BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
There is NO conclusive evidence that Darwinism is true.

My opponent may be surprised to learn that humans and bacteria also have a common ancestor - in fact, all life on earth shares a common ancestor. My opponent's incredulity is not an argument against this. I have shown that evolution (change in inhertiable traits over successive generations) is possible through the accumulation of mutations resulting in genetically significant change as seen in ring species. I have provided conclusive evidence showing that evolution from a universal common ancestor is 102,860 times more probable than the closest competing hypothesis which is evolution from separate common ancestors for bacteria and for Archaea and Eukarya. I have shown that cladistic analysis of empirical data from the fossil record, morphological data, and molecular data is useful and accurate in determining phylogenetic trees showing the evolutionary relationships between organisms. I have explained that cladograms constructed based on unrelated traits reveal the same evolutionary relationships and that this didn't have to happen and that this would not be expected if evolution were false. Darwin’s proposition that all life on earth is descended from a universal common ancestor is conclusively shown to be true.
There is NO conclusive evidence that Darwinism is true.

"Humans and fish have a common ancestor." This shows the absolute idiotic lunacy of the theory of evolution. To actually believe that your great great great..so on… ancestor was a fish?? That is pure 100% speculative BELIEF. This is NOT science! this is not testable, repeatable, demonstrable, logical, plausible or even remotely possible. to say that a creature as complex and endowed with logic, reason, morality and the creative potential that humans posses is descended from a fish, and before that a rock, and before that nothing at all is absolutely absurd and repugnant to reason. This theory can only be explained if satan is real. If satan is a real being who wishes to corrupt mankind and lead man away from God then this is exactly what he would say, "you came from a fish", "by accident" this just makes me shake my head. I am dumbfounded that intelligent grown men can believe such an unsupported, illogical, speculation about how they got here. I wonder, if national geographic had a little drawing of a fish morphing into a human instead of a monkey would anyone still think this was reasonable?? This theory is childish, it is a lie and a deception. one day this theory of evolution will seem as backward as the sun rotating around the earth (which was fiercely supported by mainstream science for hundreds of years). Not only have I a countered all of the arguments in this debate for evolution but I have provided a possible alternative that creatures are created by God using fractal geometry just like trees, just like flowers, just like all creation testifies. "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." ( Romans 1:20 ) - Thus, there is NO proof that Man came from fish. yet - The entire Earth and everything in it testifies that God created everything.(using fractal geometry) "Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?" Genesis 3:1 (serpent can be better translated 'shiny one') If satan can get you to doubt the first page of the bible he is hoping you will reject the REST of the story. I encourage you to pick up a new testament and read it with an open mind and an open heart and ask yourself if this could be talking about the actual creator of the universe. In Jesus name, amen
There is NO conclusive evidence that Darwinism is true.

My opponent has presented an unsupported hypothesis without explaining what his hypothesis is or what logical or empirical justification there is to believe it. This makes it rather difficult to respond. However, his hypothesis, as explained, does not explain the nesting of traits nor the twin-nested hierarchy. It also fails to address the conclusive mathematical and empirical evidence for phylogenetics showing all organisms having a universal common ancestor. Evidence shows that, contrary to my opponent's claims, creatures can change over successive generations by significant amounts (e.g. from an original placental mammal to the variety of placental mammals seen today) - thus, my opponent's fractal hypothesis which proposes that different creatures are different fractal sets which can not change into one another is shown to be false. [5][12][12] http://www.sciencemag.org...
There is NO conclusive evidence that Darwinism is true.

The Nesting of Hierarchies I'm going to blow your mind here. The nesting of hierarchies is because God designed the universe as a holographic fractal. the different creatures are created within different holographic fractal latices. for instance humans are a holographic fractal of 1 - 1.618 (golden mean) infact all creatures may be variations of this golden mean fractal pattern. This explains why dogs always produce dogs and cats always produce cats, they are different fractal sets. if this theory is true then there is an optimal human fractal. an optimal dog fractal. an optimal cat fractal. If this theory is true then we would expect to observe that certain frequency vibrations will affect health. This is a way to test this theory. (this idea was inspired last night.)
There is NO conclusive evidence that Darwinism is true.

In On the Origin of Species, Charles Darwin wrote “Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed.” I will show that scientific evidence conclusively shows that this is true. Contrary to my opponent’s claim, there is no limit to the variation of inherited characteristics over time. Variation in inherited characteristics arises on account of the accumulation of mutations through successive generations. The accumulation of mutations has been observed to result in speciation of plants and animals as seen in ring species. [1] Cladistics is a method organizing species based on their evolutionary relatedness. By considering synapomorphies (characteristics which are shared by two taxa but not by other outgroups), taxa can be organized into a cladogram showing the relationships between organisms. Using Bayesian inference and temporal data from fossils, the cladogram which best fits the observed data can be found (regardless of the completeness of the fossil record). Out of 1034 different possible trees for 30 taxa, the congruence of cladograms constructed based on different types of traits (for example, molecular traits and morphological traits) is shown to be well within statistical significance and is strong evidence for evolution. [2][3][4] In “A formal test of the theory of universal common ancestry”, Douglas Theobald compared the likelihood of a universal common ancestor for explaining the observed homology between organisms with the possibility other hypotheses of multiple ancestors finding that a universal common ancestor is about 102,860 times more probable than the closest competing hypothesis (to put that number into perspective, NASA estimates that there are only about 1080 atoms in the observable universe). The closest competing hypothesis was evolution with descent from separate ancestors for bacteria and for Archaea and Eukarya, not biblical creationism. [5] Darwin’s proposition that all life is descended from a universal common ancestor is conclusively shown to be true. [1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...[2] http://www.sciencemag.org...[3] http://www.sciencemag.org...[4] http://www.talkorigins.org...[5] http://www.nature.com...
Rap Battle

You seem a bit edgy today Eat a Snickers, if you may Now, I can tell that you like it rough But that's no reason to act all tough Bring your buzz saw, if it's even legal Cause I sleep with a loaded desert eagle Hong Kong is nice, don't get me wrong But you'd be better off in Colorado, Con Weed is legal there, even for old gramps Too bad you can't buy hemp with foodstamps
Rap Battle

Hey man you seem a little highhave you noticed the smell of your cream pieI don't know why you even go ondon't make me get out my batonIll bash you upside the headthen you'll think twice about those guys you bedMan i saw you bleed all over my lawnyour head looks like a used tamponYou might want to g0 talk to your parentsthey can't seem to pay for your disability insurance
College, Parents, and Pressure

Wow, I really don't want to debate right now. I got too much goin' on! Nontheless, I will do whatever I must to win. I thank my opponent for his good arguments. I really liked the way how when he attacked my case, he didn't do it in a rude or agressive way, but a very respective way. I thank him for that.First, I take the defensive.1. Basic attack: Our parent's love us and know what we should do, and we should see from their point of view.I can see where you're coming from, but a lot of people come from bad backrounds with their parents; such as verbal abuse, physical abuse, neglection, or even sexual abuse. Also, a parent and a child think very differently. Not many parents will completely agree with their child's decision on what they want to be. Many parents (including my own) want their children to be doctors or lawyers, but that sadly isn't the dream job for a lot of teenagers. Parents think they know what's best for their teen or young adult, but they are old enough to make their own decisions. They don't need someone breathing down their neck about what they should be. They shouldn't have to change who they are or what they want to be to please their parents. 2. Basic Attack: Not all teenagers know about what to do for college.While this is true, parents aren't the option you should seek first. Guidance councelers get paid to do exactly that, help you decide what you want to do with your life. They are literally professionals at this, and they should be the first option, rather than your parents. Now, ATTAAAAAAAAACK!!!!1. Basic Idea: College helps you.I apoligize to my opponent, but this seemed like an argument for how college is good, not about parents. I was rather confused, but I would like my opponent to clarify how this is relevant so that I can give him a fair and decent argument next round. Sorry for the inconvenience.Thank you
College, Parents, and Pressure

Now, onto my case.1. Their is already too much stressIf the kids are already thinking about college, they don't need the extra pressure. When I decided to go to college, I was already stressed out. I didn't need the extra stress! Parent's basically just put more salt in the pie than needed, making the pie disgusting and unwanted. Plus, when teen's think about college, remember, they are still teens. Teenage life is full of stress, and the extra stress is not needed.2. America is Land of the FREEThis is my biggest point. Teenagers should have the CHOICE. Their parents shouldn't be pressuring them into it. When a teen is really debating college, they are practically 18. They are old enough to make their own choice. They don't need their parents to come in and still make choices for them. They don't need anyone else to wipe the dribble of their mouths. They can do it themselves. Thank you.
College, Parents, and Pressure

Note to all: My first time at debating. Go easy on me. I accepted this challenge on the basis of it not getting into a long and extensive argument. Thank you for not having such high expectations. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Reason for going against the resolve: - College can give you a better chance in the future. If you consider the view of the parents, then it is not at all hard to see why this reason stands. I'm not saying that going to college would secure your future, because that would be lying. Many people today graduate from college and cannot find a job. However, college certainly can help you in acquiring more life skills and opening up more opportunities. You'll be meeting more people, some of whom you may remain in contact with for life, whether it is out of friendship or mutual interests. Furthermore, college will help you to learn about more things that you did not know before, therefore helping to widen your horizons. Like they say, knowledge will never weigh you down. And anyways, why else do you think that most governments make education compulsory for under 16s? It proves that there must be something good in learning. I won't bother posting more reasons for now, as I realized I have already said too much. Hope to hear from the Pro side soon.
the U.S government should substantially increase its non military exploration of Earth's oceans.

I guess not because what you are basically stating is that United States have a bigger issue rather than focusing on the ocean which clearly I said was about the oceans. NOT poverty or allies. I made a plan to fit for how we should "explore" the ocean just like what the resolve says and how we should be focusing on China's reluctance on the monopoly of Rare Earth Elements. Opinions do not matter on debate. It's whether the plan will work or not. 5 pillars of debate - 1.necessity- we will excavate underwater for the rare earth elements 2. its topical because we will be at least extracting 80% of rare earth elements which substantially means at least 50% 3. feasible- this plan will work because of the requirements it meets 4.Solvency- It solves the issue to BREAK the monopoly with China and to bring rare earth elements to United States' needs and 5.Fund ability- we will be getting grants. Therefore the 5 pillars of debate is concluded.
the U.S government should substantially increase its non military exploration of Earth's oceans.

I acknowledge your part about how this program would be a good source of funding and how we would pull current funds from an existing program. However, I am always an advocate for the United States to use funding to solve problems and disconnects within the country itself. As recently as 2013, the 45.3 million people are living in poverty in the United States. That is nearly 14%. And recent events have provoked outcry from the public for government reform of its government enforcements, such as the police departments. And there is always room to allow allies to explore themselves as well. In addition, how are we certain that we are going to be able to find anything? Right now, the problems inside the United States are real and visible, and this plan, in my opinion, is not 100% plausible or realistic. Thanks!
the U.S government should substantially increase its non military exploration of Earth's oceans.

The United States is in a vulnerable situation right now. The problem? Rare Earth Elements. Rare Earth Metals are used in electronics we use everyday such as CAT scans, MRIs, cellphones, etc. China has a monopoly of them and the US efforts to mine for them on land has been futile. Our plan is to create an AOMC Artic offshore mining committee. This company will subsidize a company called Freedom Minerals that will specialize in underwater excavation of REES. We will use a biodegradable diluter underwater and the metals will be extracted using a seafloor mining tool. Think of it as a high powered vaccum cleaner that ONLY sucks up rare earth metals. We will fund this plan by drawing money from the ocean exploration 2014 funding opportunity. This grant is renewable every year and is the total fund is 3 billion. This whole plan will only cost around 2 billion dollars. We will sell these REES and earn approximately 1 billion 1 hundred and 6 million dollars.
Abortion Is Murder.

While you state that it is, in fact, true that life begins at conception, there are many people, and it is tacitly expressed through legal documentation that life actually begins after birth. I am not Pro-Choice or Pro-Life, I am just stating that you are being presumptive and, possibly, a bit dramatic stating that abortion consists of "viciously murdering a child". I believe that many people adopt a Pro-Choice procedure to spare misery whether it be caused by finances, lack of responsibility, etc. It's stated from abortionfacts.com that pain is felt after 8+ weeks of conception during an abortion, therefore it is preventative. Personally, I prefer that my mother had undertaken the procedure for me because she was supposedly extremely negligent; not to mention, to spare me a lifetime of living in unforeseen circumstances. But I digress, and I am merely expressing my disagreement with the establishment by stating that; impertinent.
Abortion Is Murder.

Abortion is murder because it is scientifically proven that life begins at conception. So why then, is it okay to viciously murder a child in the womb? Simple, it isn't. Some may say that it's all about giving women the right to choose (ahem, Hillary Clinton, anyone?), but if the mothers of those women "had the right to choose", then they wouldn't even be alive. It has also been scientifically proven that a fetus can feel pain early in the pregnancy. If something can feel pain, that qualifies it as living, and taking a life is murder, which is illegal, at least according to federal law. So what are you, Pro-Life, or Pro-Murder?
Homosexuals can get married

I negate the resolution, "Homosexuals can get married. " Definitions: homosexuals - gay men or lesbian women. A homosexual male is only attracted to other males. A lesbian woman is only attracted to other females. . http://dictionary.reference.com... married - joined in marriage. . http://dictionary.reference.com... marriage - the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. . http://dictionary.reference.com... By definition, homosexuals cannot get married, for marriage is considered to be a social institution under which two different genders are united. Homosexuals refer to the same gender and therefore cannot get married. The resolution is negated.
Homosexuals can get married

As my opponent did not argue against my definitions, it is assumed my definitions are correct for this debate. I accept my opponent's definition of the word "can. " My opponent argues that homosexuals can get married; however, to someone of the opposite sex. He furthers his argumentation by stating that although homosexuals don't have to like it, they still can. However, a homosexual would not marry someone of the opposite sex. In this debate, a homosexual man is only attracted to other men. Also according to the definitions, a homosexual woman is only attracted to other women. Therefore, established by the guidelines in this debate, homosexuals would only want to be with a person of the same gender. Since that homosexual would only want to unite with a person of opposite gender, that means he/she cannot get married. (Look at the definition of marriage. ) Resolution negated. Thank you.
Abortion=Good!!!!!!

Well, I can't really say enough about the fact that an abortion doctor would have an affair...I guess that is his job though. What I don't understand is why you diliberately choose to interfere with the gift of life. You can believe what you want, but someday you will be held accountable for the murder of those children. I guess I can't really say anything to get it through your thick skull that abortion is murder and murder is a crime. I guess you'll just reap the concequences of your actions someday.
Abortion=Good!!!!!!

WHAT!!!!! So what you're basically saying is that it is okay to MURDER an innocent child who has done nothing wrong just because you don't want it?!? If you didn't want it, maybe you shouldn' have had sexual relationships. That would prevent an innocent person's life from being taken for something that wasn't his fault. I happen to be a child born out of wedlock and am personally grateful to my mother that she chose to give me a chance at having my own life...the chance to save myself and my children from the mistakes SHE made. If you don' t want or legitimately can't take care of YOUR child who YOU concieved, send the child to family or put them up for adoption like I was. Don't deprive the child of a life just because YOU don't fell like it's worth it. What if YOUR parents decided that YOU weren't worth the trouble? I eagerly await my opponents response.
The united states should ban the use of armed drones

Ban- Officially or legally prohibit Drone- A pilotless aircraft operated by remote control Good Evening to my opponent! Round One is for acceptance and clarification of said debate. Round 2 is specifically for construction of cases. Round 3 is for clash. Round 4 is for rebuttal and closing comments.Rules:No debater shall be disrespected in any way.No religion shall take part of this debate. Philosophies have almost nothing to do with this debate, and should remain outside of this debate.
GMO's are safe

Toxicology reports in many organisms provide evidence that suggests GMO's from multiple manufacturers are safe to consume. The notion that there is simply not enough long term data is false. The very few studies out there that claim GMO's are unsafe are flawed, from choosing mice that die of cancer in normal environments, to lack of validation methods, and of course just bad experimental design. To date not a single person has died as a result of consuming genetically modified food or acquired any disease.
Any Topic

Rules:1. If you accept this debate, you are to accept and follow the following rules:2. Failure to comply will result in a automatic win for me. Voters please keep this in mind.3. You may come up with any reasonable debate topic. You can be either PRO or CON, I don't care. My standards are somewhat lax; just don't throw me an extremely difficult or impossible position (i. e. Prove the color purple to not be the color purple). Don't make me prove God's existence, it may seem viable, but I feel unable to do so without stealing other people's arguments.4. I am entitled to an automatic win if you troll this debate. (Example of troll debates can be found here:. http://www.debate.org......5. If I don't agree to take up your resolution in round 2 (not very likely if you are reasonable), then the debate will be tied and we'll leave it at that.6. Round 1&2 are for the establishment of some resolution, definitions and clarifications.7. I retain the right to call 'troll' throughout the entire debate, effectively securing my 7 point victory. My troll-calling judgment will, however, be gauged by voters. If the voters decide I am calling troll unfairly, then a 7 point victory will go toward my opponent. Voters please be as objective as possible. Please make sure you have relatively decent debate credentials/potentials ('Confidence is key' -Willy Wonka). Again, my standards are pretty lax so don't be shy. You could have low ELO and still be a shining star. The only condition being that you don't end up forfeiting like I've seen others do (my last debater's choice was a disaster). Be prepared to spend a decent amount of time constructing arguments and rebuttals. This includes, but is not limited to, research, logical musings, etc. I really do mean it when I'm asking for a debater of decent quality. Please be relatively certain of your debate prowess (this is a very important criterion. .. .. .