BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
All things were created by God and Human wisdom cannot explain everything

I am laughing very hard right now Why: In evolutionary biology, a group of organisms share common descent if they have a common ancestor. There is strong quantitative support for the theory that all living organisms on Earth are descended from a common ancestor.[1][2] Charles Darwin proposed the theory of universal common descent through an evolutionary process in On the Origin of Species, twice stating the hypothesis that there was only one progenitor for all life forms and ending with "There is a grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one".[3] The theory asserts that all currently living organisms on Earth share a common genetic heritage with each being the descendant from a single original species, though the suggestion of substantial horizontal gene transfer during early evolution has led to questions about monophyly of life.[1] The last universal ancestor (LUA) (also called the last universal common ancestor, LUCA), that is, the most recent common ancestor of all currently living organisms,[1] is believed to have appeared about 3.9 billion years ago.[4][5] http://en.wikipedia.org... I never said a common ancestor was an ape or monkey, I said that we are evolved from the same common ancestor as monkeys and apes and bonobos. I also never said that there are decreasing apes and monkeys(but there is). I said they are evolving just like us at very slow increments. http://iloveprimates.com... Also there are decreasing numbers of apes. So my arguments are very strong and yours are very very weak.
All things were created by God and Human wisdom cannot explain everything

Are you playing with me? Your arguments are inconsistent! Why, because you said that we are not evolve from monkeys but we have common ancestors... Do you really understand the word common? When we say "common" with a very concrete example: RUNNERS - they start with a common point or starting point. That is "common" and you ask me if I study science? may be you are the one not studying science... You said that we have common ancestors so it means that we are really came from apes, monkeys... You said that apes, monkeys are decreasing, you are wrong!!! In africa there are so many apes, monkeys... Your reasons are too weak.
All things were created by God and Human wisdom cannot explain everything

Did you even study science? we are similar to monkeys because of our features. We are infact not evolved from monkeys but evolved from a common ancestor that we share with monkeys. Monkeys are evolving today just as we are if you need a diagram look here. http://www.age-of-the-sage.org... This can be shown through hominoid fossils. these hominids were evolved from apes and they were really the first humans. Many of them posses ape like features and they start to decrease as you go further down the timeline. This is proof of evolution.
Homosexual Behavior Is Immoral

Since my opponent not elected to make an opening argument (He instead stated his position), I will extend my arguments from my opening speech. Let me, however, make some comments on Con's opening argument. He writes: "Instead of detailing why most homosexual behavior is immoral, I will instead expound on the view that, at the very least, homosexual behavior engaged whilst in a monogamous, homosexual union is not immoral" Con's position seems to be that homosexual behavior is immoral unless it occurs within a union (Such as a marriage). Before responding to his arguments (Which he will lay out in detail in his next post), I want to raise two key issues: 1) The general question of whether homosexuality is intrinsically moral or immoral must be dealt with first. If homosexual behavior is shown to be intrinsically immoral, then whether or not it occurs between two consenting adults should have little significance. So the primary question is: is homosexual behavior itself immoral? If the behavior itself is immoral to begin with, then it's not clear how it would be morally permissible if two adults consented to it. The arguments which I have raised against homosexuality deal with this primary question, and thus must be addressed before we get into secondary issues. 2) From a biblical perspective, the only recognized union is that of marriage. However, marriage was explicitly established in Genesis as a union between a man and a woman for reproductive purposes. There seems to be no mention in the Bible of "civil unions" or anything like that. Thus, for my opponent to justify his position on the grounds of special revelation, he must argue demonstrate that homosexual marriage is morally permissible.
Elves are better than Dwarves

Elves are vain, judgmental, racists', and snobs. They think that Elves are the greatest thing since mugweed and are generally emaciated and difficult to copulate with. I mean really, who wants a bunch of bones poking them when they are trying to be intimate? Dwarven women are soft, welcoming, warm, and nurturing. I would rather think that one would prefer something like that watching over their little ones rather than a sniper. Dwarves eat meat. Most kinds of meat. That means that Dwarves, by their very nature, help quell the amount of predators that roam the land. The number of veggies that are responsible for eating babies and small children are rare, but a Dwarf will still use those few, rare, carnivorous plants to season their direwolf stew. Dwarves use axes!!! and swords!!!, and Polearms!!! and shields!!! They fight up close, in your face, with honor. The greatest arrow can not pierce the shield of a shield forged by a Dwarven smith. And even if it could, there would still be platemail, chainmail, and good ole thick Dwarven skin to go through before it hit any really important parts. Dwarves not only don't need magic, but are particularly resistant TOO magic. In fact, Dwarves are particularly resistant to most things, far more resistant than the waifishly thin, sadly delicate Elves. Perhaps this is why they (the elves) prefer to hide in trees safe from the real battle. It is of no nevermind though because as long as there are Dwarves there will always be true warriors to hold the front. Dwarves are miners. Suppliers are ore, gemstone, and GOLD! The best Elven steel ever made still came from Dwarven ore. This is why even the Elves bowed before the King Under the Mountain. Because all the knowledge in the world is not as powerful as the resources needed in order to bring it to bear. And again, Elven women can not grow beards. A Dwarven lady can grow a beard that keeps her mate warm in the harsh winter, and shave it off to stand proud next to any Elf, by their standards, in the spring. Plus Dwarven women have hair that comes in all different colors. There are browns, blondes, reds, brunettes, greys....why there are even some Dwarven women who have freckles to match, and tell me that THAT is not smoking hot!!
Elves are better than Dwarves

Well yes dwarves drink more, but their women are really ugly. I mean really ugly. I mean the elven women are skinny, with usually blonde hair, decent cleavage and their really smart, and could kill you. Dangerous and hot and smart women are where it's at. I mean dwarf women just kind of stay behind with the children while Elven women kill people. Elves also live with nature, which is also awesome. Plus their vegetarians which is better for the environment, and they make great snipers. Elves are also much more proficient with magic. And when you think about it, skilled magicians can take down any heavy artillery made by dwarves. Elves are also have much more knowledge and libraries. They learn and continue learning things like geometry and philosophy. The elves could use this knowledge to take everyone over, but they choose not to, because they are peaceful.
Elves are better than Dwarves

Staying with the Tolkien theme. Dwarves drink beer! They have a lower center of gravity too and so they don't fall down after drinking LOTS of beer! Dwarves fight dragons, and giants, and trolls, and just about anything that gets in their way. Elves hide in mountains and forests playing with animals and brushing their hair. Dwarves have beards!! Elves can not grow beards. A dwarf could shave off his beard (although I have no idea why one ever would) but an elf could never grow a beard, even if it were winter cold and one was needed for survival. This means that Dwarves are more suited to survive in hostile climates than elves. Dwarves know how to party. Elves are always serious.
Elves are better than Dwarves

So basically, Tolkein style elves (if you have never read Tolkein I describe it below) are better than regular fantasy dwarves. Elves are tall, usually somewhat Aryan looking huminoids, with especially long ears and hair. They have a connection to nature, and are especially skilled with bows and magic. They are stronger than humans and faster as well, being especially good at navigating forests. Typically are friends with animals and nature spirits such as dryads. Elves can live for a very long time, and are generally less affected by disease, but their slight build makes them easy to kill with blunt objects. Elves are obsessed with looking great. Dwarves are short, and stocky. They have great skill with mining and smelting, and other craftsmen skills. They are excellent at enchanting weaponry, but they are poor at hand to hand magic. They are however excellent with high precision crossbows and battleaxes. Dwarves tend to live in caves, and are obsessed with gold. Dwarves live longer than humans, a couple hundred years if fairly old for them, but not as long as elves. However, they do have more children than Elves.
Elves are better than Dwarves

"Dwarves use axes!!! and swords!!!, and Polearms!!! and shields!!! They fight up close, in your face, with honor. The greatest arrow can not pierce the shield of a shield forged by a Dwarven smith." There are always gaps in armor. And forests make fighting in ranks difficult. Advantage elves. And in a battle, any wound is enough to leave you incredibly vulnerable to other attacks. Besides, indirect magic attacks, such as elemental magic, or summoning swords, or crushing dwarves in their armor can still cause massive damage. "Dwarves there will always be true warriors to hold the front." And people die in the front lines. Elves have much better tactical skills. When your fighting an evenly matched war, you want the elves commanding. Dwarves make descent front line tanks, but in the end superior tactics can make much of the Dwarves advantages useless. "Because all the knowledge in the world is not as powerful as the resources needed in order to bring it to bear." In the civil war what was more powerful, the knowledge of how to manufacture goods, or the production of cotton. The souths victories early in the war came from superior tactics and commanders, not armor and better guns. "Dwarves are miners. Suppliers are ore, gemstone, and GOLD!" Yeah dwarves are greedy. At least elves have Principles. And Elves are tall. "Elves bowed before the King Under the Mountain." Yeah because the mountain was heavily fortified and it was beneficial to the Elves to be on good terms. The Dwarves couldn't have destroyed Mirkwood. It also was very fortified, but in different ways. Elves also make great assasins, as they are quiet, can blend in better with humans, because once their ears are covered they are just tall humans, and are swift and agile. Had they really wanted to, they could have assassinated the king under the mountain and simply waited until the Dwarves responded with vengeance, went into the forest, got separated and they defeated each small segment of the army separately.
SAT Private Tutoring Should be Banned

I will offer rebuttals to some of your points."Not every student has Internet access. Some students don't even know that their are resources available."It would be very hard to sign up for the test without being notified of the free (standard) prep material on the SAT College Board website. Speaking from personal experience, I received numerous emails and an offer in the mail notifying me of the material, as well as the fact that there are ads all over the website. It is not right to penalize everyone for the ignorance of a few. With regard to the lack of Internet access, public libraries offer it for free if it is really a need."If there were two students who were roughly of the same intelligence and one had a tutor and did not have a tutor, I believe that the one with the tutor would do better on the SAT."I disagree that having a private tutor is a very significant factor in doing better on the test. They don't give their students any instruction that they can't find on their own. Showing students how to solve particular problems that they get wrong on a practice test is not very significant as the odds of getting the same question twice are ridiculously small. Analyzing their strengths and weaknesses won't change their score; it only tells them how well they are likely to do in certain areas, and they could do that on their own by taking practice tests. As I said before, the main (and most helpful) things that tutors give students are strategies dealing with how to take the test. This is all available to students anywhere near a public library. Inevitably, this brings in the fact that not every single student lives in proximity to a library, so I will restate that free mail order test prep is available to anyone with a mailing address. A student who is an exception to every one of these generalizations (one without Internet access, money for a tutor, a public library, or even a mail address) falls victim to the fact that there is a limit to how much the system can be equalized. As it is, it would be unreasonably difficult to enforce the ban of private tutors; in addition, for the reasons I have given in this debate, it would be unnecessary.
SAT Private Tutoring Should be Banned

I think you make some valid points. However, to compare the SAT to regular schooling isn't accurate. At schools, students are free to ask as many questions as they want and most schools even offer extra help after school. On the SAT however, there is no, for a lack of a better term, "standard preparation". Not every student is given a book to read for SAT preparation. Not every student has Internet access. Some students don't even know that their are resources available. Now, this isn't to say that all SAT prep material should be banned (although that is arguable), but rather that the extra help and personal attention given by tutor is an unfair advantage. If there were two students who were roughly of the same intelligence and one had a tutor and did not have a tutor, I believe that the one with the tutor would do better on the SAT. Their tutor would be able to explain to them their mistakes on practice tests, go over tricky problems, analyze their strengths and weakness--all of which would be to their advantage come test day.
SAT Private Tutoring Should be Banned

I'm taking the Con side of the debate, and I contend that private tutoring for the SAT should not be banned. First of all, it is not unfair at all. It deals mostly with learning how to take the test: time management, multiple choice strategy, and quick reading comprehension. These strategies and information are readily available for free on the internet to anyone who wants to prepare for the test. There are also full practice tests offered on the SAT website for anyone with an internet connection [2]. After a 30-second search on YouTube, I found an entire channel devoted to math SAT prep with videos that give an entire virtual course on it [3]. All it takes to prepare for standardized tests is commitment and hard work, whether someone is rich and privileged or not. Even a rich student who goes to the most expensive tutor available still has to take the time to absorb the information and practice to improve their score. I would argue that the test is not only, like you said, "a measure of pure intellectual strength;" in addition, it is a measure of how hard the student is willing to work in order to achieve. Colleges do not want to fill their halls with students who are geniuses yet have no drive to accomplish anything. [1] http://www.satexamprep.com... [2] http://sat.collegeboard.org... [3] http://www.youtube.com... If private tutoring for standardized tests is unfair, then why shouldn't we also ban private tutoring for regular school? A high school college applicant's GPA is just as important as their SAT/ACT score. Private tutoring for school is sometimes only available to people with the money to pay for it, yet it would be ridiculous to try to ban students from trying to improve their chances of success in order to "make it fair."
Abortion

My opponent forfeited the last round so I will simply extend my arguments and refutations. When voting, voters should vote Con for the following reasons. Conduct: ConPro forfeited R4. Also, Pro made the mistake in either wording the resolution or deciding on his position. The resolution is simply titled 'Abortion' yet my opponent is Pro when he is arguing against abortion. Sources: TiedBoth my opponent and I provided some sources and sources never cam into question or even played much of a role in this debate. Spelling/grammar: TiedNeither Pro nor Con made too many noticeable spelling or grammatical mistakes. Arguments: ConPro brought three arguments for why abortion is wrong. The first one was disproven because my opponent never defended his first premise that murdering a human was wrong. His only justification was that "Most sane people would agree with this assertion. " which I showed to be a mixture of an argument from popularity and an argument from authority. His second argument was that abortion is wrong because it can have negative emotional side effects on the woman who chooses to have one. I also showed this point to be fallacious in showing that other morally neutral things like a woman having her period can cause negative emotional side-effects, but are clearly not immoral. My opponent' third argument that there were better options than abortion was also moot because we were not debating on whether abortion is the best option, but on whether the act itself is moral.
Abortion

I want to point out to my readers that the pros and cons are backwards in this debate. I should be con and my opponent should be pro. First of all, I would like to say I did not copy and pace anything without citing the source as my opponent claims. I shall post my full last contentionCONTENTION 3: THERE ARE BETTER OPTIONS THAN ABORTION Adoption is a better option than abortion. Not only does it give the child the right to life and expierence it, it also relieves the mother of the burden of raising the child if she cannot do so herself. My opponent brought very strong evidence for why a fetus is a human I guess there is no need to discuss this. However, you then get around my arguments by starting to attack premises 1. Now, if you do not believe murder is wrong--then why not? Why shouldn't we release all the prisoners convicted of murder from prison? Should we have allowed people such as Hiter to continue his murderous rampage or people like Ted Bundy to do so? These are obviously good questions, but do not address why murder is wrong. This is where I'll be strengthening my 1st premises. We must address why it is wrong to kill a human being. 1) It is against the will of the person being murderedMurder does not allow for the person being killed to defend themselves. Furthermore, if we legalize murder, we are violating the freedom of protection. Furthermore, this argument STRENGTHENS why abortion is wrong. Abortion does not allow for the consent for the fetus, AND the fetus is undefended and cannot defend himself/herself.2) Murder is wrong because the right to life is a fundemental right. This is embeded in the constitution. This also stengthens why abortion is wrong. The constitution clearly states that everyone has the right to LIFE, LIBERTY and PERSUIT OF HAPPINESS. Abortion is denying the fetus right to life and takes away that liberty. My opponent makes the faulty assumption that I'm automatically for killing animals. This is not that type of debate and will not address that as it is uneccessary. I feel my opponent has accepted the second premises. So, when he accepts the 1st premises, then he lost.
Abortion

Contention 1: A logical reason why abortion is wrong. I would like to begin with this quote:"To prevent birth is anticipated murder; it makes little difference whether one destroys a life already born or does away with it in its nascent stage. The one who will be a man is already one. " Tertullian (160 - 220)1. Murdering a human is wrong2. Abortion is murder3. Therefore, abortion is wrong Assertion 1: Murdering a human is wrongMost sane people would agree with this assertion. Assertion 2: Abortion is murderBy definition, murder is the unlawful killing of another human being. We need to determine why the fetus should be under this protection. Evidence 1: A fetus can dreamMany pro-abortion activists say that a fetus cannot think. However, we have discovered that they can, in fact, dream. Therefore, the fetus must be conscious. I encourage any pro-choice activists to read the article Baby's First Dreams following this link. http://www.sciencedaily.com...;Evidence 2: A fetus, by definition, is a human! Many pro-choice activists argue that the fetus is not a "human" until it is born. Let me ask you this question, what makes a human fetus any different than a dog fetus? Is the dog fetus not a "dog" because it is smaller or because it is not yet born? No. Then what makes human fetuses different? Furthermore, whether you agree with that argument, I want to ask you and any pro-choice activists this question: "Why isn't a fetus a 'human? '"Contention 2: Abortion is morally wrong because of the emotional side effects. There are major consequences to ones actions. Abortion is no different. Here is a list of some of the emotional side-effects to an abortion. Regret Anger Guilty feelings Shame Impared self-confidence Depression Anxiety Lonliness Souce. http://www.americanpregnancy.org...In fact, abortion INCREASES the risk for cancer! 8 medical organizations in 2006 RECOGNIZED this fact. For more information, go to this link . http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com...All experts recognize first risk that abortion denies women an opportunity to reduce their risk for breast cancer through childbearing! (also from same pageContention 3: There are better options than abortion
Abortion

In this debate I will be taking the negation of the resolution, namely the Con position to the sentence, "Abortion is wrong." I do not accept my opponent's definition of responsibility. I think that a definition like this one would be more appropriate: a particular burden of obligation[1] That is all I wiill say in this round. As instigator and Pro I will let my opponent begin. I of course look forward to a very interesting and engaging debate with the always fun to debate with Kohai. Good luck! [1] http://dictionary.reference.com...
Abortion

In this debate, I will argue abortion is wrong. This round is just for acceptance and arguments begin in the next round. However, I need to make a few definitions. For the purpose of this debate, but without using outside resources for definitions, we will define: abortionThe unnatural end of a pregnancy between 0-28 weeks of the pregnancy.MistakeSomething one did not mean to do, or make happen.ResponsibilityDoing what will ultimately help everyone, or most of those involved, even if the choice is hard to make.Wrongimmoral, unethical, the incorrect thing to do.RightThe opposite of wrong; responsibleMiscarriageThe spontaneous end of a pregnancy, especially naturally occurring within the first 12 weeks of pregnancy.