BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Creationism is simply wrong

Con asks, "if Creationism is wrong, why has there been no confirmed way on how the earth was created?" There most definitely has - it"s called the Big Bang and it"s accepted as scientific fact. You ask me to watch a video - I am absolutely in support of people on Debate.org doing research and reading one another"s sources on points of contention. However, I do not think it"s fair to have the bulk of your first argument require me to watch a 28+ minute video that you did not even create. Surely, if you are confident in your beliefs, you will have some thoughts of your own or be able to condense the video. Now on to your rebuttals: You answer my Genesis argument by saying that often when multiple people watch the same movie they recall it differently. I could not agree more. However, I"m puzzled as to why you would raise this point. Your admission of this undermines the very certainty with which you avow Creationism because it proves, at your own admission, that we should not take the Bible to be absolutely correct since it"s contents are so subject to interpretation. You ask me, "what if the fact was wrong?" Well, by definition a fact can not be wrong because it it has been scientifically and logically proven to be correct. If you wish to challenge it using opposing scientific fact, I would love to hear the argument. Of course, the Bible cannot be used here because a) it is not scientifically verified and b) the invocation of the Bible as truth would essentially presuppose the veracity of your entire Creationism argument.
Creationism is simply wrong

Question:If Creationism is wrong,why has there been no confirmed way on how the eatth was created? Argument: The video says it all:https://youtu.be... So another question:Is it plausible to say that the pieces of the puzzle just solved itself if you throw it as shown in the video? Rebuttals: "In the first chapter of Genesis, animals are created before humans (1:20-24, 1:26-27), but in the second chapter, man is created before the animals (2:7, 2:19)"Have you ever watched a movie with friends, and then after, when you asked those who watched to recount the story, everyone gives a different perspective? Some may have seen things which others didn't even notice. Different parts of the movie may have impacted some people so much, that they recall it in detail, but some may not even remember that part. However, everyone should be able to agree on the core message of the story. This is the same with the gospel accounts. Different people may have remembered things in a different order but the message is still the same:man and animals were created. "So where is the garden today?"https://answersingenesis.org... "The Earth solidified 4.54 billion years ago, plus or minus 1%. That"s a fact, and if your belief is not aligned to this fact, then you are what we call "wrong." What if the fact was wrong?
J.J Rousseau's View of the State of Nature Is Superior to That of Hobbes

This debate will be about whose view of the State of Nature is better, Hobbes or Rousseau. I affirm that Rousseau's is superior. If you do not know the ins and outs of each of these positions please DO NOT VOTE ON THIS DEBATE. Since this is a debate and not a political philosophy lecture we will not cover the topics in much depth outside of the purview of the debate. I trust my opponent knows these topics well.
can you tube be helpful

The video site known as You Tube can not be helpful. My opponent has sited no sources and examples so I will be taking it that he made his points up. If he had not though, his teachers blocking it only makes more sense. If a website is not helpful and distracts students then it is evident it can do no good. Videos like Nyan Cat 10 hours and Side of salt videos are only distracting and do no help. Even something informative is only doing it with opinions and that can lead to misjudgment and harm. For the reasons that my opponent lacks sources, contradicts himself, and the evidence stated above, I respectfully ask for a vote in the negative ballet. Thank you. Nyan cat 10 hours: Side of Salt Video:
only government is responsible for keeping the streets clean

This resolution is about whether "only the government is responsible for keeping the streets clean" or not. Con's stated opinion is that only the government is responsible for keeping the streets clean. So, to win, CON has to provide reasons which prove that keeping the streets clean is exclusively the government's responsibility. If anyone has any responsibility of any kind other than the government to keep the streets clean, then CON loses. So, here is why CON loses: Everyone who uses streets for any purpose has a responsibility NOT TO LITER, and therefore all such persons have a responsibility to keep the streets clean. For example, if a pedestrian walks down the street eating a burger from In and Out, that person has a responsibility not to throw his litter on the side of the road because. That means he has a responsibility to keep the streets clean. A second example is found in considering drivers who smoke cigarettes while driving. They have a responsibility not to throw their cigarette butt out the window while they are driving, and therefore have a responsibility to keep the streets clean. So, because all people who use streets have a responsibility to refrain from littering them, it's not just the government's responsibility to keep the streets clean. I win.
Revised Christian rap battle: Truth_seeker vs. JasperFrancisShickadance

Yo it's true, this world, it got no hope or anything to hold on to *** I'm praying for the people contained by sins, this is nuthin' new Prayin' for an outreach, a cut through, so they pursue the truth So many talents and debuts that could be used as God's pas de deux The human kind itself don't know the truth even though they try hard to seek it Society is crushed with temptations, to Christ I went to so now they must submit What they need is an evangelist to explain the relationship with Christ to go legit This might be a shock but when they do this all the inclination an' guilt be done quit Evil attracts those of this world, this is not rad it's totally bad yet there's no doubt Grace is amazing to those who use it to help their lives, for God we goin' all out We Christians are part of God's plan, embraced in his palm we are his wrinkles Our job is to reach out to those who sinned cuz they weren't saved, it's simple Why is it so hard for us, you and I Christians, to reach out and create a revolution with side affects great? 'So many strings attached' we say but it's a lie, won't this make us chew the words we all spat and ate? God's love is amazing to anyone and us who is seeking and wanting to not-just-know but feel the truth But we need to spread His heart to others cuz God n' Satan's fightin' like Wolverine and Sabretooth. You say the holy man is excluded from this world, than why you committin sin by bad unholy rappin? Do not be bound together with unbelievers cuz what fellowship has light with darkness dat's trappin? Or what harmony has Christ with Belial, may I ask what a believer has in common with the unbelievin?* That's what the Bible shoutin', dat's rite, in 2 Corinthians - this is why your side of the crowd aint clappin! Impurities like yourself should be shamed, ya says nobody can be separated from God: look who's talkin! You're wrong in many ways, first off you don't got sources and second you got no fans, dude you sweatin! How come you desire raps of three lines? that's not wrong in God's eyes but it is in mine, I'm combattin My laughin is shakin, I'm bafflin at your handicappin, maybe I'm often off but if I'm right I'm goin to Heaven! I'm praying for a change in your ways too, mister Truth seeker You praying for a change in depression and to be a better rapper Maybe your personality will change and you'll get more eager Right now I'm overly aggressive in this Christian war, you're meeker! But, I'm thinking that, overall, perhaps love and peace will take over What's the meaning of life? is what people like me tend to wonder I ask God if my life is getting righter or wronger, hotter or colder If the answer isn't in His word, then I need to be a better beholder Simple as that brother, that's why I'm not exactly a truth seeker cuz I've got it I trust my faith in Christ, this assures I'm not going to the fiery bottomless pit** *http://biblehub.com... **http://www.gotquestions.org... *** Isaiah 41:13
Revised Christian rap battle: Truth_seeker vs. JasperFrancisShickadance

You said you wanted to do a rap excluding negativity I'm about to rap as deep as the complexity of relativity We're about to move our emotions around like gravity Class in session, from Proverbs to prophetic discourse in the book of Samuel Paper or E-Sword (1), still telepathically gettin' instructions from God's Emmanuel (2) I'm specializing in good and evil through divine eyes of the realities we got as a premise I'm speakin' of the love, benevolence, n' goodness from God to save us from our demise Do not answer a fool according to his own folly or you'll be just like him (3) Do not even mimic his ways or his life, you'll only be bound to live in sin Channel energies like two thousand synergies and live according to the sacrifice Don't babble like the fool void of knowledge of his creator or of his son: Christ JasperFrancisShickadance wanted to rap battle positive, so i'm lettin' her spit a sick lyric With lots of insight into the sustain' forces of the world deep in the mind of God's spirit (4) Sources: 1. Bible study software program http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. Or Immanuel "God with us" in Hebrew and the divine status of Jesus. http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. Prov. 26:4 KJV "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.." 4. 1 Cor. 2:11 NASB "For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God."
Revised Christian rap battle: Truth_seeker vs. JasperFrancisShickadance

. http://www.debate.org... A rematch to this battle, but it will be judged. Both of us will simply repost our lyrics over. You can change your lyrics and/or write more if you want. Voting Criteria: Conduct - No forfeits, not really going to count Conduct. Convincing arguments will be judged on the following: 1) Bar length - In my opinion, every line should be the same length. Were each rappers too short or too long to your distaste? 2) Aggression - If you favor aggression, Was it aggressive? How aggressive? What was aggressive about either rapper's lyrics (ex. death threats, boasting, etc. ) 3) Originality - Were their verses original? What did you like? What was original about it? 4) Rhyme schemes - What kinds of rhymes did you like (ex. multis, slant, internal, etc. )? 5) Personals - What bars did you find devastating on each rapper's reputation or character? 6) Disses - What jokes (ex. yo momma jokes, appearance jokes, personality jokes, etc. ) did you like? 7) Rebuttals - Rebuttals are when a rapper addresses a bar, flips it, and disses you back. How effective were they? Why? 8) Imagery - How detailed is the imagery presented? What's unique? What did you like? What metaphors and similes as well as other literary devices stood out to you? 9) Word-play - What word puns did you find most clever? What did you like about them? 10) Complexity - How creative were their lyrics? What stood out to you? What ideas and/or thoughts did you find most appealing and entertaining? Sources - Will be used to enhance understanding the understanding of lyrics (slang, Bible verses, people, etc. ) and thus judged accordingly.
racism=to believe that i am better then others

I understand your whole "Human Race is One" point, but typically, when talking about race, we mean hispanic, white, black, or asian. (Sorry if I missed any.) When someone is racist, they are against one of the previously listed, not against all human beings. You say there's always competition in a race, please explain. When you said that, I though of track races. :P. I never said anything about religion, so I don't know what you're talking about.
racism=to believe that i am better then others

the race is in your mind, it is nothing, there is no human race beyond what you believe, and belief is false I know I am human, therefore I know the human species, because some one is black does not make them an animal neither does it make them a machine the thing is, without the perception that you are better, racism can not exist, like without negative thoughts and ideas about others war can not exist, so war is negative thoughts and ideas about others the word race is not about humans, except if they race, and there must be a competitor, for any race to be going on ISM=religion religion=to rely on racism is religion, as belief is theism and theism is religion. but one can believe in god and have a view that others have their gods is perfect and they are equal, maybe ? maybe religion cant exist without racism O.o
racism=to believe that i am better then others

I understand your whole "Human Race is One" point, but typically, when talking about race, we mean hispanic, white, black, or asian. (Sorry if I missed any.) When someone is racist, they are against one of the previously listed, not against all human beings. You say there's always competition in a race. Please explain. When you said that, I though of track races. :P. I never said anything about religion, so I don't know what you're talking about.
racism=to believe that i am better then others

But RACism only has to do with your race. It doesn't have to do with your sexuality, sex, age, IQ, size of waistline, nationality, etc. There are more ways to prejudice people other than their race, so to end racism doesn't mean for everybody to think everyone is equal, it just means that everybody agrees that your race doesn't matter as long as you're a person. Ending racism will NOT end homophobia, sexism, or agism.
Should Hillary Clinton be arrested

It seems to me that you are referencing the email scandal with Clinton. Clinton has been throw many trials one lasting over 12 hours. The trial was in the Senate with mostly Republicans hearing the case. In the end, the chairman found that no new evidence has been found and there really is no case. I understand if you or others may not like her or her policies but we have a system in place. The law is the law. The burden of proof is on the convector and the proof was not there. I would also like to clarify that the e mail scandal is mostly bogus. Clinton did use her personal e mail for government work, but this is not breaking any laws. Her predecessors did it too and so to a lot of other politicians. Without a real crime or even case against her, I cannot see why we would arrest her. We don't just accuse someone on the street of a crime and they go directly to jail like monopoly. There is a process that has to be followed.
Military Officers should NOT lead from The Front

I admit that not all officers should lead from the front. High ranking generals and staff officers are certainly more effective when managing things from the rear. However, Pro said I only have to show one instance where front line leadership is preferred. I believe I can do that and then some. There are numerous reasons why officers should lead from the front. These include the value of personally scoping enemy positions, surveying the battlefield, measuring troop morale, inspecting defensive positions, interacting with local civilian leaders (like village elders), etc... However, the most important reason is inspiration. The presence and personal example of a leader in battle is immensely powerful. Soldiers are not robots who automatically execute every order immediately. They are human beings filled with emotions, fears, and passions. Military officers exist to channel these emotions in productive ways, and they can only do that through personal example. Consider the following scenario: You are a squad leader in charge of 8 other infantry soldiers. You're patrolling through the mud in freezing weather and come under fire from a machine gun bunker. Your squad takes cover and awaits orders from headquarters. Option 1: a lieutenant safely back at HQ in a heated tent orders you to charge the bunker over the radio. Option 2: A lieutenant who is with you in the mud, facing the same enemy fire, starts sprinting toward the bunker and yells "follow me!" Both officers order the same course of action - but who would you be more inclined to obey? Who would you rather follow into battle? Why? The answer lies in the human need to feel cared for. Officers are drilled to "never ask of a Soldier anything you're unwilling to do yourself." The reason this is so important is because Soldiers perform better for someone who actually cares about them, and the best way to demonstrate that care is to be at the front with them. Being part of a small unit like a platoon or company is like being part of a team - and one of the best ways to build team cohesion is through shared suffering. The power of this concept is as old as time, and the list of historical examples is almost endless. Caesar famously grabbed a shield and took his place in the front rank to prevent a route "having therefore snatched a shield from one of the soldiers in the rear . . . he advanced to the front of the line. . . On his arrival, as hope was brought to the soldiers and their courage restored, whilst every one for his own part, in the sight of his general, desired to exert his utmost energy." [1] George Washington stopped a fleeing regiment at Princeton by riding into the line of fire, "hat in hand," and became legendary for having horses shot from under him yet remaining unharmed. [2] The examples could go on and on... A leader, by definition, is someone whom others follow, and a leader must be physically in front of a formation in order to say "follow me!" [1] https://books.google.com... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Military Officers should NOT lead from The Front

Looking forward to another bloodbath as usual. Should you wish to adjust any of these rules, please message me. --- Military officers (ranked O-1 to O-10) should NOT lead troops from the front. Con must prove at least one modern command & control concept or combat necessity that wisely argues for military officers to be present with units actively engaged on the front lines. Victory goes to the most convincing arguments. Front - directly in the line of fire; the foremost line or part of an armed force; the furthest position that an army has reached and where the enemy is or may be engaged. Synonyms: front line, firing line, vanguard, trenches. Comment for acceptance. Rounds1)Acceptance2)Arguments3)Counter-Arguments & Conclusions
Science has shown/is about to show God to be implausible/unecessary as an explanation

I tried this debate earlier but someone accepted it by accident who agreed with me (at least thats what I think happened). So I'm trying it again. I want to debate whether or not science has shown or is on the verge of showing that God isn't needed to explain the universe or that God doesn't exist. In other words, does science show God to be less plausible?I contend that this is NOT the case Note, this is not a debate about Christianity per se or any other religion. It is a debate about God in general versus science and the discoveries of modern science. BOP is on pro to show that science has shown this, although this is not a matter of definitive proof. Also. this is not a debate over whether God does exist or the merits of the arguments for God's existence itself, only whether science can show the arguments to be flawed. First round make your argument, then we go from there. Thanks
Society will eventually devolve into a totalitarian regime

Rebuttal1. Adolph's failure wasn't due to his removal of unalienable rights in the German people, it was due to his challenging other nations with conflicting ideals.2. The fact that the rise of a perminent totalitarian regime may cause an extinction isn't pertinent to this debate. Extinction is inevitible of all species.3. Totalitarian regimes make use of the organizational abilities of the masses and breaks them from their individuality, allowing them to have certain freedoms but training them into thinking with a set of government supported ideals.It matters not that man seeks liberty and happiness, a capable totalitarian regime can regiment what people believe this be. I have explained the means of doing this in previous rounds through the use of strength. I await con's rebuttal and thank him for the debate.
Trump is a bad president

Under the Obama presidency, There was a total of 2 million jobs created. Under the Trump presidency already 3 years in there was a total of 4 million jobs created already. I can't find anything related as evidence with increase in jobs so I will pass the burden back to you because what I am doing is providing the burden of proof you did not. The GDP is growing at a 3 percent-plus rate. In what way does GDP help to improve the life of Americans? It doesn't and as I have shown with the two below it can't be given as a good reason why Trump is a good president becasue both sources I have stated is that the trend started under Obama and what Trump needed to do is not ruin what Obama did well. The unemployment rate is near a 50-year low. If we look at source 1 it was already on a general trend of decreasing. If Trump really had an impact on unemployment there would be a more drastic decrease when he when into office instead it is a repeat of what happened during Obama's presidency. The decline in unemployment rate started with Obama and continues with Trump. Trump can't take credit for that because the start of the decrease occured during Obama's presidency not when Trump took office. You state 50 year low as if there was some drastic decline under Trump. It wasn't. It was the same gradual decline under Obama and if Trump really did do good for the economy the decline would not be decreasing at the same rate as Obama was in charge. The stock market has jumped 27 percent amid a surge in corporate profits. Source 2 clearly states rich people use the stock market. If this was so good for the majority of Americans it would benefit people would lower incomes but it doesn't. It states from the source only 21% of people earning below $30, 000 a year use the stock market whereas 79% of people use the stock market who earn more than $30, 000 a year. This basically means the stock market is used by the rich to be richer. If your argument was that Trump was helping America with the stock market I will say no he isn't. He is only making the rich richer. Even the stock market itself can be considered a reason why Trump is a good president. This is because the stock market was already on a general trend of increasing. Meaning under Obama it was increase at similar rates so basically all Trump had to do was don't ruin what Obama did and the stock market will be okay. This is from source 3. Another thing I would like to add is that before 2016 the wages were showing a general trend of increasing. Meaning under Obama the wage increasing and it still is under Trump. If Trump did something radical the numbers would not increasing at similar levels instad we should see a significant increase in numbers. We don't and that can be found in Source 4. Remove spaces so that the links will work. Source 1: https://tradingeconomics. Com/united-states/unemployment-rateSource 2: https://news. Gallup. Com/poll/211052/stock-ownership-down-among-older-higher-income. AspxSource 3: https://www. Macrotrends. Net/1358/dow-jones-industrial-average-last-10-yearsSource 4: https://www. Bls. Gov/news. Release/pdf/wkyeng. Pdf
Trump is a bad president

Contention One: Jobs Under the Obama presidency, There was a total of 2 million jobs created. Under the Trump presidency already 3 years in there was a total of 4 million jobs created already. Contention 2: Economy The economy is growing, For example, The GDP is growing at a 3 percent-plus rate. The unemployment rate is near a 50-year low. Meanwhile, The stock market has jumped 27 percent amid a surge in corporate profits.