BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The 'Young-earth' "theorists" take the bible literally and the earth is no older than 6,000yrs old

I fully know that people who think the earth is, at most, 6,000 years old are willfully deluding themselves. They are Bible literalists that are have been taught that the Bible gives a complete time line of all existence. The Young Earth creationists contend, going back to Adam and Eve, the early time line can be pieced together in Genesis and in Genesis alone. The Young Earth believer must deny the evidence, the artifacts, and yes, even the actual provable facts. Please Mr or Ms. Young Earth creationist, please convince me that the earth is no where near as old as all of science say it is. Please try and convince me that the Bible's time line of events is accurate and is proof that the Earth can not be even 10,000 yrs old. The burden of proof is on you. This debate will end one of three ways. You convince the community at Debate. com that your Young Earth beliefs are accurate and win. I provide an argument that is superior and win. Or, the most likely conclusion, you forfeit after one pathetic attempt and then everyone will KNOW you and your entire belief system is false and in the end, pathetic. Good luck
Should Animals Be Kept in zoos and aquariums

I'm sure my arguing here will surprise some people, given that I am for animal rights. However, I believe that my position will make more sense shortly. Arguments will be abbreviated C1/P1, C2/P2, etc. C2 will be dealt with last because it forms the crux of my argument. C1: So? This is an example of the naturalistic fallacy. It's not enough to just say 'it natural' when making a moral/ethical argument. C3: The difference is that we are reasonably sure that Taylor Swift does not want to be in an artificial environment for reasons besides the natural drive to have a large territory or simply wondering what's 'over there'. C4: This displays a stunning lack of knowledge about animal behavior. Many other species aren't social. Take many species of feline, for instance, or snakes. C2: This actually supports the idea that animals should be kept in zoos and aquariums. Think for a second. We have no problem keeping humans unable to care for themselves in an artificial environment where they won't die. If these animals are unable to survive in the wild, what do we do with them? To put them in a facility designed to care for them, supported by attendance and dedicated to building emotional ties between humans and animals, seems a decent option--and the alternative to keeping them in captivity would simply be to kill them. You could make the argument, I suppose, that they shouldn't be allowed to reproduce, but that still leaves a lot of animals who are going to live for a long, long time.
Should Animals Be Kept in zoos and aquariums

* Should animals be kept in zoos and aquariums? My opionion: No animals should not be kept in zoos or aquariums. My reasons why:: I believe that zoos are a somewhat bad place for animals. Reasons why: Animals are built for the real outdoors and to find food and shelter in their own. What if a zoo were to set an animal free. They would never know how to hunt. Especially if they were babies when they first arrived at a zoo. All their lives they wouldn’t have know how to hunt for themselves because a zoo worker has been throwing food out of a bucket to them their whole life. Just because we want to see animals doesn’t mean they have to put them in cages for us. What if we all wanted to see Taylor Swift? We wouldn’t just lock her in a cage for her whole life JUST so she could be seen. After all, most animals need friends just like humans do. Most zoos put 2 animals in a cage. But if you saw an animal alone, wouldn’t you want it to have a friend? Think back during school, were you your only friend, or the most popular person in school. Everyone wants to be popular think about the animals too. They have brains. They think. They KNOW! Now that YOU know some of the reasons why I think zoos are a bad place for animals, tell me your opinion. (((:
It's time to stop the fat of the land living off us.

So at this point I will be addressing the standing issues I have with my opponents case, then talk about why they haven't fulfilled the BOP, then end with a summary.Issue 1 - Sources and reading sources;I would like to address the sources my oppoenent has brought up a gallup study, but he obviously didn't read this study. The first paragraph reads "The obesity rate rises from 22.8% among those unemployed for two weeks or less to 32.7% among those unemployed for 52 weeks or more." So only 32.7% of unemployed are obese! the other 67.3% are not. his own study goes against his point of view. The point of this article was to show the increase from 22.8% to 32.7% not to say obese people are the most likely to be unemployed.Issue 2 - Hate Content;my opponents arguments are entirely comprised of un-backed hate content so lets look at some examples:-obesity is caused by over-eating and under-activity, and what employer would choose to employ somebody who is greedy and lazy?-is no magic wand that can be waved to make the obese slim.-Why should we continue to work hard just to house and feed these lazy gluttons?-next time you see some sweaty fat slob dossing about instead of working remember it is you that helped pay for that greasy, super-sized burger they are shamelessly ramming down their blubbery neck.My opponent hasn't backed any of these statements and all of these statements are offensive and rude. He doesn't seem to understand how terrible statements like this are and how many people this effects.Issue 3 - Australia V. USA/ UK V. USAMy opponent seems to think that other countries validate action in the US. Australia is completely different from the USA, Australia has a healthcare system that costs more than other countries and has less laws mandating participation in it. while still requiring doctors to treat uninsured patients. we cant compare two entirely different systems to one another and hope they will overlap enough to necessitate action and the same goes for the UK.Issue 4 - The Magic Wand; My opponent is at the end of his argument bringing up how " there is no magic wand that can be waved to make the obese slim", However I would argue there is; Support from a community, family, friends, and peers can motivate those who are unhealthy to work towards a more healthy life style. But its still up to the obese individual, there's nothing wrong with being overweight and people like my opponent who assume there is often bully those with health issues to the point of duress. We should be more supportive overall of whatever decision is made.Issue 5- BOP I would like to point out at this point a BOP has not been fulfilled.SUMMARY (Standing arguments);~Opponents sources support NEG~Opponents arguments contain hate content~Opponent doesn't fulfill BOP
It's time to stop the fat of the land living off us.

That said, I agree that not all shiftless scroungers are obese and visa-versa but, the fact is, that obese people in the United States are far more likely to be unemployed than the rest of the population. {1} That should come as no surprise, however, as obesity is caused by over-eating and under-activity, and what employer would choose to employ somebody who is greedy and lazy? Furthermore, the same study shows that obese people in work are far more likely to take sick leave than other workers and, therefore, cost employers more. Meanwhile, in Australia, studies show that "Obesity is costing the Australian economy $637 million dollars each year due to indirect costs associated with increased sick leave, lower productivity, unemployment, disability, early retirement and workplace injuries. This is in addition to the $1.08 billion obesity related healthcare costs. " {2} Similarly, in Britain, the cost of treating the obese is threatening to bankrupt the National Health Service. {3} My opponent mentioned drug rehabilitation facilities and alcohol addiction counselling services, and similar programmes are available for the obese should they wish to take advantage of them. However, there is no magic wand that can be waved to make the obese slim, it takes self-discipline in fast food restaurants and hard work in the gym to lose weight and keep that weight off, but those that manage it should be congratulated. On the other hand, those obese people who refuse to help themselves and think that the world owes them a living should be made to think again. Thank you. {1} . http://www.gallup.com... {2} . http://www.myvmc.com... {3} . http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
It's time to stop the fat of the land living off us.

To start off with my opponent Holds the BOP so he must prove "It's time to stop the fat of the land living off us." So now ill start:Obese people work just as hard as any other individual, its illogical to say that "the obese are similarly milking the system so they can stuff their big flabby faces at our expense" for two reasons;1) This Statement Refers to ALL Obese individuals; [1]More than 2/3 of America are considered Obese, that means the above statement says, Only 1/3 of the united states holds any job. However the [2]united states reports an unemployment rate of 6.1%, thus the statement is factually unsound.2)We don't carry the medical costs of obese individuals; We also have to see obese individuals are insured and employed, so we don't carry any costs.[3]Th e united states, in 2009, reported that 256 Million had insurance, that's around 85% of the population. This census also explains that it accounted for illegal immigrants, which at the time couldn't receive insurance, thus the 10.8 Million illegal immigrants boost the amount of individuals with insurance to 88%, so 12% of the population didn't have insurance and as I stated above that doesn't cover all obese people.My opponent has simply insulted 66% of the population and did not supported it with any facts. I would challenge him to show that obese people do anything he says they do, and where does this statements play in "We don't sympathise with drug addicts or alcoholics who make themselves incapable of getting a job so why should we care about the obese?" My opponent has obviously never heard of rehab, AA, or any other organization that helps addicts, and he seems to think that people who are over weight are the same as an individual who is addicted to a substance.So I offer a counter call to arms; People like my opponent shouldn't continue on, they are the people who attack individuals for their differences, they unaccepting and think its ok, we can only see a ballot in favor of the NEG.[1]http://frac.org...[2]http://data.bls.gov...[3]http://www.census.gov...[4]
It's time to stop the fat of the land living off us.

The idiom 'living off the fat of the land' refers to the British aristocracy who do no work themselves but, instead, live a life of decadent self-indulgence courtesy of the workers who toil on their vast, inherited country estates to produce crops and animals for sale. The British landed gentry are undoubtedly indolent parasites but they are not the only ones sponging off hard-working people like you and I. No, the obese are similarly milking the system so they can stuff their big flabby faces at our expense. That's right, those grossly overweight people who are so lazy and greedy that all they do all day is lay about shovelling junk food down their oversized gullets until they become obese and, therefore, unfit for work, are sitting at home scoffing pizzas and ice cream while industrious people like us go out to work to pay the taxes that the government uses to dole out unemployment benefits to these bloated blood-suckers. It's got to stop. The idle scum who wilfully make themselves unemployable by indulging themselves to the extent that they are too fat to work should be denied unemployment benefits. This will mean they will have to go out begging or go hungry which, in the end, will be good for them if it means they lose weight. Why should we continue to work hard just to house and feed these lazy gluttons? We don't sympathise with drug addicts or alcoholics who make themselves incapable of getting a job so why should we care about the obese? We shouldn't - the next time you see some sweaty fat slob dossing about instead of working remember it is you that helped pay for that greasy, super-sized burger they are shamelessly ramming down their blubbery neck. No, it can't go on like this: it's time to let the obese fend for themselves; it's time we stopped the fat of the land living off us Thank you.
The Universe's Existence is Explicable

In this debate I will support the notion that "The Universe's Existence Is Explicable" -- in other words, it is more plausible to think that the universe has an explanation than its negation. What this explanation is is irrelevant to the metaphysical question of whether the universe can be plausibly thought to have an explanation at all. The opponent may either take the offensive position of disproving my arguments and/or provide reasons for why the universe is an exception to explicability through showing an explanation to be impossible or implausible. We'll reserve the arguments for the next round as this round is for accepting only.
The Universe's Existence is Explicable

Hello there! Glad to be debating with you over a philosophical topic! Thanks for bringing this topic up for debate, I'm sure it will be fun for both sides~ The Universe is an interesting concept to explore no matter which side of the debate you take up. As the Con, I believe I will be attempting to provide reasoning for why the Universe can not be explained, if I am understanding the topic correctly, but I can freely debate under anything so if I am wrong feel free to inform me. So then, shall we begin? :D
These Arguments Against the God of Christianity Are Valid - 1C.

*NOTE* - The "1C" notation is for searching/browsing purposes. I hope to have more of these debates. The resolution is simple and brief: I am here to argue that the God of the Bible has no solid evidence for it's existence. Common attributes given to this God is omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence , omnipresence, and many others. These 4 "omni-attributes", however, is what I will be focusing upon. =====Arguments===== For this debate I will be utilizing two popular arguments: the Argument from Evil and the Argument from Non-Belief. 1. Argument from Evil If an all-loving God exists, then why does evil and suffering exist in the world? Christians commonly use free will as an excuse for the evil in the world. But then, the burden is placed on my opponent to show why God would prefer us having free will rather than us not having free will, or having free will with moral perfection. Secondly, the Christian has to somehow account for natural disasters that cause millions of deaths, tons of parasites that feed on humans, and of course bacteria and viruses. While some bacterias and viruses are human-made or proliferated, it's foolish to say every virus and bacteria does. So what of the virus that kills an infant in 4 months? 2. Argument from Non-Belief I will paste the syllogism that Theodore Drange[1] formulated, based on J.L. Schellenberg's original formation of this argument: 1. If God exists, God: 1. wants all humans to believe God exists before they die; 2. can bring about a situation in which all humans believe God exists before they die; 3. does not want anything that would conflict with and be at least as important as its desire for all humans to believe God exists before they die; and 4. always acts in accordance with what it most wants. 2. If God exists, all humans would believe so before they die (from 1). 3. But not all humans believe God exists before they die. 4. Therefore, God does not exist (from 2 and 3). =====Conclusion===== With both my arguments laid out, I await my opponent's rebuttal. ---References--- 1. http://www.infidels.org...
'defense of others' too limited in practice, killing serial killer bob isnt inherently immoral

con argues that if someone were to kill bob out of malice with no knowledge of his crimes, that would be wrong, and that shows that someone kiling bob out of defense is also wrong. this is just wrong of con. a person can have different motives with an objective act. if their motive is good, the act and the intent is good. if the intent is bad, the act is good but the intent is bad, and ti's still 'culpable'. (i'd say sinful but dont want to get too loaded terminology)Pro asserts that the intent does not affect the objective correctness of the act. However, that is wrong, as:1. There is no objective "good" act, as morality can be argued to be subjective, and your argument that it is moral to kill Bob is an opinion rather than objective fact, and con has failed to provide a logical explanation on how it would still be moral even after my Round2 rebuttals.2. Your argument assumes that the result is the only one that matters.con argues if there are better ways to stop bob, they should be done, that doesn't infolve killing him. that is actually exactly what i said. i just pointed out that it's not always possible to stop bob without killing him, so i'm showing with that limited example, that it is not inherently wrong to kill bob. How is it not always possible? And also, this is an inadequate rebuttal as I did prove that there are more moral alternatives, but you ignored it and instead asserted that it is not possible.if there is uncertainty, it is no different than a jury playing the odds with someone's life. the only difference is one is a government body, and one is not. However, a jury or government court will look at the objective situation, while a single vigilante would be more persuaded by emotion.Also, it appears that pro had not looked at my justification for P2 from last round.If wrongful convictions can happen in impartial courts, it can be assumed that it could also happen with vigilante justice, except there's even more wrongful convictions as vigilantes are not required to be impartial juries. Therefore, there is a chance for an unfair decision.
'defense of others' too limited in practice, killing serial killer bob isnt inherently immoral

con argues that if someone were to kill bob out of malice with no knowledge of his crimes, that would be wrong, and that shows that someone kiling bob out of defense is also wrong. this is just wrong of con. a person can have different motives with an objective act. if their motive is good, the act and the intent is good. if the intent is bad, the act is good but the intent is bad, and ti's still 'culpable'. (i'd say sinful but dont want to get too loaded terminology) con argues if there are better ways to stop bob, they should be done, that doesn't infolve killing him. that is actually exactly what i said. i just pointed out that it's not always possible to stop bob without killing him, so i'm showing with that limited example, that it is not inherently wrong to kill bob. as argued, killing bob is a matter of probability. if there is no uncertainty or next to it, killing bob is not inherently immoral. if there is uncertainty, it is no different than a jury playing the odds with someone's life. the only difference is one is a government body, and one is not. and there's the issue of 'imminency' as the only thing stopping someone from killing bob unarguably morally if a death is about to occur so self defesnse is needed.... and then compared to when the death willl occur soon enough. "soon enough" is close enough in terms of imminency, and a high probablity or next to certain ID of bob and the situation can still occur. enough to show that it is not inherently immoral to kill bob.
'defense of others' too limited in practice, killing serial killer bob isnt inherently immoral

Con argues that because the hypothetical serial killer Bob has been shown to intend to kill people, it is not immoral for him to be killed for defense of others even if he is not an imminent danger to others.As this is more of a moral/logical debate where sources are not the focus, let's debate by seeing the logical implications of Con's logic.1. Logical RefutationLet's first talk about a hypothetical second serial killer Joe. Let's say that Joe killed Bob, but did not know that Bob was a serial killer. Instead, Joe killed Bob because he wants to kill anyone he sees. Then, lets say that in another scenario, Bob was killed by a Vigilante. Both result in the same result: Bob dying. However, Joe killed Bob out of malice, while the Vigilante did it because Bob did bad things. However, if my opponent was correct, then the Vigilante is more rightful than Joe, just because he did it for the "defense of others". This is impossible, as both had the same result, but con's logic implies that the Vigilante is somehow more morally rightful than Joe. Let's use an analogy. Say that A = B, and A = C. A is Bob being killed, B is the Vigilante,and C is Joe. In normal logic, B = C. However, in my opponent's logic,B > C, creating a paradox."sometimes you can shoot someone in the leg instead of killing them. if that seems possible, then bob shouldn't be killed. but my claim is basically "up to and including death" where death is a last resort, but sometimes necessary, and when it is, it should be done."This is irrelevant to the contention that the killing of Bob is not immoral. All it means is that there are more moral choices than killing Bob.2. Moral AlternativesP1:If there is a more moral alternative, then the less moral action is relatively immoral.P2: The act of killing Bob is immoral, since there are more moral alternatives. Justification for P2: Death penalty convictions have been found to be false from time to time, and causes for false convictions include Eyewitness Errors and False Confessions. (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...) If wrongful convictions can happen in impartial courts, it can be assumed that it could also happen with vigilante justice, except there's even more wrongful convictions as vigilantes are not required to be impartial juries. Therefore, there is a chance for an unfair decision.If there could be an unfair decision causing Bob to wrongfully blamed or getting too harsh of a punishment, then a better alternative is a fair court trial. In fact, con already gave an example of a better alternative: sometimes you can shoot someone in the leg instead of killing them. if that seems possible, then bob shouldn't be killed. but my claim is basically "up to and including death" where death is a last resort, but sometimes necessary, and when it is, it should be done.C: The act of killing Bob is immoral.