BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Developmental Assistance Should Be Prioritized Over Military Aid in the Sahel Region of Africa

alright. as you may have noticed, this is the public forum topic for january 2014. this is a straight pf debate - i have set it as 5 rounds so the first round can just be my opponent confirming. the next four are standard pf rounds - first constructive, rebuttle, summary and final focus. the winner is the one who upholds the resolution and proves their opponent wrong. i have taken con, thanks in advance.
Ban on Assault Weapons in United States

I apologize. What I meant to say was that by banning automatics you are decreasing the power of police, military and other armed forces that are supposed to protect us from all types of bad folks. The police in Chicago for instance are historically thought of as insufficent and ineffective and it causes the crime rates to be very bad. The same with crime rates in Detroit, and similarly, rates in similar cities like Cleveland and Philly. Automatics have a purpose in our armed forces. By banning them, we put our country at risk.Automatic bans do no good.
Ban on Assault Weapons in United States

There's one key problem with this... you're talking about people committing these crimes. Guns in themselves are not inherently bad. It's the people behind the crimes who commit this. Let's take a look at where crime sours the most.If the person didn't have the assualt weapon, he wouldn't have been able to kill so many people.By banning guns all together, you are putting citizens in a vulnerable spot. as they say, guns don't cause crime, criminals do.First of all, you said banning guns altogether. I'm talking about banning assault weapons. Secondly, I'm tired of people saying "guns don't kill people, people kill people." If they didn't have acces to those kinds of guns, then no one would get killed.
Ban on Assault Weapons in United States

Thank you for excepting my debate.Over the last few years, we have seen a growing number of gun massacres in the United States. From 1982-2012, sixty-two gun massacres were committed. Amongst those sixty-two mass shootings, fourteen of those massacres were committed with an assault weapon. Sandy Hook, Columbine, Aurora and many other massacres caused many deaths due to assault weapons. Banning these guns would have saved many lives. For example, at the Sandy Hook shooting, a Bushmaster M4 Type Carbine was utilized. This gun holds thirty rounds of ammunition, fully automatic. Adam Peter Lanza took the lives of twenty seven people with that gun. If assault weapons were banned, he wouldn"t have had the opportunity to murder twenty-seven people. Civilians in the the United States shouldn"t have access to Assault Weapons.http://www.motherjones.com......http://en.wikipedia.org......http://en.wikipedia.org......http://en.wikipedia.org...... There's one key problem with this... you're talking about people committing these crimes. Guns in themselves are not inherently bad. It's the people behind the crimes who commit this. Let's take a look at where crime sours the most. http://www.forbes.com...And guess what: it's one of the biggest gun control havenshttp://www.nydailynews.com...By banning guns all together, you are putting citizens in a vulnerable spot. as they say, guns don't cause crime, criminals do.
Ban on Assault Weapons in United States

Thank you for excepting my debate. Over the last few years, we have seen a growing number of gun massacres in the United States. From 1982-2012, sixty-two gun massacres were committed. Amongst those sixty-two mass shootings, fourteen of those massacres were committed with an assault weapon. Sandy Hook, Columbine, Aurora and many other massacres caused many deaths due to assault weapons. Banning these guns would have saved many lives. For example, at the Sandy Hook shooting, a Bushmaster M4 Type Carbine was utilized. This gun holds thirty rounds of ammunition, fully automatic. Adam Peter Lanza took the lives of twenty seven people with that gun. If assault weapons were banned, he wouldn"t have had the opportunity to murder twenty-seven people. Civilians in the the United States shouldn"t have access to Assault Weapons. http://www.motherjones.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...
The Supernatural exists

chipmonk Con My resolution is that the supernatural exists. I am convinced that most believe that the supernatural cannot or does not exists, but in such belief are they found ignorant. I contend that by means of logic and rational, critical thinking about REALITY, one can surmise that supernatural things do exist. Supernatrual is defined as such : su"per"nat"u"ral G6;soV2;opərG2;naCH(ə)rəl/ adjective 1. (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature. "a supernatural being" synonyms:paranormal, psychic, magic, magical, occult, mystic, mystical, superhuman, supernormal; More noun 1. manifestations or events considered to be of supernatural origin, such as ghosts. First round is acceptance. Accepting any irrational challengers. Report this Argument As Flawless.
It's unlikely that the Origin of Life was brought about through Natural Means.

You argued a different case then what I intended to represent in this Debate, given your track record on Debate.org it's not a surprise. I think you are misunderstanding what an Ad Hominem Fallacy is. I didn't insult you and try to influence the argument through that, I insulted you because of your poor debate manner. Let it be known that she is sending me explicit messages on this website in an attempt to get my phone number.
It's unlikely that the Origin of Life was brought about through Natural Means.

I have nothing to rebut against because my opponent has not made a constructive case. I ask the gentle reader to look at his second paragraph, where he says "oped to be a child" (referring to me), and it is apparent that he is using ad hominem, a type of logical fallacy. This is not civil in any type of debate, and I ask that you review this instance of poor conduct accordingly. Thank you.
It's unlikely that the Origin of Life was brought about through Natural Means.

Wait, what? Since when did I say that I was trying to prove that Humans caused the Origin of Life? You were aware of what the point of my debate was Con. The point was whether God created life, (Which I am for) as in the first self replicating cell, or influenced life to some degree. You were supposed to be arguing for the point that life could come about on it's own, without a guiding force. Yet, you opted to be a child and make this debate into an argument focused on a poor reading of my intent, which I clearly voiced in Round 1, I might add.
It's unlikely that the Origin of Life was brought about through Natural Means.

Because natural means is loosely defined as "not made or caused by humankind", I have to prove that life was not created by humanity, and my opponent has to prove that it has been made by humankind (because he has set the BoP on both of us). To prove that life was not created by humanity, I will be assuming that it was and use logic to prove that this idea is false. P1: All life was created by humans. P2: Humans are alive [1] C1: Life requires life to exist. The idea that life requires life to exist is flawed at its core.This is comparable to "the creation of paper requires paper"... well, where did the first paper come from? Because my opponent has to prove that humans caused the first human, and I have to refute this idea, I can say that God created the first human and that all life after that was created.My point is more likely than the very first life requiring life to exist, so vote con. [1]. http://www.worldometers.info...;(population requires life)
Sagging should be banned everywhere

My opponent now seems to imply that sagging should only be banned against people who can afford a belt. However, his reasons for banning this in the first place are still founded upon his personal dislike for it. As I've shown this is not a good reason to ban it altogether. My opponent also proves my point when he says: "I would at least like people to keep their pants up so A: their bare butts and other parts aren't showing; and B: Their underwear isn't showing either. "Now clearly if the persons underwear is showing but their bare butt isn't, they're not nude. Thus, sagging cannot be the same as nudity, and my opponent's argument from nudity fails. So all of my opponent's arguments have been refuted. Furthermore, his arguments are filled with logical fallacies as I have shown.
Sagging should be banned everywhere

Part 2 and my conclusion are correct. As you have accepted this argument, I now believe that you sag. I find it disgusting, I also find gay kissing disgusting, but I do not say that should be banned. Love is love. I am tired of seeing guys sagging, walking like a duck, and not bothering to pull up their pants before A: they trip; or B: their pants fall and the entire lower section is exposed. If you were to see from my point of view for this last argument, of which I ask of you to do, you don't have to as this was more interesting than being ignored. I believe it should be banned, but only for those that can afford or have a belt but choose not to use it properly, if they don't have the money to afford a belt or any fitting clothes, then they may be allowed to sag, if, and only if they don't have money to buy a belt or own one. I would at least like people to keep their pants up so A: their bare butts and other parts aren't showing; and B: Their underwear isn't showing either.
Sagging should be banned everywhere

My opponent has dropped my rebuttals. Does this mean he concedes my arguments?My opponent's second round can be divided into two parts:Part 1P1: Whatever I find disgusting ought to be banned.P2: I find sagging disgustingC: Sagging ought to be banned.Obviously P1 has not been defended, and is simply an absurd assumption.I can make a counter argument:P1: Whatever I find acceptable ought to be allowed.P2: I find sagging acceptable.C: Sagging ought to be allowed.Part 2My opponent now equates sagging with nudity. However, such an equivocation is absurd. While some sagging may be nudity, we can't conclude that all sagging is nudity.It is perfectly possible to sagg your pants without exposing yourself.So my opponent has come nowhere near meeting his burden of proof.
Sagging should be banned everywhere

If you were to come here, you would see how stupid it is. People walk around believing their looking cool. It started up in prison to say that their free for sex. But guess what, I don't do it and I'm not even busy half the time. I may have my old glasses back, but seeing people sagging makes me want to actually force myself to vomits. Even a tomboy girl does it. It makes them look like their walking like a freaking penguin. Its just plain stupid okay? I would honestly ban it if I could. I hate it, its disgustiing to see it. Over in Germany, I knew someone that sagged so badly that their butt was showing. I have another person in my 6th period class here now that is doing that same thing. My question to my opponent and all others is: Do you believe sagging should be banned or not? I say no because it will, can, and has been turned into public nudity without punishment. I can honestly say that in the near future, it will get to wear men walk out in public without pants and underwear. Where is this sane or right? Public nudity is illegal, therefore, so is sagging.
Sagging should be banned everywhere

IntroductionMy opponent shall have the BoP to show that "Sagging should be banned everwhere."FallaciesMy opponent has committed numerous logical fallacies."Sagging is just wrong and stupid."This is a bare assertion fallacy. (1) Applying Hitchen's Razor that "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" (2) I simply dismiss this with the contrary assertion: Sagging is awesome and not stupid at all."Do guys even think how they look when they sag."This is simply irrelevant, and counts as a Red-herring fallacy. (3)"They look gay even if their straight. Sagging has never been cool. OKay?"This is once again irrelevant, and is a bare assertion fallacy (1). Simply because it looks gay in my opponent's opinion, why does that mean we should ban it everywhere?"Noone wants to see a guys poop and pee stain masking their underwear or boxers. eventually, their going to take it too far and just stop wearing pants period."Perhaps we should make a ban on sagging while wearing poopy underwear then. It simply does not follow from this that we should ban sagging altogether. My opponent also makes a slippery-slope fallacy. (4)ConclusionMy opponent has committed numerous logical fallacies, and as of yet has not presented one decent argument in favor of the resolution. Thus it remains unaffirmed.Sources(1) http://www.toolkitforthinking.com...(2)http://www.goodreads.com...(3)http://www.nizkor.org...(4)http://www.nizkor.org...
Gods existence proven by disproving evaluation

Hello Lukegjones, and thank you for making this debate available, good luck!To begin with my opening thesis I'd like to go ahead and refute some of the claims my opponent has put out there.Evolution is survival of the fittest. So how does man exist?The answer to this is simpler than you may imagine, and the answer is because at one point human beings became the fittest. Contrary to what most evolution deniers may suggest there isn't a clear cut ape to human transition, we are simply a modern species that have gone down different evolutionary paths, although humans do share a known common ancestor with the African Ape.A question that may pop into your head now is:"If humans share an ancestor with African Apes why didn't African Apes also evolve into humans?"For starters, I believe that saying that humans are more evolved than the apes is just wrong, I mean just see how long you last in the nude in the heartland of the Congo. The short answer to this question is African apes are still around because their environment has encouraged the reproductive success of individuals with different genetic material than ours. either if the environment changed so humans had to be the fittest, or other reasons that means that monkeys or descendants of those primates whould not exist.First off, as I've said above the human species shares a common ancestor with African apes, but does this necessarily mean that the environment changed? I don't believe so, see, if you were to share a common ancestor with another primate species you would assume that these species both started out very similar, and as we know human beings ended up migrating to populate the whole entire planet *excluding Antartica*. the earliest species of human evolved independently from African apes, a species represents a set of individuals connected by gene exchange ("gene flow") that is genetically isolated from all other such sets of individuals. There is gene flow among individuals within a species, but not between different species. This lack of gene exchange means that different species can evolve independently.
Gods existence proven by disproving evaluation

The one thing that constantly stumps God and religion in general is evolution. It explains man's creation. But if we removed it that leaves religion with no road blocks. To help I will not argue with anything about God or religion it's self but rather evolutions falices. First of is the existence of man. Evolution is survival of the fittest. So how does man exist? We as humans are not fit to survive in any ecosystem accept the ones we have created. So why whould we go from primates ( much more fit to survive in this habitat) have adaptations change to things that whould make them less fit. Also, Evan if by a small chance if humans change, either if the environment changed so humans had to be the fittest, or other reasons that means that monkeys or descendants of those primates whould not exist. If the environment was not fit for these primates then that means non of them whould exist, why whould only a few of them survive.
Slut UL

i like SLUT UL do you like. Buba Badjie och 2 andra v"nner gillar MM Sports. RELATERAT INL"GG Gilla sidan MM Sports Ni har v"l inte missat marknadens f"rmodligen b"sta jordn"tssm"r... Buba Badjie och 2 andra v"nner gillar MM Sports. RELATERAT INL"GG Gilla sidan MM Sports Ni har v"l inte missat marknadens f"rmodligen b"sta jordn"tssm"r... Buba Badjie och 2 andra v"nner gillar MM Sports. RELATERAT INL"GG Gilla sidan MM Sports Ni har v"l inte missat marknadens f"rmodligen b"sta jordn"tssm"r...
Rising of human populations

The human population should not be encouraged to rise as people do use too many resumes. This means that a large human civilisation would ireversibly damage the planet and also would likely selfdistruct as it would eventually run out of resumes. The human population should be instead be allowed to slowly fall at a rate of less than 1% per year. This would mean that people could be lifted out of poverty as there would be more resumes per person. However, the problem of a falling and aging population mears that the economies of all countries would stagnate which is clearly shown in Japan but this problem could be minimised if the population decrease was slow enough and if countries stopped competing to be the biggest. Another advantage of a falling population is that, as a whole, humanity would be less damaging to the earth so civilisation would last longer. In conclusion,the population should be encouraged to fall slowly to reduce the amount of damage done to earth and to increase the sustainability of civilisation.
Rising of human populations

Hello, I'm not sure if your aware of our rising, we are at around 7 billion humans and we are still rising... Pro in this case means that i believe that our people will drop and fall soon. Con in this case means that we will still strive and continue to grow and such. The beginning is just to start it of and then the second round will be the true round. All known populations have their limit and I believe we are very close to it. We have grown as a human population...but have you notice that our medicine is not working as well as it used to? Our bodies may have got used to our medicine but what will happen when it no long works? We will begin to die by a flu like the old days. Many of us are over using are recourses and our environment need time to recover but I feel like its' recovering time will soon be here...
Smoking Ban

Really? Was my chart is only white? When I see it, it is good. Also I have the sources were my chart was from, so just look at my sources.FrameworkSorry for making my chart white. Just look at my sources. Pro had basically forfeited this round, or wasted it, so for that reason, vote for Pro. BOP is shared. I will be posting my rebuttals here, and restate my dropped arguments that my opponent needs to argue, or else they are dropped.Rebuttals1. Pro only has one argument, and this is about secondhand smoke.Okay, Pro's argument is clearly rebutted by my 3rd argument, about my counterplan. My counterplan states that we should have smoking zones, or smoking places to smoke. We ban people smoking in public places. This perfectly rebuts Pro's argument if we have smoking zones, because no one can go in or probably go in.DefenseOkay, Pro dropped all my arguments, so extend. Thank you. Back to Pro.
Smoking Ban

Smoking should be illegal in most public places. Not only does it kill those who smoke, it also endangers the lives of innocent people who have chosen not to smoke. An estimated 53,800 people die each year from secondhand smoking [1]. 2 out of 5 children are affected by secondhand smoke [1]. This needs to be fixed. It's manslaughter to smoke in a public place! People may have a right to smoke, but they do not have the right to cause others' deaths- and that's what smoking in public places and workplaces does. Sources: #1: http://www.no-smoke.org...;
Prostitution is analogous to pornography.

This debate regards whether or not there is a legal incongruency in having prostitution be illegal why pornography is legal. This debate should both address whether or not there is an analogy between the two actions as well as the potential harms/benefits that come from one over the other. If you accept the debate, say "yes" in the first post, or something to that effect. Then, with round 2, the actual argumentation will begin.
We landed on the moon.

If you scroll to the bottom of that link (http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk...), your entire first argument is there, word for word. But enough about plagiarism. You first say that it would have been convenient for us to get ahead in the space race by faking the moon landings. This is true; it would have been convenient. However, the Russians would have seen through it, because there would be absolutely no independent evidence of us landing there. That's why we actually went there, and that's why there is independent evidence. In fact, there is an entire, fairly detailed wikipedia article dedicated to independent evidence for the moon landings (http://en.wikipedia.org...). In this case, independent evidence refers to evidence collected by parties not affiliated with NASA or the U.S. government. Examples include the Japanese lunar probe SELENE, which captured a photograph of the same landscape shown in a photograph from Apollo 15. If the moon landing was a hoax, NASA would not have fabricated their photos to look exactly like real lunar landscapes, because they would have never known what they looked like from the proper angle. Also, the Soviets were in fact suspicious that we might fake the missions, and so tracked the missions by radar (Hansen, James (2005), First Man: The Life of Neil A. Armstrong). The whole coke bottle story is supported by extremely shoddy evidence. When this evidence is observed, it all really comes down to the anecdote of one person, which isn't much help in a debate. The claim that this was witnessed by many people is unsupported by evidence. It was claimed that people wrote into and were published in the newspaper The Western Australian. However, careful examination of all the issues of the paper since that day has found so such testimonies. To see other falsehoods and inconsistencies in that story, visit this link: http://www.clavius.org... Of course NASA can recreate the effects of weightlessness. Any amateur filmmaker with a half-decent video editing program can slow down the footage and make it look somewhat like gravity on the moon. This does not make it more likely that the whole thing was an elaborate hoax.
We landed on the moon.

They were not copied and pasted. There is video evidence on the link you provided http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk.... Space travel played a huge role in the Cold War, wouldn't it be convenient if we somehow dominated the commies. In Australia many people saw a coke bottle on their screen because they were getting their television coverage from a different feed than the rest of the world. This wasn't just a group of people trying to downplay the event, it was a bunch of random people with no connection to each other who complained about the coverage. On the link I provided and if you google it, you will find videos about how NASA recreated the effects of weightlessness. People can bounce like they did on the moon and slow the video down and it looks exactly the same. If you follow this link, http://i890.photobucket.com... , you will see pictures from two separate missions that were supposedly taken from different parts of the moon.