -Pay 'n play forever -Free skin downloads -Can create any type of minigame/game Cons: ROBLOX: -R$ Costs money -BC, TBC, OBC costs money -Hackers -Safe-Chat can be annoying -The bigger the game, the more it laggs MC: -Server hosting costs money -Paid access -Hackers/Modders -The bigger the server, the more it laggs -Limited up-time for most servers -Most plugins costs REAL money -Hassle with plugins/mods installment/download (NOTE: there are more pros/cons than that I mentioned, these games have A LOT in common.) (NOTE: please, don't rate it just by playing either of the games for 2 days, take your time before rating.)
John Kasich Should Have Been the GOP Nominee

So lets start with my first argument, which is his unfavorability among the GOP Community. According to the Cincinnati Enquirer in May 2nd of 2016, a poll is mentioned that came out that day showing the results of the question "Should John Kasich drop out? ". Keep in mind that John Kasich only won 1 state the entire time he stayed in the race. That state was Ohio, exactly where this poll was conducted. So this poll ONLY asked people in the ONLY state he won. The results? "Nearly half - 49 percent - of Ohio voters say it's time for Kasich to drop out of the race for the Republican nomination, compared to only 38 percent who want him to stay in. Among Republican voters, 58 percent want him to drop out. " So republicans especially, who make up the GOP, did not want Kasich to be the nominee, and wanted him to drop out. And these were republican OHIOANS, the ONLY republicans who thought he was worthy enough to be president. But not only do the republicans from his own state, believe that he should've dropped out, the fact that he only won 1 state, his home state, that as proved above, wanted him to drop out later, shows that he wasn't liked through the GOP Nomination. The GOP Nomination should be someone who won more than just his home state. But let's look at the republican voters in the whole country and their view of John Kasich, and whether they think he should be president. I think we all agree that the GOP Nominee should be a candidate that is actually liked well BY THE GOP voters and this very fact is one of the most important ones of the entire debate, that the nominee or the pick of the voters, should be someone who the voters like. And second, John Kasich's past. According to Erick Trickey on Politico, "This is the same John Kasich who, over the course of his 30-plus-year political career in Ohio and Washington, has been called some extraordinary things for a public figure. "Unpleasant. " "Cranky. " "A jerk. " "Even worse" than Donald Trump. And that's just in headlines. ", And if this the nice and calm guy we've heard about, why has he been called these unflattering adjectives mulitple times by a huge variety of people. Kasich once mimicked the convulsive shaking of a Parkinson’s sufferer—in his State of the State speech. He calls his own legislators “knuckleheads,” “thugs” and “bullies. ” He publicly called the police officer who had given him a traffic ticket an “idiot. ” Elected to the U. S. House of Representatives in 1982 and ultimately anointed Budget Committee chairman by Newt Gingrich, Kasich stood out as a stern budget hawk who mouthed off at constituents and fellow Republicans. In 1991, he got into an argument while trying to get backstage at a Grateful Dead concert. John McCain, of all people, once criticized his “hair-trigger temper. ” Kasich still brags about trashing a Republican budget and getting scolded by then-Vice President Dan Quayle.
Should female athletes get paid as much as male athletes

Although I acknowledge you understand your points, I disagree with your standpoint. In regard to your first point, to say that men should be paid more because women aren't as fast or "as good" as the male athletes is unfair because women cannot control the way they are built. One source states, "Several anatomical differences contribute to the athleticism differences between sexes. Most women have a higher percentage of body fat than men, which is caused by the essential fat that women carry in their breasts and thighs. Another important factor to is the difference in size of organs. In general, men have larger hearts and lungs, increasing their ability to deliver oxygen and blood to working muscles. Author Nadya Sweden, in the book "Women's Sports Medicine and Rehabilitation," says women, on average, are 3 to 4 inches shorter, 25 to 30 lbs. lighter, have 8 percent to 10 percent more body fat, 40 to 45 fewer pounds of fat-free mass, shorter extremities and less muscle." I personally admire female athletes for being able to succeed as much as they do. Maybe men can out-run quite a few more women than women can out-run the men, but being paid should be centraled around the amount of work in my opinion. If women are working just as many hours and puting forth the same amount of effort as men, they deserve to be paid just as much. Women cannot control the way their body is built. If the fastest woman in the world can run the 100m dash in 10.59 seconds, then obviously that is their max. Women have yet to beat this record, so it's evident that no matter how much they train, women can't increase their speed much more due to their body anatomy. It isn't a controlled issue. Therefore, their pay should not be based on such a factor. The same source states, "A difference in sport performance can also have to do with the anatomy of a muscle. The physiological characteristics of muscle fiber between a male and female athlete's body do not differ significantly. However, the difference comes in the response to training. Most muscular hypertrophy is stimulated by the release of testosterone and androgen. Women have less of these hormones and more estrogen, which can actually inhibit muscular growth." To compare men to women in sports is like comparing a woman police officer to a male one. The women are putting in just as many hours as the men, but the men are called to more cases because they're stronger. Therefore, they should be paid more than the women? I don't think so. Women work just as hard as men. Their muscle anatomy should have nothing to do with their pay role. If that's the best they can do, then great! Cheers to Florence Griffith Joyner who ran that 100m dash in 10.59 seconds. It's discrimination. The amount of people in the stands at men vs women games is irrelevant. Last time I checked, athletes don't get paid for their moms and friends coming out to watch them play.
Abortion is Generally Immoral.

Thank you CON for your opening case. I will now present my case: Nearly all abortions take place in the first trimester, when a fetus cannot exist independent of the mother. As it is attached by the placenta and umbilical cord, its health is dependent on her health, and cannot be regarded as a separate entity as it cannot exist outside her womb. The concept of personhood is different from the concept of human life. Human life occurs at conception, but fertilized eggs used for in vitro fertilization are also human lives and those not implanted are routinely thrown away. Is this murder, and if not, then how is abortion murder? Adoption is not an alternative to abortion, because it remains the woman's choice whether or not to give her child up for adoption. Statistics show that very few women who give birth choose to give up their babies - less than 3% of white unmarried women and less than 2% of black unmarried women. Abortion is a safe medical procedure. The vast majority of women - 88% - who have an abortion do so in their first trimester. Medical abortions have less than 0.5% risk of serious complications and do not affect a woman's health or future ability to become pregnant or give birth. In the case of rape or incest, forcing a woman made pregnant by this violent act would cause further psychological harm to the victim. Often a woman is too afraid to speak up or is unaware she is pregnant, thus the morning after pill is ineffective in these situations. Abortion is not used as a form of contraception. Pregnancy can occur even with responsible contraceptive use. Only 8% of women who have abortions do not use any form of birth control, and that is due more to individual carelessness than to the availability of abortion. The ability of a woman to have control of her body is critical to civil rights. Take away her reproductive choice and you step onto a slippery slope. If the government can force a woman to continue a pregnancy, what about forcing a woman to use contraception or undergo sterilization? Taxpayer dollars are used to enable poor women to access the same medical services as rich women, and abortion is one of these services. Funding abortion is no different from funding a war in the Mideast. For those who are opposed, the place to express outrage is in the voting booth. Teenagers who become mothers have grim prospects for the future. They are much more likely to leave of school; receive inadequate prenatal care; rely on public assistance to raise a child; develop health problems; or end up divorced. Like any other difficult situation, abortion creates stress. Yet the American Psychological Association found that stress was greatest prior to an abortion, and that there was no evidence of post-abortion syndrome.
Abortion is Generally Immoral.

I would like to debate the contention that abortion is generally immoral.I believe that abortions are justified in a case when the mother's life is in danger and it is not possible to save both mother and child. All other abortions are not morally justified.In the interest of keeping debates focused and interesting for our readers, please keep arguments on topic and no arguing over semantics, please.Con may either present his opening argument in this round or use it for acceptance, allowing me to make the first argument next round. If Con presents his opening argument in this round, I would ask that he not argue in the last round to ensure we both have equal rounds for argumentation.Thank you in advance to whomever chooses to debate me on this topic.
Abortion is Generally Immoral.

once again, pro has decided to argue with my points and still HAS NOT followed the criteria of a debate which is to produce more than one point. Pro has used the same point it being “murder” in all 3 arguements. He did not provide anything else to support his case for the resolution and instead, just rebutted my points inacurately and in a completly false way. My opponent also chose to abandon my request. He can only use that point once and move onto the next in the following round, (he is not allowed to use that point again) but Pro has ignored this and has used it again twice more because he has nothing else to support the resolution. Pro has not thought about what he was going to be debating and as he is PRO (for), he is supposed to be giving points for and I (con), am supposed to rebut these. My opponent is unaware of this and has poorly attempted to tackle my arguement, yet he makes claims that my points are useless. I’ve actually given more than Pro in point wise. Pro has just argued with these and failed to present another case. He therefore has produced only one point of contention that actually does not prove that my points are apparently “irrelevant”, he has possibly used the wrong word here because it is clear that all my points were completly on the topic of this debate. He did not use his 2 chances to continue with the debate, and therefore I couldn’t use mine. Unfortunately though, for Pro, he wont have the chance to introduce another or more points because he wanted to spend that time critiscising my arguement rather than giving his own. In Conclusion, I am disappointed in Pro because this could have been a good debate, however, he clearly did not think through at least 3 good points before he made this debate. My opponent has only offered one true point for his case and therefore has not won this debate for that reason. I encourage the audience to not vote for this debate as it was not constructed properly thanks to Pro.