BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Lincoln-Douglas Debate on Euthanasia

So, this round will function as close to a standard Lincoln-Douglas debate round as I can make it. To ensure that you're familiar with LD rules, please post a comment or message me before accepting. Thanks! Because this is going to be a traditional LD debate, plans, counterplans, "kritiks," off-topic cases, presumption arguments, theories, and tautologies are prohibited. There is no need for solvency. Debaters will be expected to offer a value and criterion structure, and to defend it. For more rules, see the following PDF: http://www.nationalforensicleague.org... The Rounds will be structured as follows: Round One: Affirmative Case (10,000 character max) Round Two: Negative Case and 1st Rebuttal (10,000 character max) Round Two: Affirmative 1st Rebuttal (5,000 character max.) Round Three: Negative 2nd Rebuttal (10,000 character max) Round Three: Affirmative 2nd Rebuttal (5,000 character max) There will be no cross-ex. By strictly adhering to character limits, we ensure that both Aff (Pro) and Neg (Con) have 20,000 characters with which to make their case. Neg may not make new arguments in rebuttal to the AC in his 2NR; however, he can make new points in defense of the NC in his 2NR. Aff cannot make new points in the 2AR unless directly responding to new Neg points made in defense of the NC. You will have 3 days to post arguments. Voting will last one month. By accepting, you agrees to all rules and stipulate that you are familiar with LD as set out by the NCFL and NFL; if Pro wishes to change any rules, Pro can post a comment or message me. Topic: Voluntary active euthanasia ought not be permitted within a just society. To Our Judges: Please cast your votes based on the rules and traditions of LD; for example, please use the winning criterion to evaluate the round. If you are unaware of how LD works, please refrain from voting or feel free to read up on it and then cast your vote. I sincerely thank you in advance! I look forward to a great LD debate! Over to my opponent.
Evolution is a scientific fact

A. K. A. a honkey. That was a joke. Back to being serious. ” I feel that as a white person I should be offended by that. However I understand the joke, now to the actual debate. “The change occurs NOT when one generation of two animals make a hybrid, but when over a long period of time, animals who have certain traits that allow them to survive in a given environment, are passed down to offspring, slowly changing one species to another. ” Where is the evidence for this? When has a change of species actually been observed? I know the idea is not that it jumps from one species to another without a transition, but why don’t we even see transitions, something that can breed with both species perhaps? “In other words, this is scientific fact. 'any observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and accepted as true; any scientific observation that has not been refuted '” When has it been proved true? Also, just because something cannot be refuted does not make it true either. “The primary function of science is to demonstrate the existence of phenomena that cannot be observed directly. ” There is plenty in science we can observe, for instance gravity is directly observable. Lets take atoms for example, it was hypothesized that matter was composed of smaller parts but we didn’t understand what those parts were. We still don’t fully understand as more details are being discovers. However, with a powerful enough microscope we can observe some of the effects of atoms. Most of the other things you mentioned, we can see the effect from them even if we cannot see the phenomena directly. Therefore, since evolution has never been directly observed, it is not on the same level of scientific fact as gravity. The scientific method involves repetitive observable occurrences. [1] Also, when searching for the missing link there have been a number of fabrications, such as the Piltdown man [2] or Nebraska man, which was created solely from a single tooth. [3] It shows that they were so desperate to prove their theory true that they lied about the evidence. “Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. ” True, because facts are facts, even if the theory is completely wrong, there are still facts that are correct that we just haven’t figured out yet. Therefore there is no reason to believe the theory of evolution as it is currently understood is correct. Darwin’s original theory has changed over time, evolved if you will. How do we know what we think we know now is correct? In 100 years the theory of evolution will likely be completely different than it is now. At one time the Ptolemaic idea that the Earth was the center of the universe was considered a scientific fact, but it is not really a fact since we now know it to be false. My opponent has failed to show how the theory of evolution, satisfactorily explains the variety of species and yet the lack of a smooth transition. I look forward to the next round. 1 . http://www.answersingenesis.org... 2 . http://www.sniggle.net...] 3 . http://www.darwinismrefuted.com...
Evolution is a scientific fact

I will not argue against micro evolution as I agree it is observable. My opponent has BOP, I only need to cast doubt on the theory of Evolution. According to Charles Darwin, much of his inspiration for evolution came from observing finches with different size beaks, while this may be evidence for micro evolution. These birds were all part of the same species. It is also akin to saying someone with a larger nose is more evolved. We have seen the effects of micro evolution but it has never been observed on the macro level, every time changes occur they occur within the same species. A Chihuahua and a Great Dane are very different but still belong to the same species. Never has it been observed two animals from different species mating and creating fertile offspring. I await my opponent’s response.
Evolution is a scientific fact

Evolution is a scientific fact . The idea that humans and all animals evolved into what they are today. Most do not deny Microevolution, a small change in a species that allows them to adapt. "House sparrows have adapted to the climate of North America, mosquitoes have evolved in response to global warming, and insects have evolved resistance to our pesticides. These are all examples of microevolution — evolution on a small scale." (evolution.berkeley.edu) I believe that most people do not agree with the idea of Macroevolution simply because, unlike microevolution, we can not observe Macroevolution first hand. or can we? "Macroevolution is thought of as the compounded effects of microevolution. Thus, the distinction between micro- and macroevolution is not a fundamental one – the only difference between them is of time and scale." (wikipedia.org) ie; Australopithecus evolving into Man and Apes. or the "tree of life" in the following link. http://rst.gsfc.nasa.gov... Interesting side note, a poll on msnbc said that just 39% of Americans believe in evolution. (firstread.msnbc.msn.com) Pro will argue that Evolution is a scientific fact. Con will argue Evolution is not a scientific fact. Con can argue that both Microevolution and Macroevolution are both false, or one is true and one is not. I wouldn't do it though, seeing as the only difference between the two is time and scale. Fact-something that actually exists; reality; truth -Dictionary.com Scientific fact-any observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and accepted as true; any scientific observation that has not been refuted -Dictionary.com Evolution-change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift. -Dictionary.com I want the person I'm debating with to be very passionate about this subject. I realize that Macro and Microevloution are terms coined by creationists, but the words are likely to come up during the debate so I might as well help clarify their definition. -http://evolution.berkeley.edu... http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com... http://en.wikipedia.org...
Animal Rights

I think animals should have rights. Why shouldn't they? They're animals, WE are animals. What's the difference? With medical and makeup testing, If the technology or makeup is for humans, test it on humans! Rats and Bunnies might have similar DNA to us but they aren't us. They could have different reactions. Also with situations like PETA, they stand up for animals and take them in but after a weeks or two, the ones that didn't get adopted, get thrown into barrels and gassed. Fight me.
Evolution v. Creation

I would like to start a new debate on this topic, but that does not justify my opponent's forfeit. I put a lot of time, research, and effort in to my rebuttal to my opponent's argument, which was never replied to.My opponent claims he has been having Internet problem's and since I do not know him personally I cannot argue if that is true or not. I hope the audience considers all factors when voting, and I thank my instigator for the round he did offer.Thanks again everyone.
Evolution v. Creation

My opponent has forfeited.Two things could have been responsible for my opponen's forfeit. He has either;1) Not been able to post an argument due to the three day time limit or 2) Forfeited the arguments to me because I have beaten him.So, I will continue my arguments from the previous round, and if my opponent forfeits again it only leads me to conclude I have one the debate. Its your move Pro.
Evolution v. Creation

First off, thanks to my opponent for sending me this challenge, I look forward to a very mature, educated debate. Next up, when reading over the "Rules" portion of my opponent's opening statements, specifically under "Structure" I couldn't help but notice that round 2 was titled "Opening Statements" and round 3 "Rebuttals" Now, I'm sure its just a misunderstanding but what I inferred was that I cannot address any of your statements in the next round, and I should just brush them off until round 3? This seems a bit odd that next round I cannot address any of your statements, if you could clear that up at the beginning of the next round that would be greatly appreciated. Now we have cleared that up I thank my opponent for the definitions, although as many notice my opponent has left me up to define Creationism. So, in the simplest form of definition from a generic dictionary website, Creationism is defined as the following; Creationism- (noun)(1) the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed. http://dictionary.reference.com...Now, in the "rules" section of my opponents debate Pro has also included this statement; "This is not a debate on God's existence"That is fair enough, this indeed is not a debate on the existence of God. But, as you can see with creationism comes an omnipotent creator, inferring God. Now once again this is not a debate on if God exists or not, but with creationism comes an outside force, a being bigger and more powerful than us, whether you call it God or not it doesn't matter, because that is not part of the debate. So, in this debate we will have to conclude that there is an outside force or there is an omnipotent Creator for the sake of Creationism, because you cant have creationism without a creator. Whether you call this Creator God or not it does not matter, but for my side of the debate I have to conclude that a creator exists, or else there is no point on debating this subject. And like you said in the rules, that is not debatable. I just wanted to inform my opponent and the audience that I will be referring to a Creator when talking about Creationism, I have no choice. Once again, thank you to my opponent who seems fully prepared for what has potential to be a truly amazing debate. Good luck to my opponent and thanks to the audience for reading. I look forward to hearing your opening arguments.
Evolution v. Creation

Resolved: Scientific evidence strongly supports the Theory of Evolution by common descent over the "theory" of Creationism. Definitions: No semantics please. These are the definitions that will be used throughout this debate.Theory - A well supported, conceptual framework that encompasses a large body of scientific facts, inferences, data, and observations and explains them in a coherent way (Fairbans, 2012)Evolution - Genetic changes over many generations ultimately result in the emergence of new and different species from a single ancestral species”. (Fairbanks, 2012)Scientific evidence - "Scientific theories are validated by empirical testing against physical observations. Theories are not judged simply by their logical compatibility with the available data. Independent empirical testability is the hallmark of science—in science, an explanation must not only be compatible with the observed data, it must also be testable. By "testable" we mean that the hypothesis makes predictions about what observable evidence would be consistent and what would be incompatible with the hypothesis. Simple compatibility, in itself, is insufficient as scientific evidence, because all physical observations are consistent with an infinite number of unscientific conjectures. Furthermore, a scientific explanation must make risky predictions— the predictions should be necessary if the theory is correct, and few other theories should make the same necessary predictions." (Douglas Theobald, 2012) The logic of such is seen in this syllogism:Premise 1: Theory T predicts observation O.Premise 2: Observation O is observedConclusion: Therefore, theory T is probably true.or conversely:Premise 1: Theory T predicts observation O.Premise 2: Observation O is NOT observedConclusion: Therefore, theory T is probably false.Supports - The supporting evidence (see above) is consistent with the Theory of Evolution and makes evolution more probable than not. Creationism - My opponent can define this term. Rules:Structure(1) Acceptance;(2) Opening statements;(3) Rebuttals;(4) Rebuttals/ClosingConduct (1) Debater must have typing experience, internet access, and should have sufficent knowledge of the Theory of Evolution.(2) Place your arguments and sources inside the debate(3) Structure the debate in a readable, coherent fashion.(4) No semantics,or trolling. (5) Burden of proof is shared. My burden is to prove that scientific evidence supports the ToE and your job is to show that it doesn't. Additional information:(1) This is not a debate on God's existence;(2) This is not a debate on whether the Bible is God's word;(3) This is not a debate on the age of the earth.Good luck and thank you for this debate.Bibliography Douglas Theobald, P. (2012, April 16). 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution, 2.89. Retrieved July 18, 2012, from Talk.Origin Archive: http://www.talkorigins.org... Fairbanks, Daniel J. Evolving: The Human Effect and Why it Matters. Ahmester: Prometheus Books, 2012. Print.
Ther Border Fence between the USA and Mexico is a bad idea

its been great debating with you too. Sorry that im not following the formal guidelines and procedures but i do my best:) ok so first id like to say. The fence, i don't think would too big of asn isolation imapct on other countries. They would know the reason and aaccept why we built it. As i said before in an arguement of... is a fence good opposed to other ways of keeping the illegals out, yes i think it's the best solution right now. But in an arguement of should force illegals out, keep the out, ect, im not sure where i would stand in that debate. As far as other ideas such as employemtn ID cards, those would be far less effective than the fence idea. In addition we don't have to build a fence in the physical you and others are thinking of. Maybe a complex motion sensing borderline would do the job without obstructed and degrading the area.
Ther Border Fence between the USA and Mexico is a bad idea

Thank you for your prompt reply, First I will rebutt your points and then move on to more of my own. My opponent stated "let's say we had unlimited funds and we could build a fence. It wouldn't be a bad idea." My rebuttal to this is that we are far from unlimited funds and we can never reach an amount so great, so this point is irrelevant. Second my opponent said "let's say we both want illegals out, you think a fence would be a bad idea opposed to... not that actual issue of illegal immigration" I don't want to keep illegas out though because as I said earlier that they make 52% of all our jobs and we need them or else our economy would die, so this to is irrelevant. Also just building a fence to keep illegal immigrants out would do nothing at all, just give a bad impression to other countries. Third "For that issue, yes i do think that we should spend our money on others things, i do think taking illegal out of our economy now would destroy it, but as far as this debate goes, i don't think the fence is a bad idea when it comes to ways to keep illegal's out." My opponent does agree that we should spend our money on other things and that our economy would die without illegal immigrants so that point just agrees with the pro side. Also the fence can be used to keep illegals out as my opponent stated but do we really want to keep them out? Thank you for this debate and I hope to debate you again.
Ther Border Fence between the USA and Mexico is a bad idea

I hate to agree with someone in a debate. But i am in unity with you on the point that our economy lives on illegals. There would be many factors going in and out of the situation if they all were forced out. But when it comes to the literal law and the fence itself, i don't think it would be a bad idea necessarily. Yes, people may feel their taxes should go towards other things but, let's say we had unlimited funds and we could build a fence. It wouldn't be a bad idea. The way i interpreted your debate is as follows... let's say we both want illegals out, you think a fence would be a bad idea opposed to... not that actual issue of illegal immigration. For that issue, yes i do think that we should spend our money on others things, i do think taking illegals out of our economy now would destroy it, but as far as this debate goes, i don't think the fence is a bad idea when it comes to ways to keep illegals out.
Ther Border Fence between the USA and Mexico is a bad idea

Thank you for joining this debate NonZeroBubble. First I would like to rebutt my opponents points and then state my own. My opponent stated that "I think it could be useful idea mostly depending on the technology Incorporated with the fencing and the physical fence itself. either way, it will be a big step towards what we want and will prevent so many more illegal immigrants crossing, than nothing at all" My refutation is that do we really want to stop the illegal immigrants from coming? Numerous American businesses are willing to hire cheap, compliant labor from abroad; such businesses are seldom punished because our country lacks a viable system to verify new hires' work eligibility and illegal immigrants make 52% of jobs in the USA and also when polled for who think that the illegal immigrants work very hard and are good workman was 45% of the US. So who's willing to do those jobs and why should we build a big military base on the border of mexico? Second my opponent stated that "lets say a large, virtually impenetrable, fully covering, electrical, barbed wire fence w/ cameras, motion sensors etc. was installed. Even thought this would be expensive and a large investment," We can't make the border of Mexico a military base with all those stuff, why must we spend so much money as my opponent stated "Even thought this would be expensive and a large investment". We should spend the money elsewhere on more important topics then to just block illegal immigrants from coming. Third my opponent stated that "US citizens commitment and investment and if they're willing to put the money in from taxes to get this done once and for." meaning that we would get the money from citizens to build this fence by increasing taxes just to build this thing. Why should we hurt the american economy by increasing taxes just to build this fence while hurting even more by not allowing illegal immigrants in and reducing all the labor greatly. Who would take the jobs then and all the occupations that are occupied currently? Now to a couple of my points: We should not build a fence because as my opponent stated it will cost a lot of money and we should spend that money elsewhere more effectively. We also should not build the fence because it doesn't matter what you build immigrants will still try to come and all the fence will do is create more deaths for immigrants trying to get a better life. Also why should we build a fence and then just let it stand there, even if we were to build it it would require a lot of maintenance and a lot more money to keep it in shape costing the economy greatly. Thank you.
Ther Border Fence between the USA and Mexico is a bad idea

I think it could be useful idea mostly depending on the technology Incorporated with the fencing and the physical fence itself. either way, it will be a big step towards what we want and will prevent so many more illegal immigrants crossing, than nothing at all. I think right, this is the best solution, and like i said, depending on the technology incorporated, could be very very useful. lets say a large, virtually impenetrable, fully covering, electrical, barbed wire fence w/ cameras, motion sensors etc. was installed. Even thought this would be expensive and a large investment, i think that would solve the problem, therefore proving that the problem is solvable with a fence at this point in time. The effectiveness of the fence all depends on the US citizens commitment and investment and if they're willing to put the money in from taxes to get this done once and for. The fence idea can be very good but all depending on the technology and physical properties of the fence it self. All in all no matter what fence we make it will be a prevention step, much more efficient than what we have now.
Ther Border Fence between the USA and Mexico is a bad idea

Thank you for joining this debate, First I would like to state my oppening arguments. There shouldn't be a border fence in between Mexico and the USA because not only does it seem very inconsiderate by showing that we have to block out a country and isolate ourselves and Mexico but also why do we need a big fence showing that we don't want anyone in our country from Mexico. Second why do we have to create hostillity between two nations who work well together. By building this fence not only do we show that we want nothing to do with them we also show that we want no contact at all. Do we want to create a society with so much anger in in that the other nation has toward us. This is how wars start and revolutions begin. Third do we really think that Mexico will be fine with this once they see the fence? Are they just going to be happy with this fence and not feel insulted at all? We should take it down immediatly to prevent all this from happening. Fourth what would other nations think? They think that shutting out a nation to prevent people from coming is a good idea? They would probably think that it was insulting and side with Mexico leaving a bigger war. Thank you,
one direction or justin bieber why

might as well do my argument so i don't get called out on it: OneDirection is a group of 5 British teens that make pop music. The only song that doesn't make my ears bleed whenever i listen to it is Story of my Life. Justin Bieber, who, may I remind you, was charged with use of DRUGS, and at a time, people were debating if we should make him leave the COUNTRY, makes my ears AND eyes bleed at the thought of me being at his concert. Now, since my opponent already forfeited, i guess that means i win the debate.