BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Everyone who speaks English as a first language should try to learn a second language.

RoundsRound 1: Acceptance and definitions if requiredRound 2: Opening arguments/RebuttalsRound 3: Rebuttals/ResponsesRound 4: Closing, no new argumentsIt is Pro's contention that the English-speaking world assumes English to be the default language for communication - both verbally and via the internet - and thus neglects the learning of other languages. Pro shall argue that ignorance of other languages has a negative impact on society and that learning other languages confers a positive impact. Con may argue that this has no impact or a reversed impact, and/or challenge the opening contention.
Everyone who speaks English as a first language should try to learn a second language.

My opponent makes some excellent arguments, which I shall endeavour to refute as follows.Firstly, though not contesting the vast number of languages that are available to learn, my opponent concludes that humans are 'engaged in a losing battle with information overload'. In the previous round I showed studies that conclusively showed that the learning of a second language assists with learniing in general, effectively acting as a 'compressor algorithm' to enable the human mind to learn and sort information more efficiently. Learning a second language therefore is beneficial, rather than detrimental, to the case of information overload.Whilst English is currently most popular, as was also covered in my previous round, the current trend is moving toward it being less so. Moreover, the use of English as a lingua franca between nations does not in any way defeat the cultural or intellectual benefits of a second language; nor does the existence of translators, which, by all accounts, still have a long way to go before they can effectively process accent, voice and speed of conversation (http://www.dailymail.co.uk...). Even should they become widely available, the effort made in learning another language will still be worth it through the improved mental efficiency and also through it's combat of the underlying attitude involving avoiding effort that proves so deleterious to society at large.I shall await my opponent's further arguments with interest.
Jesus should not be worshiped as God or anthing above the average man.

To my opponent and all interested debaters, I apologise. I am currently over my cousin's place and the only web connection he has is a laptop that belongs 2 his sister, who's too much of an assh0le to let me use it, and a PS3 with very limited charecter space, which Im typing this on. Soon as I get a decent computer I'm gonna start up a 2 round debate (Granted my opponent accepts the challenge) to finish up where this left off. I'd also like to ask that the voters dont automatically take my opponent's side because I failed to respond during the 2nd round. There was no way could given my situation. It may take me a few days to set up the debate. Once again I apologize.
Creation vs evolution

I wish we had time to argue Noah's flood, as it it too long, perhaps another time. I would like to mention that carnivorous animals body's where not made to handle a vegetarian diet. For example if you feed cats veggies today, like long ago, they will die. the digestive system would have never changed to accommodate that, unless evolution where true. I believe you have misunderstand my previous statement. I told you that yes carbon dating isn't always as accurate on things with a short half life but there are other ways to tell the age of the earth for example Ice core dating. Scientists drill down into the ice of Greenland and Antarctica to measure climate change from hundreds of thousands of years. What they pull out is a gigantic rods of ice (over 2 km worth) and on each rod, as each summer past, there is a different layer of ice. You can literally count the layers to tell that this area of land has been here for more then X hundred thousand years. This wont tell you the age of the earth just that it is most certainly over 6000 years old. http://carm.org... Trees are the same, each year they grow a new ring and these rings can be counted, given the oldest known tree alive is 5000 years old. Radio carbon dating isn't always exact, more so back before they had a check. Then the trees age can be used as a radioactive decay guide. kind of like a check to see if it is working. These Checks that are pretty recent are making radiocarbon dating more reliable each day. http://www.radiocarbon.com... Creationism uses 6000 years as age of the earth counted by unreliable sources of age of humans within the bible (saying people lived around 130 years each http://creation.com...) There is absolutely no tangible, or even reliable evidence to prove that the earth is only 6000 years old and plenty of evidence to prove that it is more. There is no Evidence to suggest that we didn't have time to evolve into Homo Sapiens-Sapiens, there are no new "kinds" of animals showing up daily. Yet you can watch creatures evolve constantly on a small basis, virus and bacteria are the easiest to see i.e. why we need a new flu shot each year. There is no evidence to suggest that humans could have possibly lived with dinosaurs and lived, but plenty of parallels today that suggest we would be food. Also wouldent a T-Rex attack be more important then a bear hunt when early humans panted cave drawings? Creationists are scientifically wrong, Sorry but just because its in the bible doesn't exclude the story from being a myth. Thank you for the debate.
Creation vs evolution

I would just like to say this has been a good debate, and I don't believe that the devil used magic to make the fossils on this earth, i believe that Noah's flood buried the dinosaurs and it says in genesis that all animals at first ate plants which would explain why dinosaurs didn't eat the humans and how is it possible for an asteroid or ice age to kill the animals if their was no death or bloodshed before the first sin. For the carbon dating you say that it only works on items with a half life in the millions and if it is used on stuff thousands of years old it doesn't work and exactly, so if the Earth is thousand's of years old isn't there a possibility that carbon dating is wrong for millions of years old and it could be 6000 years old and same for the tree's, if they are thousands of years old than it's possible that the carbon dating said it was millions even though it's really 6000 years old. Now the bible is our best proof but also as are proof think about this, do you think that the Earth being in the perfect place is just a coincidence or you can also look at how complex the human body is and that were the only life form that we know of can talk and do stuff that animals can't do.
Creation vs evolution

Your right dinosaurs do oppose the creationist view of the bible. most creationists believe fossils where placed here by the devil using magic, which you should know. (others include humans living along side these giant beasts in the very different climate and surviving wile they magically died, see others: http://dinosaurs.about.com...) A more likely scenario is survival of the fittest. When the earth changed (maybe an asteroid or the ice age) some animals could survive (small mammals that burrowed underground, turtles in water etc) but larger animals that couldn't escape the cold or horrifying conditions (i.e dinosaurs) died. Thousands of years later humans evolved from mammals. As for your radiocarbon decay argument, I would like to point out that it only works on items with a half life in the millions. This means if radiocarbon dating is used improperly (on things that are only thousands of years old) it will give you the wrong dates. We know that the earth is more then 6000 years old (the creationist standard) because we have tangible proof.The most tangible, easy proof is that there are trees, living on this earth with well over 10000 years of rings. There are canyons that show millions of years of layers (the grand canyon shows 5-6million). we can easily measure this and have undeniable proof accepted in all scientific circles. Other proof includes ice sheet dating, other radioactive dating, moon dust accumulation, helium depletion and many more. The creationist view point uses no proof except paraphrased verses of the bible.
Creation vs evolution

OK, well my next argument would be that for the earth being millions of years old they use carbon 14 dating but carbon 14 dating have messed up many times and they have stuff where carbon 14 dating has said something is millions of years old that happens to really be a couple thousand at the most and how can we know that that is accurate. I would also like to bring up about the fossil record, in genesis it says that before Adam and eve there was no sin, death or bloodshed and if dinosaurs were alive before Adam than that would oppose the bible because there was no death, sin or bloodshed before Adam and Eve sinned and Adam was the first sinner.
Creation vs evolution

I believe you are referring to the law of thermodynamics (energy cannot be created or destroyed) and the big bang theory. You have it the end of sciences knowledge on the main question " what came before the big bang?". You see, we don't know. The fact that we cant tell you what came before doesn't mean god exist or created the world nor dose it mean he doesn't. We can recreate many property's of the big bang and we can see that the universe has radiation, expansion, and it explains many phenomenons that happen everyday (why the earth is round, orbit, gravity) . This is why the theory is so widely accepted, unlike creationism, there was cause and effect. If you can use the law of thermodynamics in your argument then i ask you what created god? if it is so unlikely that humans where created by chance since we are so smart and great, then its way more unlikely that god wasn't created by chance because he is much greater. A typical response to this is that god is outside of the universe and that these laws don't apply to him. If laws of the universe don't apply to god (because he is outside of the universe) then why would they have to apply to what happened before the universe came to be? (before the big bang). The law of thermodynamics wouldent necessarily have to apply outside of the universe making your argument irrelevant.
Smelling the color nine.

I'm excited to tell you about one of the times we had in the forest. It was a dry summer day, I was walking with my dog to go to the camping site. The camp site was the place of the drap-burning festivities. All of a sudden, my dog starts acting up. He stats barking at me. The packages of draps left my bud's car and was headed to the old picnic table, where we would sort them by all the country's name. First up, Andorra. We threw that Catalan drap into the fire like it was bread going in an oven. Wow. The stench from the acrylic paint burned my nose. That time, I would even say I smelled as low as the color 2! I hope you have enjoyed this debate. I have smelled many numbers, but smelling number-colors are new to me. I have learned a lot and I hope you have done the same.
Smelling the color nine.

Now I've got a story. A couple decades ago, before I was born, I was playing a video game called Centipede on my TV. Then, out of no where, my dog starts breaking through my back door. He succeeds in breaking the door, rushes into the living room and takes a dump on my Atari 2600. The crap shorts the console right when I was about to finish the second to last level. I decide to call Atari help tech help. I look for Atari in the newest 2012 edition phone book but can't find anything. I call up Information and ask for Atari Help. She says that my console is far old and that I should replace it with an X-box One. Right then I smelled the color 9. Either that or it was the dog turd. I mean what is her attitude. Its only 1982 right?
Smelling the color nine.

Alright, lets me just start off with a little story. My dog and girlfriend were out camping in the Canadian winter. We were having a great time burning draps (flags) when a man came out of the woods. He held a long rod in his hands, and at first I thought he was a fisherman. But after closer examination I realized that was no rod... At that precise moment I smelt more of an 8 than a 9. It was a miracle that we got out of that alive, and that that man and his long rod (penis) are behind bars thanks to the police and my kung fu skills. Definitely 8 is the answer, not 9.
Water baptism is essential to salvation.

John 3:5 full verse Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. http://biblehub.com... Being born of the water isnt the same thing as being baptized. Check out verses 1-5 "1 There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews: 2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him. 3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. 4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?" 5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." https://www.biblegateway.com... The topic was about being born from the womb. Jesus could be speaking about born of the water like being born of the womb of the fluids which occur during birth. Jesus then gives the analogy of being born of the spirit. Or jesus could be speaking of water in a cleansing way. Being born of water is being cleansed. The bible speaks of water figuratively many times. (Psalm 51:2,7; Ezekiel 36:25,Hebrews 10:22) Mark 16:16 full verse He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. its uncertain if Mark 16:9-20 were originally in Mark. For core doctrine, we should have a verse which has no debate about it existing in the original text. But it doesnt say baptism is necessary for salvation. The last half says "but he that believeth not shall be damned" it says nothing like "He who believeth and is not baptized shall be damned". It means belief is necessary for salvation. The statement "Cats have fur" is true. THis doesnt mean the statement "A furless animal isnt a cat" is true. Like the statement "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved" is true this doesnt mean "He that believeth and is not baptized isn't saved". It is a negative inference fallacy My argument against it. The bible repeatedly says work isnt necessary for salvation. Ephesians 2:8-9 says For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith"and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God" 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. Romans 4: 1-12 is all about how Abraham is justified by faith. http://biblia.com...
Water baptism is essential to salvation.

I believe that the Bible teaches, water baptism is essential to salvation in a multitude of areas within the New Testament. Not water baptism alone but, it is required to become a Christian. Jesus said in John 3:5, that you must be born again of the water and of the spirit. He also said that you must believe and be baptized in order to be saved in Mark 16:16. There's nowhere in the Bible where an individual became a Christian by belief/faith only. However, the only thing that puts one into Christ is water baptism.
Best baseball player: Bryce Harper

Con seems to think that because Bryce Harper had a lucky few starting years, he is the best baseball player. That is a very illogical claim. Just because he got signs and an award does not mean he is the best ever. For example, The Killers won the MTV Europe Award for Best Rock Act. But does that make them the best rock band? No. All that means is they won an award. There are many baseball players who deserve credit for being the *best* more than Bryce Harper does. Think about legends like Babe Ruth, Jackie Robinson, Lou Gehrig, Derek Jeter, Joe DiMaggio, etc. These players have achieved legendary status in the game, while Bryce Harper is just up-and-coming. A rising baseball player has nothing on one of legendary status. ___________________________ Pro has set this debate to only one round, leaving barely any room for either of us to adequately argue. As Pro has not stated who the BoP lies on, i will take that role. Lou Gehrig joined the New York Yankees full-time as a pinch hitter in 1923. He won the American League All-Star Award seven times, the American League MVP (Most Valuable Player) twice, and the World Series Champion Award six times. These awards alone prove that Gehrig is more fitting for the slate of best baseball player than Bryce Harper is. Aside from Gehrig's awards, he is the only baseball player ever to collect 400 total bases in five seasons. Thus it is proven that Harper is not the best baseball player ever and Gehrig is a much more likely candidate. SOURCE: http://en.wikipedia.org...
Best baseball player: Bryce Harper

He got signed by the Washington Nationals and went on to win the Rookie of the Year Award at age nineteen! With a .270 batting average and twenty-two home runs made him the youngest National League position player to ever to win Rookie of the Year Award. His twenty-two home runs gave him the title as the second most home runs hit by a teenager in the history of the MLB. Last of all, this season, he has hit 63 singles, 13 doubles, 1 triple, 20 home runs, and has a batting average of .330.
I will be able to make it through the next two years of high school.

Well, as of a few minutes ago you forfeited Round 2. I am not sure whether you plan on posting arguments for rounds 3-5 but you not posting anything for Round 2 really hurts you. This just completely proves my point that you are not stronger than you think you are. Seeing as you had 3 days to reply to the argument and you were online a few times during that time limit I am going to assume that you have given up on your endeavor at defeating me. Congratulations, you have proved my points and I would like to thank you for that. Have a nice summer and see you next year...if you are still in Forensics anyways.
I will be able to make it through the next two years of high school.

Ah, so the insanity begins. First off the topic is "I will be able to make it through the next two years of high school." Understanding this you then started ranting about not becoming a psychotic freak next year, which has nothing to do with graduating seeing as psychotic freaks graduate all the time. So assuming you would rather debate about the topic "I will not become a psychotic freak next year." Then I will debate on that topic. So let us begin that debate. I would like to start this new "debate" by pointing out some more errors you made. First being that you said I "held" bets against you. This is a complete lie, I am currently holding investments from people who are simply investing in an important cause. The next error you made was that you think that adding a couple extra question marks makes you cooler and makes a point. The only point that those extra question marks are making is that you can't seem to make an argument without them. So, onto the debate. I honestly do think that you will not be able to make it next year. I would like to point out that in this last year of Forensics you completely hung on to that "certain person" that graduated. There was not a second that I did not see you clinging onto that "certain person" for dear life. If you try to deny that you hung onto that person then I will just bring up the point that you styled most of your events after that "certain person". Another thing is that you almost left Forensics this year due to your parents pressuring you, so once the only motivation you had for staying is gone then they will almost certainly take advantage of that and exploit that "certain persons" absence to get you out of Forensics. My final argument is that I do not believe that you have a strong will and I most certainly doubt you. Throughout the Forensics year you had complete doubt in yourself regardless of the situation. Just as an example, at a certain tournament I was going to watch your Dramatic Interpretation round. You couldn't stand me being in the room and didn't even have the self control to perform your piece correctly. Since you have little self control, if any, then there is no doubt that you will utterly fail at your remedial attempt to not go insane.
I will be able to make it through the next two years of high school.

Hey!!! I'm disappointed in your lack of faith in me. I can't believe you held bets against me. Do you honestly think I will break down and go psycho next year just because certain people graduated??? Do you honestly think that I would quit forensics just because a few people won't be there next year??? Why do you doubt me? I'm a little stronger than you think I am.
I will be able to make it through the next two years of high school.

Well, the power of becoming psychotic is very strong. It seems that my opponent forfeited three of the five rounds given. The first round was ridiculous at best with great confusion on the topic. The second round was forfeited by my opponent proving my point of her not being very strong. The third round my opponent came back and tried to rebute all of my arguments but as seen in that same round I took down every reason she had. Once again my opponent forfeited the fourth round and followed up by forfeiting the fifth. I hope you vote on my side and enjoy your summer.
I will be able to make it through the next two years of high school.

Once again my opponent shows that she was not prepared for this debate. Regardless of whether or not she could get to a computer, or if three days weren't enough, or even if aliens abducted her for 2 days, 23 hours, and 59 minutes, she started this debate, so she should have been prepared to actually do it. I myself am not even at my own home right now, I am staying at my grandmothers for a week and I still find time to reply to these debates. The last thing I am really going to say, since my opponent forfeited another round, is that this really just proves that my opponent is not competitive at all. So if my opponent isn't competitive then she really does have know reason to stay in Forensics aside from material possesions. Thank you, and hopefully you respond, but since I know how competitive you aren't then this could end now.
Overpopulation is a stupid, damaging myth.

You're a former debater, and a current debate coach, huh? Well then you'll understand this. I cede you the round, but because I believe you to be correct, but because I'm lazy. I think it more than possible for me to find counter studies saying that everything you just said is a bunch of bunk. But why waste everyone's time? I'd have to waste time reseaching it, you'd have to waste time countering it with more research, and voters would have to waste time reading... Ok, so it wouldn't waste everyone's time. If debate has taught me anything, it is to not trust evidence like this. It is entirely possible that your sources are legitmate and know what they're talking about. Even if they are, they'll probably still be wrong in the end. On the other hand, it is equally possible that they are alarmist nutbags who like to twist studies and present only one side. I, for my part, think I am quite capable of finding sources that, if not legitimate, at least sound legitimate. Again, why waste everyone's time? On a topic like this, you're going to have evidence going in every direction, and I'd rather not dig through the muck to find the evidence that supports me (and trust me its out there). Not to belittle what you did, though, that must have taken a lot of time. And that is why I cede the round. Still, I bet I get at least between 10% and 25% of the vote anyway. Nice job. Fun debate. Try not to brag too much.