BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
People's logic and knowledge should be judged in part by age

When we look at society and we look at various individuals, we see something that is a constant among all of them. They are individuals. Now this is an important point, and will likely be a focal point on the Pro Stance, that "People's logic and knowledge should be judged in part by age" Now first of all Albert Einstein was an incredible person, he was as my opponent stated able to solve algebraic mathematics by the mere age of 10, however all across the united states public high schools have a course called "Math Models" because people ages 15-18 cannot do Algebra. So then the question arises, if Albert Einstein could do it why couldn't they? The simple answer is that they are different people, while Einstein was incredibly talented in math at such a young age, that says nothing of his perception to the rest of the world. While people's Knowledge and Logic Should never be completely based upon age; Age needs to take part. For example, Say you had a child who used the "your baby can read" program, and by the time they where eight months old they could read anything thing from Shakespeare, to the Latin Vulgate, to (a personal favorite) The Giving Tree. Just because your child could read does this mean they have to capacity to understand that eating nothing but chocolate and soda would be terrible for them? Maybe; but more likely than not the answer is no. This is not to say by any-means that just because a person is young that they cannot be more intelligent, it is just to say that naturally those who are older will likely be more intelligent and better understand how to apply their knowledge in the real world. Now finally before handing the debate back over to my opponent I end with this. If for no other reason; If my logic has no swayed you- Then Vote pro for this reason. The brain is not fully developed until somewhere between the ages of 20 and 25. http://www.examiner.com... http://www.academic.marist.edu... http://www.livescience.com... Thank you, and I look forward to my opponent's response that Age should ave nothing to do with considering a person's knowledge and Logic!
People's logic and knowledge should be judged in part by age

In this debate, I will go against the notion that a person's credibility, knowledge, ad logic should be judged at least in part by age. For example, Albert Einstein was only ten and was solving algebra. Most ten-year-olds are not as smart as Einstein was. Judging a person's logic and knowledge based even in part be age is a ridiculous argument. http://www.sparknotes.com...
Gay marriage should be illegal

You said "when the kid gets older and he learns he does not have a Mom or Dad, what is he going to think when all of his friends have a mom and a dad" The kid never had parents in the first place. The most likely place that could would be is raised by a gang. Then either shot or thrown in jail. The kid will want naturally want the other sex as that is in our hormones. You cannot force someone to be gay. Overall it should not be up to us how others live their life. Its God job to judge not our.
Gay marriage should be illegal

First of all thanks for leaving this as an open debate. You say that you and your son are walking around and might see a gay couple making love? Well where do you take your son? To look into apartment buildings. I mean gay couples do not make love in public. Nobody does. You say that an adopted kid should not grow up in a gay household. Well at least now they have a household. Would it be better for them to be switching between foster parents and having no family. They will have parents.
Evolution is not the best scientific model for the origin of species

Again, I thank Con for bringing an important subject to the debating floor. Con brought up a good point about “Pro expects myself [Con] and the voters to be well acquainted with the Constructal Law.” Pro does not expect anyone of the voters to be “well acquainted” with the Constructal Law, nor does Pro expect anyone of the voters to be “well acquainted” with “phylogenetic trees” or “telomeres,” etc, from Con's Round 2 presentation. However, for those who want to learn more about the Constructal Law, please see the following: http://www.forbes.com...Knowing voters may not be “well acquainted,” we must work within the debate's Round 1 definitions. Con gave the traditional definition of evolution in Round 1, becoming the anchor to the debate's title, “Evolution is not the best scientific model for the origin of species.” Clearly Con's definition of “evolution” is not the best “model,” for the reason that it excludes the prerequisites or the initial conditions for life. You cannot have the “origin” of any “species” without the initial conditions. Clearly, the moment after the Big Bang, the initial condition for life did not exist. It took a long time for the flow dynamics of energy through space and time, governed by the Laws of Thermodynamics and the Constructal Law to bring about the right conditions, aka “the origin,” for life's debut of any “specie;” hence, the “origin of species.” In other words, you cannot have the “origin of species” without the elements of the Periodic Table, and the right environment for the transitional flow dynamics from inanimate to animate.Con started with “fossils,” advancing to “Charles Darwin before the discovery of DNA,” then on to “phylogenetic trees,” etc. Pro started with the beginning of time (Big Bang), where evolution is a function of time. Pro tried to logically demonstrate, written in an easy style, how flow-dynamics from the Big Bang to Morality is governed by the Constructal Law. Con's presentation of life's evolutionary flow from “fossils” building “Phylogenetic trees” to “telomeres,” only represents a narrow window of time within the spectrum of evolution governed by the Constructal law. Therefore, the Constructal Law is the best model for the origin of species. In closing, Pro wish Con, a long and healthy “Life,” with ample freedom (“Liberty”), in the moral “pursuit of Happiness;” in other words, “survival of the happiest.”
Evolution is not the best scientific model for the origin of species

My opponent has made a lot of fluffy claims about constructal law but as failed to substantiate them. The statement, "Almost trivial is relative, and a function of shared knowledge with common background on the subject at hand" seems to imply that Pro expects myself and the voters to be well acquainted with constructal law. However, even if we were familiar with constructal law, Pro's arguments would not have been either enlightening or convincing. Pro seems to stake his claim on the fact that constructal law applies to all of nature, not just the origin of species, and then fail to explain how or why constructal theory makes these predictions. I can only assume Pro expects us to buy and read the books he references on Amazon to make his argument for him. This is not how DDO debates work or most any debate for that matter. I am unable to give a rebuttal to Pro's claims, because there is nothing to rebut. The only claim I see Pro making is that constructal theory predicts all of nature, and even then Pro doesn't describe how. Even the youtube video (which is full of time filler) doesn't give an explanation to rebut. On the other hand, I have given several predictions made by the theory of evolution that were proven true when later put to the test. At best, constructal law retroactively predicts what we observe. It does not make testable future predictions that can be used to make new discoveries as the theory of evolution. In fact, constructal law appears to depend on evolution as the mechanism for the origin of species. Constructal law appears to use evolution to describe phenomena the same way evolution uses geology to describe phenomena. That doesn't make it a better model for the origin of species any more than evolution is a better model than anything for any topic in geology.
Evolution is not the best scientific model for the origin of species

Definitions: -Evolution: the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth. -Scientific Model: a physical, conceptual, or mathematical representation of a real phenomenon that may be used to explain and predict the behaviour of real objects or systems and are used in a variety of scientific disciplines, ranging from physics and chemistry to ecology and the Earth sciences. (http://www.britannica.com...) -Species: a category of biological classification ranking immediately below the genus or subgenus, comprising related organisms or populations potentially capable of interbreeding. (http://www.merriam-webster.com... http://evolution.berkeley.edu...) -Origin of Species: the underlying cause for the creation of Earth's various species, including humans. No semantic arguments by either side should be accepted. It should be accepted that knowledge is generally reliable. Specifically, epistemological arguments are not acceptable. It is Pro's BoP to present a scientific model that encompasses the known observable data and has been able to predict scientific discoveries rivaling that of evolution. It is Con's BoP to show that evolution meets the criteria for scientific model and has been able to predict far more discoveries than those presented by Pro's model. There will be 4 rounds, each with a 10,000 character limit. Round 1 - definitions and acceptance Round 2 - opening arguments (no rebuttals) Round 3 - rebuttals to opening arguments and further arguments Round 4 - responses to round 3, no new arguments If these rules are broken, voters should award conduct points appropriately. Votes will use a 7 point system, and voters will require 2500 elo.
Marvel (pro) vs DC (con)

You didn't win yet. I was just very busy taking Finals tests this week I couldn't get back to you. I was very busy. One reason that DC is better is because iconicity. In other words, DC heroes are larger than life, you can't say that about Marvel. Just think about it, if Superheroes were real our world would look more like DC's. Also, the Movie themes are a lot more better with DC. In DC Films, heroes such as Batman take on the World. Especially Cristopher Nolan's version if Batman. Marvel's movies take on a lighter mood, which is a lot more boring and less intresting. Heroes like Batman and Superman are intent at all times to catch villains. Marvel heroes? Not so much. Marvel also took from DC's Characters. Deadpool-Deathstroke is a prime example. Although I do admit Deadpool is cooler. DC is also ahead in television production. DC has shows like Arrow, the Flash and Gotham. Marvel has none. Agents of Shield was just cringeworthy. That's why DC is better.
Marvel (pro) vs DC (con)

If anyday Superman seems to be a creatively made feasible hero, please go to the doctor's clinic, I will pay the bill. Superman has always been OP (over-powered) and has no weaknesses except kryptonite. I am surprised among all his random powers, he didn't get telekinesis and time-travel. Marvel doesn't make such OP villains or heroes. While it tries to keep its heroes alive for too long, DC didn't even give a proper death to Superman in BvS, and Batman seems to be immortal. Apart from the Dark Knight Trilogy, do you know any other good DC movie to brag of? Marvel's Avengers 1, Deadpool, Captain America 1 and 2, X-men (it did have the Marvel logo), Iron Man 1 and 2, Antman, Thor 1 and 2 etc. etc. have been great. Moreover, through SHIELD, all these individual character stories have been connected, while DC is still preparing Justice League.
Russia's so-called 'anti-gay law' does not significantly violate the rights of homosexuals.

Firstly, promoting homosexuality in Russia is not a criminal offence, but rather an administrative offence. Similarly to getting a parking ticket. If you committed this offence you would not 'find yourselves charged for crimes similar to those of the punishments of Murder and etc' but rather an administrative fine. "As humans we are all entitled to a choice, a choice of freedom no matter where you are and no matter what your situation may be, as long as you can live with yourself and can be answerable to GOD" you are allowed to do as you please. " You can technically do what you want in any country. This is true. However, you cannot be expect not to be punished for something if it is against the law. "However the moment you are questioned for an act that is lawful to the general public..." The fact is that it is not lawful in Russia. In the USA, it is illegal for channels to broadcast overly violent or sexual imagery before the water-shed. If broadcasting companies do this then they receive a fine and suspension of activity. This is the same as in Russia but they have chosen to not allow images that promote homosexuality. They have also extended it to individuals too; that they cannot promote homosexuality in schools for example.
Russia's so-called 'anti-gay law' does not significantly violate the rights of homosexuals.

True in my first sentence I had stated that the anti-gay laws in Russia pose no significant threat to the rights entitled to homosexual couples, yet it does pose some sort of threat, a threat that simply cant be set aside. In my comments I did state that: just for the fact of debating....on the situation of gay rights . On which earlier I did state that I am no advocate against or for it; just a mediator who knows the struggles from religious aspects as well as social ideals. The anti-gay laws in Russia really effect two specific groups : Foreigners and Govt. Officials and to them these laws do have a much more significant impact than those of the average day to day citizens. In the Russian anti-gay law it states : For Foreigners: "....if these actions do not make up a criminal offense, - shall be punishable by a fine of 50 000 to one 100 000 rubles followed by administrative expulsion from the Russian Federation or administrative arrest for up to 15 days followed by administrative expulsion from the Russian Federation." and for Govt. Officials : "in the amount of 40 000 to 50 000 rubles for officials....which can in the latter case be replaced by suspension of activity for up to 90 days." So for any homosexuals that are not Russian Citizens are entitled by the Government to pay up to 100,00 rubles that is if they are not tried for criminal offenses and immediate detainment for 15 days and expulsion with no entry back into Russia. And officials that are not tried in criminal offenses are fined up to 50,000 rubles and later suspended , without pay that is, for 90 days. Now lets get into further details the meaning of a criminal offense. What is considered a criminal offense? Murder, Theft, Larceny, Espionage, and Genocide. Now consider yourself in the shoes a homosexual individual caught in Russia; next to you you would find yourselves charged for crimes similar to those of the punishments of Murder and etc. All for the sake of your homosexuality one that at times can not be changed. As humans we are all entitled to a choice, a choice of freedom no matter where you are and no matter what your situation may be, as long as you can live with yourself and can be answerable to GOD , you are allowed to do as you please. However the moment you are questioned for an act that is lawful to the general public, that is when we all as a intellectual human beings must conjure to evaluate the impact that this law poses on the rights of not only homosexuals but also to the concerned individuals of our society
Russia's so-called 'anti-gay law' does not significantly violate the rights of homosexuals.

True the Russian "anti-gay law" does not pose a significant threat to the rights of homosexuals in Russian yet it does pose an obstacle that can not simply be avoided. Homosexuality may to many seem like a choice a choice to be and actions that can be posed as sexual activity. I do not believe in homosexuality, nor am I a homophobe. Yet I do belief that every individual is entitled to a freedom of choice be it position or negative. It is still a choice. Yet this new law does create a parameter for those many homosexuals in Russia. Never only does it state the fines one may face yet it also states the criminal offenses that quote on quote states : besides the criminal offenses that may be charged. So besides the economical repercussions but also an individuals family name may be disturbed especially when jail time is included to t list of offenses, be it citizen or official, or even a foreigner.
Russia's so-called 'anti-gay law' does not significantly violate the rights of homosexuals.

This debate concerns paragraph 6.21 to the Russian code of Administrative Violations. Here is a full translation of the paragraph: "6.21. Propaganda of non - traditional sexual relationships among minors. 1. Propaganda of non - traditional sexual relationships among minors, expressed in the dissimation of information aimed at forming non - traditional sexual attitudes among minors, attractiveness of non - traditional sexual relationships, distorted image of social equality of traditional and non-traditional sexual relationships, or the imposition of information about non - traditional sexual relations, which can attract interest to such relations, if these actions do not make up a criminal offence, - shall entail the imposition of an administrative fine in the amount of 4000 to 5000 rubles for citizens; in the amount of 40 000 to 50 000 rubles for oficials; and in the amount of 800 000 to 1000 000 rubles for organizations, which can in the latter case be replaced by suspension of activity for up to 90 days. 2. Actions provided for by paragraph 1 of this Article, committed with the use of the media and (or) information and telecommunication networks (including network "Internet"),if these actions do not make up a criminal offense, - shall entail the imposition of an administrative fine on citizens in the amount of 50 000 to one 100 000 rubles; for officials - from 1000000 to 200000 rubles; for legal entities - 1000 000 rubles or administrative suspension of activity for up to 90 days. 3. Actions provided for by paragraph 1 of this Article, committed by a foreign national or a stateless person, if these actions do not make up a criminal offense, - shall be punishable by a fine of 4000 to 5000 rubles followed by administrative expulsion from the Russian Federation or administrative arrest for up to 15 days followed by expulsion from the Russian Federation. 4. Actions provided for by paragraph 1 of this Article, committed by a foreign national or a stateless person with the use of the media and (or) information and telecommunication networks (including network "Internet") if these actions do not make up a criminal offense, - shall be punishable by a fine of 50 000 to one 100 000 rubles followed by administrative expulsion from the Russian Federation or administrative arrest for up to 15 days followed by administrative expulsion from the Russian Federation. "
Debate.org - Limitation on Challenges

I personally am dbatng 25 people at a time. I think this is unfair to limit th number of debates. This website is simply for fun and if they want to hav fun by debating they should be allowed to. The number of challenges would make this game less fun foreverybody and the website would lose traffic and eventually not be able to support itself. We should allow people to do all they choose on this website.
Debate.org - Limitation on Challenges

Debatable Point: Debate.org should limit the number of debates that any single user can challenge simultaneously. One-Round debate, opening argument: Our story begins when DocORock stumbles across an amazing Web site, Debate.org. He likes what he sees; he reads through the do's and better not's, creates a user account; DocORock catches on quickly, looks to the sky, taps his chin, then...he creates his first debate. He waits. Only moments later, another user challenges him. Things are going wonderfully already! Except...the user that challenged DocORock's debate has six others with which to follow up. And DocORock's debate is the other user's second challenge - ever. Instantly, our hero feels he has been caught inside what he views a "loophole" on the site already. It seems any user can "hog up" all the challenges, frivolously. DocORock creates this debate. Our story continues now as he waits for the rebuttal.
Resolved: States ought not possess nuclear weapons(Cross Examination in comments section only 7 que)

Basically Dallas. People run some crazy stuff here in TX so I'm used to seeing a lot of morality stuff. I eventually learned that the best way to counter these morality or just plain crazy theories is to apply them to other scenarios. I think for the drug topic the value isnt all that important. Most people will have similar values; safety, societal welfare, life, etc. Its more about the contentions, since its doubtful that you'll see many morality cases on such practical topic. On my neg I'm just running plain ol' societal welfare. I argue what I call a 50 Year Counterplan, where I advocate a global policy of a 50 year imprisonment for drug use. I cite how in Turkey, Singapore, and China have extremely harsh punishment (20 years minimum, and Singapore enforces the death penalty) for drug abuse, but also have among the lowest drug usage rates in the world. Its kind of drastic but is nevertheless efficient. Filler
Resolved: States ought not possess nuclear weapons(Cross Examination in comments section only 7 que)

Oh thats interesting, where are you from? I could tell you were at varsity level, you were one of the few able to truly attack my case. I am a novice. Most novices i go up against with this case are clueless. You would definietly crush me had this been a real round. I have written my case for the drug topic as well. What do you suppose is a good value for the neg? Filler See comments Please vote asap!
the cop is at no fault whatsoever in ferguson missouri

Does the fact that Brown robbed a convenience store make Wilson innocent? While I directly answered your questions, you averted one of my questions: What about the two journalists that were arrested? If Officer Darren Wilson was truly innocent, why have the police arrested two men when they obeyed the police and did not resist? How do we know there is no cover-up? You say I did not respect Officer Wilson. In the previous round, I wished that Wilson's family could peacefully get over the incident without harm coming to them. How is that disrespectful? My "making excuses" for Brown? I believe you are exaggerating. I don't see Wilson as evil; I just think he was not perfectly innocent. I am certainly not disrespecting him, and if the judge (who is much smarter than me) declares him innocent, I will be happy for him. May Brown rest in peace and may Wilson live happily.