BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
macroevolution of humans has stopped for the foreseeable future

"that's the problem, though. for the most part, they do further their genes."Yes,but good looking people are more likely,the same way in evolution ancestor apes that were dumb could survive enough time to reproduce,but the most intelligent were more likely to do so. "but that doesn't affect macro evolution, just micro evolution at best."Macroevolution is just microevolution in a large scale,so if microevolution happens,macro does too. A giant chain of microevolutional adaptations lead to big evolutions." "These are things that are not really affected by the human consciousness. Humans are not bending women's brains or the immunity system." "What i meant was that the humans are not really adapting how the other people think about who they are going to have child with,and how we still aren't adapting the immunity system artificially. We are indeed adapting the world around us but not enough to block evolution's path."and even if it was an issue, the fattest and stupidest haven't ever had much success breeding for anyway."Evolution takes time,it is not like you are going to see the evolution of an species in some centuries. It will take a lot of generations to show a "macro" level change. And they did have success breeding,in the pre-historic era,woman were fatter because it was harder for them to die of starvation. Man that liked fat women had less problems so they evolved to like them. The majority of the Venus figures found were fat compared to the women of today.http://en.wikipedia.org...
macroevolution of humans has stopped for the foreseeable future

con argues that given enough time, the fattest and stupidest among us would not further their genes. that's the problem, though. for the most part, they do further their genes. sure, the most extreme examples don't, but that doesn't affect macro evolution, just micro evolution at best. and even if it was an issue, the fattest and stupidest haven't ever had much success breeding for anyway. "These are things that are not really affected by the human consciousness. Humans are not bending women's brains or the immunity system." i am not able to decipher this from con. it seems somewhat incoherent.
macroevolution of humans has stopped for the foreseeable future

Macroevolution has not stopped,it just doesn't happen in the expected way."evolution is where the weak die and the only those that live to copulate further their genes."Yes if weak means not good for the environment you are in,no if it means not physically strong. Evolution is still happening. As an example i can give is that woman tend to choose good looking men and men tend to choose good looking women. Given enough time,people would look better and fat and ugly people would become extinct. Woman also tend to choose dumb and easy to influence men,so we would have dumber and easier to influence people given the enough time. Evolution can be hard to notice,but it is still happening to humanity. Another more practical and general example is how people who have a more effective immunity system will resist to certain diseases and have more chance to survive."but as a whole, we are adapting the environment to us, instead of it forcing us to adapt."These are things that are not really affected by the human consciousness. Humans are not bending women's brains or the immunity system. Atleast not now and i don't think we will in a foreseeable future. And you are only capable of seeing one generation,and evolution takes time,a lot of time. It will not force we to adapt,it will just kill or prevent reproduction of people who do not have the qualities to survive or to reproduce."there's no way evolution could be occurring given that even the weak are likely to breed."Fat,ugly,weak,etc. people are a lot less likely to breed. They are likely,but a lot less:http://www.escapistmagazine.com...
macroevolution of humans has stopped for the foreseeable future

macroevolution of humans has stopped for the foreseeable future we are not longer evolving significantly as humans. true, people in africa and other poor countries die, many religious fanatics die, but as a whole, we are adapting the environment to us, instead of it forcing us to adapt. remember, evolution is where the weak die and the only those that live to copulate further their genes. changes in specific animals doesn't cause evolution... you can't cut your thumb off and get your kids thumbless. (i'm sure there's minor deviations especially from radioactivity that can be continued but as a whole you can't change your species from yourself) this is the evolution i was taught at school. if this is right, there's no way evolution could be occurring given that even the weak are likely to breed.
Santa exists

What is Santa Claus? "Santa Claus, also known as Saint Nicholas, Saint Nick, Kris Kringle, Father Christmas, or simply Santa (Santy in Hiberno-English), is a legendary figure of Western Christian culture who is said to bring gifts to the homes of well-behaved ("good" or "nice") children on Christmas Eve (24 December) and the early morning hours of Christmas Day (25 December)". From the definition given in Wikipedia. There is about 526 million Christian kids who celebrates Christmas. And that is not counting non religious kids celebrate Christmas. So that means Santa has to deliver presents to 22 million kids an hour. And that also means delivering presents to 6,100 kids a SECOND. If Santa has to to travel 316,899,308.041 miles on Christmas,and has at least 32 hours to do so Santa has to be travelling 1,800 miles a hour. As we know Santa Claus is Famous for his sleigh being pulled by his reindeer's. Reindeer's top speed is 55 miles an hour. While in Santa Claus lore the sleigh he rides on is being pulled by 9 reindeer's. Cites and Sources: . https://en.wikipedia.org... . http://www.theatlantic.com... . http://www.telegraph.co.uk... . http://purelyfacts.com...
Santa exists

Thank you for quick accept!(1) As many people in the north knows, Santa Claus does in fact live in northern Finland. To be more exact, he lives on the mountain of "Korvatunturi". Due to the harsh whether conditions on that mountain, there is no way for anyone to visit the mountain to prove that he does not live there. (2)Picture proof of him visiting a Swedish family: https://commons.wikimedia.org... Due to aging, his face is beginning to deform.
Lyndon B. Johnson's Presidency

I think my young opponent performed admirably in his task to argue in favor of the Johnson presidency. We are all victims of our own experiences and I'm not immune to my life experience either. I'm a sixty year old man who grew up during a very difficult time and Vietnam. When I was my opponents age boys from our neighborhood were coming home in body bags. Johnson was completely culpable in keeping facts about the war from the public. He wanted that war to make him great like his idol FDR. I understand that passions run high on my opponents side but they do for me as well. Fifty thousand dead Americans for what? To keep south Vietnam from the communists? Who cares! That war was fought with politicians calling the shots instead of generals and that buck stops right at LBJ. His passion was to become famous but to me and many Americans he has become infamous bordering on criminal. As for civil rights I will credit LBJ to some extent but the flames of injustice were already smoldering and he saw the potential fire. Civil rights legislation is always credited to the democrats but let me give you a history lesson. It was actually a coalition between democrats and republicans that were able to overcome southern democrat resistance to civil rights. I don't have a problem with civil rights and never have. I do have a problem with the so called Great Society and the war on poverty. The price tag that our nation has had to deal with that started with his war on poverty is staggering. The cost of entitlements is overwhelming and much of it do to duplication and misguided allocation of resources. President Johnson showed the democrat party how to build coalitions and voting blocks by giving them stuff. Too bad our nation has to suffer through it all. Lyndon Baines Johnson was an accident as a president because of the Kennedy assassination. I think one of the bottom five presidents in all of history.
Lyndon B. Johnson's Presidency

Conclusion There are two ways you can interpret this debate: Policy or passion. The title of this debate is "Lyndon B. Johnson's Presidency" and I am proudly on the Pro side. When it comes to policy, the Johnson presidency may not have been satisfactory. But when it comes to passion, the presidency was a marvelous success. I will not deny the flaws of the Great Society and the errors Johnson has made regarding Vietnam. But I will say this: Lyndon Baines Johnson was a great man. He had passion and determination. He was misunderstood, insulted, and lied about. Yet, he persevered in his mission. This mission I will not specify. Because whatever mission it was - the War on Poverty, the Space Program, Vietnam - Johnson had passion. I am only fourteen years old and maybe I am a little naive, but I promise you, I have reasons for supporting Lyndon Baines Johnson. He is a man I idolize. He is a man I respect. One day, I would like to be President of the United States. If I gain that extraordinary honor, I will right his wrongs and serve justice. Voters, I have a message for you: Please give my opponent the "sources" and "more convincing argument" points. My opponent deserves credit and I enjoyed the experience of debating him. I look forward to future debates we may have.
Lyndon B. Johnson's Presidency

Because my opponent has failed to articulate his reasons for arguing the affirmative it's difficult for me in rebuttal. I really look forward to his points and am confident that I can dispense with each of his arguments. For now I will be content to sit on my previous statements which as of yet remain unchallenged in my opinion. I have articulated my stance and look forward to my opponents summation and conclusion and for mine as well.
Lyndon B. Johnson's Presidency

I will begin my argument with the Great Society, which includes the issues of civil rights, economy, healthcare, and the environment:The Great Society"And with your courage and with your compassion and your desire, we will build a Great Society. It is a Society where no child will go unfed, and no youngster will go unschooled." [1]PresidentJohnson's vision was immense, yet it was bright. Programs such as Medicaid and Medicare are still around today, andthey benefit this country greatly. Civil Rights A key aspect of the Great Society was the Civil Rights Movement. As you know, racial segregation was a very large issue in the 60s. "On July 2, 1964, Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that banned discrimination based on 'race, color, religion, sex or national origin' in employment practices and public accommodations. The bill authorized the Attorney General to file lawsuits to enforce the new law. The law also nullified state and local laws that required such discrimination." [2] This was a major issue in the Great Society. President Johnson's vision was a world of harmony, justice, and tolerance.The EconomyDuring the Johnson administration, the economy was booming. A controversial aspect of the Great Society was the War on Poverty, which would fight toward eliminating hunger and deprivation from American life. The Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 was the centerpiece of the War on Poverty. The act created the following programs [4], among many others:1. The Job Corps; "provides basic education and work in "separate residential centers for young men and young women, from ages sixteen to twenty-one." [4] 2. Neighborhood Youth Corps; "provides work and training for young men and women, ages sixteen to twenty-one, from impoverished families and neighborhoods." [4]3. Volunteers in Service of America; "recruits, selects, trains, and refers volunteers to state or local agencies or private nonprofit organizations to perform duties to combat poverty." [4]These are only some of the programs created by the act. I will only list these three for now. I only have limited time to make this argument. Please give me an opportunity to expand on my arguments and to make more points in the next round. I do not havemuch time to write this argument and I had to rush it. However, you may go forward with your argument. References[1], [3] http://en.wikipedia.org...;[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...(1955%E2%80%931968)[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Lyndon B. Johnson's Presidency

I'm pleased to argue against the presidency of Lyndon Baines Johnson. I have long held that LBJ was in fact a horrible president who did great damage to his country. I will begin my argument in the next round and layout extensive reasons for his failure. These failures will include some things that many have credited him with over the years. Starting with Civil Rights, the economy, the Vietnam War and others that I will detail. In the next rounds I will also offer rebuttals to my opponent's position and refute his assertions. Finally in the last round I will perform a summary and conclusion demonstrating that Johnson was not only incompetent but so much bordering on criminal.
Lyndon B. Johnson's Presidency

I look forward to debating the topic of the Presidency of Lyndon Baines Johnson, the 36th President of the United States. I am a supporter of the LBJ Presidency. My opponent will oppose the presidency.I would like to implement some crucial rules:1. Sources must be cited.2. Proper grammar and spelling will be used.3. Fair treatment will be enacted.I will begin my arguments in the next round.
The Christian God is Real

I thank Con for challenging me to this debate. I hope for a thoughtful exchange. My argument, contrary to Con's, is that there is absolutely no possible way to disprove a god. No one has done it before. The most used argument to contradict this is the fact on evil; because there is evil, there is no loving, faithful God. Well, Christians have developed a way to contradict this argument, by saying it is our choice to believe in this God or not. If you wish to question this, I will go on in a later round with the full details. But my argument stands; there is no way to disprove that there is a god. I challenge Con to contradict my argument. But you may ask, "If there is no way to disprove a god, but there is no evidence, why should I believe in him?" The answer to that question is that there is evidence of an all-powerful God all around us. I will list some of them here: 1. The fine-tuning of the universe 2. The origin and complexity of life 3. The resurrection of Jesus 4. The morality within man There are much more than what I have listed here. I ask Con to contradict one or more of these arguments and I will also go in-depth about each of the points I have listed. I look forward to Con's rebuttal.
Con should win this debate

Hello! Today I will argue that Con deserves to win this debate. I don't yet know what kind of person Con will be, but I get the feeling that anyone who would accept this argument is a really nice person with a good sense of humor, who deserves a win. So vote for them, and make both of us happy. (by the way, the actual winner is whoever loses the debate. If Con can convince you to vote me as winner, then he wins.
Con should win this debate

Let's talk about real-life survival situations. Who wants positive relations with prey? You'd eat them without a question. I don't think I will profit off my kind nature according to Darwin and the theory of evolution and natural selection. In the world we live in, kindness doesn't profit. I mean literally profit. For example, when you buy stuff, the shopkeeper offers you a discount out of kindness. The shopkeeper then realises his profits are so low it's not enough. On the other hand, look at these who own corporations. They operate hundreds of companies and are swimming in money. However, they are greedy and will milk every cent out of you. No kind people can be successful. Therefore, You'll win at life, and you should too at this debate.
Con should win this debate

"I mean, who doesn't like winning? I do."Oops, that was an mistake. Sorry. The wins mean nothing to me.The RealityYes, I am a true gentleman... And according to society, people who are gentlemen suffer. The world needs a little bit evil to survive. People thinking for others will always fail, and people who are evil and think of themselves always wins. Ever heard of capitalism? Sorry, it's the reality. According to real life, you should win instead of me, a weak person who is too kind. I apologize if this is kind of offensive.
Con should win this debate

He says "I mean, who doesn't like winning? I do. " I don't want to win, he does. It only makes sense therefore to give them the win. He also later says he won't be happy when he wins, but since that contradicts his freudian slip about actually enjoying winning, that's just him being thoughtful, trying to give me the win. And while I appreciate his kindness, I couldn't take the joy from him, it means too much for him. Thank you for complimenting my sense of humor. Only a true gentleman would say such a thing, and thus I can once again conclude that you are a lovely person. In conclusion, he is such a good human being that he certainly deserves the win that he silently lusts for, especially since the win is not important for me.
Con should win this debate

Sorry, you are wrong. I'm not a nice person.Reasons Pro Should win1. The Fact that he's willing to give up him winningMost people in the known universe aren't kind. However, this one is. He's willing to give up his win to me. I think he deserves a win instead of me. I mean, who doesn't like winning? I do.2. His sense of humorHe has a sense of humor. I actually laughed when I see this debate. I mean, who debates topics that are this random?3. Sorry, I won't be happy when I win.One might assume I'm an ordinary person who enjoys winning. However, it's the opposite. I feel sad winning.
Divorce"""should be band in any country...

*Counterarguments* "any problem can be solve and divorce wouldn't be its solution" -->For many people, this wouldn't be true in their opinion. For instance, if a man cheated on his wife, that would be a very big reason for the wife to file for divorce. That statement might be a good philosophy to retain when in a marriage, but many times things pile up and it just seems divorce is the only answer. To make two people married forever who absolutely hate each other would be horrendous, almost like prison. "why will two people chose to get married if in more or less than a month they have to separate and file the divorce case" -->True, this may be a lack of insight on their part, but it has nothing to do with divorce. "marriage is not a game...it is something to be serious about.." -->As is divorce. *Conclusion* Marriage is a voluntary pact between spouses. As such, there should be the option of breaking the pact.
Divorce"""should be band in any country...

Divorce should be banned in all countries because it ruins the "responsibility and sacredness of marriage". Not so, it's just an option people can take. Albeit, while it may evoke people to more likely break off their marriages, whoever said marriage should be considered sacred in the context of law? If it is a purely traditional reason, then it serves no good point. If it is a religious reason, then it once again is void in a secular government. If there is an identifiable secular purpose, state it.
Divorce"""should be band in any country...

[Definition - Marriage] 1. The social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. 2. The state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock: a happy marriage. 3. The legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of a man and woman to live as husband and wife, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage. 4. A relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage; homosexual marriage. 5. Any close or intimate association or union: the marriage of words and music in a hit song. [Definition - Divorce] 1. A judicial declaration dissolving a marriage in whole or in part, esp. one that releases the husband and wife from all matrimonial obligations. Compare judicial separation. 2. Any formal separation of husband and wife according to established custom. *Arguments* I'm assuming my opponent means "divorce should be banned in any country". From the resolution and her opening argument, my opponent has made it clear that she argues for every country to disallow divorces. She cites traditional and religious reasons. However, a marriage is, in format for most countries, a legal sanction. Thus, religious reasons have no merit on whether or not couples should be able to be divorced.
Will Hillary Clinton win the 2016 Election

Democratic Competition First, I used Joe Biden to oppose Hillary because he's the only Democrat with a household name. The other candidates are mostly unknown by the average person. You said Hillary Clinton's experiences are now gone, I'm just wondering how she completely forgot the experience, does she have Alzheimer's Disease. In addition if Biden will use his experience to attack Hillary, how come he didn't use his 2008 experience for the Vice Presidential Debate to defeat rather young Republican Paul Ryan. As you also said "A perfect example would be Former Governor Mitt Romney. Romney debated in 2008 for the Republican nomination. He lost, but that experience carried over to 2012 where he won. He then won the first presidential debate against Obama, but lost the two later ones. This is because of his debate experience. " Hard to say it's a perfect example when he went against several Republicans and didn't come out first, then 1-2 in Presidential Debates. Republican Competition There must be a Republican leader, or no Republican values will be expressed through the media, if the Liberal Media creates the Republican image, then Conservatives will quickly become the minority. Media Influence (and battling your refutation) Notice, if you go to Google images and search I don't support the conservative media you'll find nothing. If you Google I don't support the liberal Media you'll find that there is a war going on versus the Liberal media. go ahead and try it . https://www.google.com... Battling your refutation, the media used to have almost no political identity, until the mid-Bush Junior era Source: . http://en.wikipedia.org... During the course of the 2000 presidential election, some pundits accused the mainstream media of distorting facts in an effort to help Texas Governor George W. Bush win the 2000 Presidential Election after Bush and Al Gore officially launched their campaigns in 1999 In the 2008 presidential election, media outlets were accused of discrediting Obama's opponents in an effort to help him win the Democratic nomination and later the Presidential election. A poll of likely 2008 United States presidential election voters released on March 14, 2007 by Zogby International reports that 83 percent of those surveyed believe that there is a bias in the media, with 64 percent of respondents of the opinion that this bias favors liberals and 28 percent of respondents believing that this bias is conservative. Source: . http://en.wikipedia.org... Finally Overestimating You have failed to address the point that you have a biased source within Elephant Watcher the went into issues with the editor of the website "Finally, my opponent forgest to mention that the main editor of Elephant Watcher has been through a tragic accident and thus the site could not continue. That is why its stuck how they are. " Conclusion: I would also like to mention that I haven't been incorrect on any account while you have listed Bias sources, misspelled your arguments,(look at the previous quote) At this point I have dominated the debate, while my opponent has used incorrectly biased viewpoints and no facts.