BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Evolution is more probable than Intelligent Design

Thank you for your reply. My partner has conceded microevolution. Therefore, once I finish rebuttals, I may go into macroevolution.Con's First ContentionThis is a strawman argument. Evolution does not explain how life got on earth; rather it explains the diversity of life on earth. [1]Con's second contention.Wrong understanding of natural selection. Rather, natural selection is the process by which organisms in a population that are best adapted to the environment increase in frequency relative to less well-adapted forms, over a number of generations. Consequently, through time species develop characteristics that make them increasingly well-adapted to their environment. There are four conditions neccessary for NS to occur: More organisms are born than can survive Organisms vary in their characteristics, even within a species, Variation is inherited Differences in reproduction and survival are due to variations among organisms. http://marinebio.org... Con states that it is impossible for natural selection to account for variations in species. This is wrong. Let's say that the green beetle migrates and is better adapted than the brown beetle in that environment. Consequently, they will each converge to make a variation within their species. Within time, specietation may occur. Con's third contention.Wrong. Mutations do occur in organizms that reproduce asexually such as bacteria.[2] S. E. Lurias and M. Delebrock from the Indiana University, Bloomingion, Indiana note: [2] When a pure bacterial culture is. attacked by a bacterial virus, the cul- ture will clear a f t e r a few hours due to destruction of the sensitive ceIls by the virus. However, after further incubation for a few hours, or sometimes days, the culture will often become turbid again, due t o the growth of a bac- terial variant which is resistant to the action of the virus. This variant can be isolated and freed from the virus and will in many cases retain i t s resistance to the action of the virus even if subcultured through many generations in the absence of the virus. While the sensitive strain adsorbed the virus readily, the resistant variant will generally not show any affinity to it. The resistant bacterial variants appear readily in cultur CONCLUSION My partner begins by straw-manning the ToE and Natural selection; he also is wrong in all 3 contentions. Thank you.References 1. http://www.expelledexposed.com...;2. http://www.genetics.org...;
Evolution is more probable than Intelligent Design

While I am not arguing populations do change over time via natural selection, I would like to point out this fact is a voter for Con. First let's take a look at the resolution. It states evolution is more likely than divine creation. This resolution is obviously talking about macro-evolution, as the presence of microevolution does not disprove divine creation. Macroevolution is the idea that life arose naturally, without divine intervention. My first contention. There is no evidence of life arising from non-living matter. All evidence points towards the fact that in nature, life must arise from more life. Because a divine creation is outside the "natural world", this fact of nature does not apply. My second contention. Natural selection is the removal or variation and biodiversity. We can see this in Pro's beetle example. We have a population of green and brown beetles. The green beetles are removed from the population because they are eaten at a faster rate. Eventually we reach a population of only brown beetles. We see through this example, provided by Pro might I add, that the variation in color is reduced by 50% through natural selection. We must then conclude that a growing level of diversity is not possible via natural selection. This brings me to my third contention. My third contention. Natural selection requires genetic variation. . http://www.globalchange.umich.edu... You'll see in this link that variation is the number one requirement for natural selection. Natural selection cannot occur without variation. Thus we know natural selection cannot happen in a population that arose from one organism, ie natural origin. This evidence shows that variable population with high levels of biodiversity, such as a divine creation, is required for a population to undergo natural selection.
Evolution is more probable than Intelligent Design

For this debate, I am accepting "Only a member who is ranked as good as or better than me" because I want a good science oriented debate. Resolution: The Theory of Evolution is more probable than Intelligent DesignClarification What do I mean by the above resolution? What I mean is that the Theory of Evolution has better scientific support via evidence than creationism does. This debate will analyze the evidence for evolution and creationism and you (the voters) will determine which has the stronger support. DefinitionPlease no semantics. These are the definitions that I will be talking about in the debate: ID: The view that the universe was created/designed by God. Theory: A well-supported conceptual framework that encompasses a large body of scientific facts, inferences, observations, and experiments, and explains them in a coherent way.[2] Evolution: Two types Microevolution: Microevolution is defined as the change in the alleles of a species over a period of time. [3] Macroevolution: Any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means at least the splitting of a species into two or the change of a species over time into another (anageneticspeciation, not nowadays generally accepted. Any changes that occur at higher levels, such as the evolution of new families, phyla or genera, are also therefore macroevolution, but the term is not restricted to those higher levels. It often also means long-term trends or biases in evolution of higher taxonomic levels.[4] Rules and clarifications Scientific evidence must be presented First round acceptance and clarifications only Second round for opening arguments only. There are 5 rounds because you really cannot get a good scientific debate in only 3 rounds. 8000 characters 72 hour argument time 1 month voting period Sources 1-4. For definitions, please see my previous debate on a similar topic http://www.debate.org......;
Legal Prostitution

Some people hire prostitutes because they are dissatisfied with their partner so dissatisfaction comes before hire of prostitutes. Not sure if I understand your point here. The dangers of prostitution cannot be compared to those named by you. They take heavy precautions to minimise potential dangers. "About 80% of women in prostitution have been the victim of a rape."[1] This is not comparable to the intuitively low probability of a police getting shot, a scientist causing a dangerous chemical reaction. So unlikely because they these guys are trained, your point is valid if and only if they are untrained, then the risk of getting shot and causing a dangerous chemical reaction will skyrocket. As for your STD point, I think you argued for Con. [1] http://www.rapeis.org...
Legal Prostitution

Dissatisfaction with partner would have started before hiring a prostitute, anyone that is happy in a relationship is unlikely to cheat on their partner which means that if they are dissastified with their partners it would have happen before hand. Like any profession there are dangers that will take place and it is up to the worker to decide if they want to be put in that place. Police are at risk of shootings on a daily basis and scientist could make a deadly chemical reaction while conducting experiments, doctors are at risk at being exposed to deadly dieseses if one were to arise. There are dangers with every job that the workers have to take into account. The prostotute or the person paying for them, are responsible for making sure STDs are not transmitted. If they are transmitted it was the fault of both people. STDS are risks people would have to take if they want these services or give them.
Legal Prostitution

Prostitution should be illegal. If it is a person's right to decide what they want to do with their body, it follows that they choose to suffer a high probability of getting sexually harassed, raped and possibly be continually followed by the attacker if the person does not act. Suppose prostitution is legal, then the availability of prostitutes will rise, allowing for more people to purchase this service. Their motives are usually: sexual urges, satisfy sexual fetishes and dissatisfied with partner. This produces problems with men/women that cannot contain their sexual urges: sexual harassment rates increase. Additionally, if the person is religious, their acts of sins may make them go alcoholic or take illegal drugs to control their emotions. My last point is that people with sexually transmitted diseases will increase because cheap brothels will accept nearly everyone as they require currency to survive. As a consequence, the clients may have STIs and sexually transmit it to the prostitutes unknowingly and then we see a rapid spread.
The United States has shown itself to be a threat to developing democracies

1. Texas This emerging democracy had escaped the brutal repression of the Mexican Empire under Santa Anna. The United States brought this emerging democracy under its benevolent wing and eventually annexed, with permission. 2. Liberia An idea that gathered some support in Congress, this democracy was founded with monies from Government and American philanthropic organizations such as the American Colonization society. Some slaves' freedom was purchased so that they could live in this paradise on the continent of Africa. 3. France As everyone knows.. rescued France in WW2 with the help of La Resistance. Not Communist as direct result of Allied liberation, along with all the other countries that the Allies liberated. I'll probably list them later on if I need to. 4. Libya - Plenty of twists and turns in this relationship. We supported them, than Gadaffi came to power, than he disavowed nukes, so we started normalizing relationships.. When democracy came last year, we supported it, economically and militarily. I don't see how America failed any ideals here 5. South Korea - Chesty Puller, American hero, won his fifth Navy Cross here liberating this country. Unfortunately, the communist Government of the North held power above the 38th parallel. Stark differences in quality of life as there are still mass starvations in the North (Communist) and everyone has playstations in the South (Democracy). Americans have protected this democracy for over 50 years. Seems to me like a pretty big commitment to Freedom.
The United States has shown itself to be a threat to developing democracies

This is my first debate, so if I've gone about it incorrectly do not hesitate to let me know.I will be arguing that, through unwarranted acts of hostility, the government of the United States of America has shown itself to be detrimental to developing democracies that do not submit to American hegemony. While the US has always been able to buy out dictatorships hoping to become protectorates, democracies (if they are not already allied with the US) are defiant and seek independence. Because of this, the US has repeatedly taken covert and overt military action against developing democracies to ensure that they will submit to American hegemony.However there are many people, the entirety of the US government included, who claim that the US promotes democracy around the world. Whoever accepts this debate will argue that the United States of America respects the sovereignty of and encourages developing democracies.Protectorate (from Dictionary.com)- The relation of a strong state toward a weaker state or territory that it protects and partly controlsDemocracy (from Merriam-Webster.com)- a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free electionsI would like to note that by developing democracies, I mean that some may be in transitional stages and still hold remnants of their previous forms of government. In order to make this distiction I will refer to certain governments as parliamentary monarchies, or whatever term that is agreed upon.Thanks, and good luck (:
We live for happiness

You agreed that I supplemented and stated 'what the whole point of each example.' Who can state the whole point and supplement an example without making a point to get across? Making a point to get across is sufficient condition for stating the whole point and supplementing. You committed a formal fallacy. Some people select death for happiness even though death itself is depressive, which I said three times. You have to read my arguments before arguing proposition refuted earlier. Of course, we lived to have a life, but that does not prove we did not live to have the happiness. Why do we want to have the life? because 'in general for the living beings life is happier than death.' 'some people depart for happiness,' but 'no people live for unhappiness,' so 'happiness is our ultimate goal.' I already said these. You continuously show you do not understand my arguments. (if we lived for happiness, we would have to have counseling because we would go mentally insane) Is there an example? You also used 'happiness' before defining. I could also say 'you could've done that.' We are talking about the purpose of actions, not actions themselves. You have to reread the second paragraph shifting words from 'death' to 'funerals' before I say four times. Think about why do people commit suicide and go to funerals even though these themselves are mostly unhappy. (No, you have to make a point, prove it, and get it across. You don't tell me to understand your explanation if you didn't prove your belief or at least did not get across.) It's easy for everyone to say like this without effort to understand. Your saying is true if you did not overlook and refuted my statements. However, many pieces of evidence were explaining you miss my assertions as well as you ignored my paragraph two in the third round.
We live for happiness

"I supplemented the example by introducing the counterexample for the particular idea; i.e., I stated 'what the point of the example is.' You admitted that although I explained the example, you did not understand by saying like above." No you didn't, you just made an irrelevant example, you made irrelevant examples to prove nothing. Of course you supplemented an example, but you did not make a point to get across. "In any case, someone can think death is happier than life or breeding, which is common sense. The proposition we die for happiness is compatible with the proposition we live for happiness because some people depart for happiness even though most people live for happiness, and we can die for happiness even though we have lived for happiness. Similarly, we eat for happiness but also do not eat for happiness. Consider if we are on a diet or fast." Death is depressing, not for happiness. We lived to have a life, not happiness, if we lived for happiness, we would have to have counseling because we would go mentally insane. Also, you never defined happiness, you could've done that. We've gone to funerals before, is that happiness? No, it's sadness, not happiness. "You had to understand the example before you require the explanation I already wrote." No, you have to make a point, prove it, and get it across. You don't tell me to understand your explanation if you didn't prove your belief or at least did not get across.
We live for happiness

Refutation to paragraph 1: You had to understand the example before you require the explanation I already wrote. 3: I mentioned the point in the first phrase. We follow the option that secures happiness as I showed, in other words, we act for happiness. 4: (Still, once again, you didn't explain your example (stating what the whole point of each "example" you gave was)) I supplemented the example by introducing the counterexample for the particular idea; i.e., I stated 'what the point of the example is.' You admitted that although I explained the example, you did not understand by saying like above. (Also, this makes no sense, if we live for happiness, why would we think that death is happier than life or breeding, explain why your examples are completely irrelevant and prove no point.) In any case, someone can think death is happier than life or breeding, which is common sense. The proposition we die for happiness is compatible with the proposition we live for happiness because some people depart for happiness even though most people live for happiness, and we can die for happiness even though we have lived for happiness. Similarly, we eat for happiness but also do not eat for happiness. Consider if we are on a diet or fast.
We live for happiness

Thank you for providing just irrelevant examples. It's irrelevant when your example doesn't explain what you're trying to prove.Without further ado, here are my first rebuttals.1. "A bachelor stands up. Why he stands up; to buy some bread. Why; he is hungry. Why; brain reminds him the hunger. Why; to make him survive. Why; we have evolved like that. Why; in general for the living beings, life is happier than death." You didn't even mention what point you were trying to argue, if you were even arguing at all.2. "If he heartily regards death is happier than life or breeding, he would not have bought some bread and have died. Some people die by fast. For them, happiness is to realize a religious belief or to have a political impact, etc., but no people live or breed for unhappiness. That is a counterexample for the idea that survival or breeding is more important goal than happiness which is our ultimate purpose." Still, once again, you didn't explain your example (stating what the whole point of each "example" you gave was). Also, this makes no sense, if we live for happiness, why would we think that death is happier than life or breeding, explain why your examples are completely irrelevant and prove no point.Your next argument, Skept.
We live for happiness

If you repeatedly question about the intention of living being's action, you will find the last goal is happiness. Following is an example. A bachelor stands up. Why he stands up; to buy some bread. Why; he is hungry. Why; brain reminds him the hunger. Why; to make him survive. Why; we have evolved like that. Why; in general for the living beings, life is happier than death. If he heartily regards death is happier than life or breeding, he would not have bought some bread and have died. Some people die by fast. For them, happiness is to realize a religious belief or to have a political impact, etc., but no people live or breed for unhappiness. That is a counterexample for the idea that survival or breeding is more important goal than happiness which is our ultimate purpose.
We live for happiness

(I didn't make the formal fallacy, you did, you made randomly irrelevant examples without explaining the whole point of these examples. Let's prove that you have the formal fallacy. "Some people select death for happiness even though death itself is depressive, which I said three times. You have to read my arguments before arguing proposition refuted earlier. You committed a formal fallacy." You have no proof that I've committed "formal fallacy." Again, you reinstated irrelevant examples, and again, you proven no point.) -You moved 'You committed a formal fallacy' from my first paragraph to the second paragraph and ignored first paragraph relating irrelative paragraph. You committed strawman fallacy. (Yes it does prove that we did not live to have the "happiness" because we're not suicidal) -How 'we lived to have a life' and 'we are not suicidal' prove 'we did not live to have the happiness'? Some people are suicidal and 'we lived to have a life' is compatible with 'we lived to have the happiness.' (you blindly believe that all people are suicidal, and again, you still haven't proven your point.) -I have not believed 'all people are suicidal.' You once again committed strawman fallacy. I proved, but you did not understand. (Yes, you made assertions, but you did not state the point that proves all of these random irrelevant examples.) -I stated the point. Refer to the first paragraph of the fourth round you ignored. (Just because I refuted and overlooked your statement, doesn't mean that you criticise me for doing so, it's just a thing to do when you're the one that made all these irrelevant examples, but has proven nothing.) -You have to read by 'if you did not overlook and if you refuted my statements' because you have repeated illogical and already refuted arguments. Keep in mind that voters will judge whether I do not explain or you do not understand. (You have no evidence to prove that I missed any points at all) -There are many pieces of evidence as I show you in the fourth and this round. (since you made that statement. now you have the burden of proof. Why should I have to re-read anything from any of your arguments when I read them through all the time.) -Because you dig your own grave by showing you do not understand. (Also, answer this question. Why should people have to die or kill themselves at all?) -Some people kill themselves, which is so moldy to repeat. I did not say 'people should have to die or kill themselves at all.'