BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Punctuated Equilibrium: the absence of evidence is evidence of absence

As attractive as the theory of evolution was during and after Darwin's famed book, there still existed a major problem. This problem was not only addressed by Darwin himself, even his predecessors dealt with similar issues -- a lack of transitional evidence. "It's a startling fact that most species remain unrecognizably unchanged throughout their occurrence in the geologic sediment of various ages." - Niles Eldridge "If my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties must assuredly have existed... Not one change into another is on record... we cannot prove that a single species has been changed." - Charles Darwin "The absence of fossil evidence has been a persistent problem for evolution." - Stephen Jay Gould As a result of the startling lack of clear evidence of gradations, there came a split. Staunch creationists, whose entire ideological outlooked was shaped by this theory had vested interests in supplanting the theory, could not deny the fact that, no matter what they say, there IS an evolution of sorts. This seems rather obvious and is made quite clear when looking at dog breeds, for instance. To think that a Chihuahua is the direct descendant of a wolf is pretty remarkable, andf it is clear evidence that some of Darwin's observations hold water. What was settled upon in creationist circles is the concept of micro and macroevolution. Meanwhile, staunch evolutionists, whose entire ideological outlooked was shaped by this theory had vested interests in protecting the theory. They could not deny the fact that they were lacking transitional forms. In defense of this obvious flaw, Dr. Richard Goldshmidt came up with the "Hopeful Monster" theory. He stated that it might be possible that a certain species could mysteriously and inexplicably birth another entirely new species, thus, not leaving any evidence of evolution (i.e. a pig birthing a litter of foxes). After subsequently being laughed at by his own colleagues, there was a growing dissatisfaction within the evolutionary community. It was Gould and Eldridge, who in collaboration, came up with a new theory that might actually seem plausible, known as "punctuated equilibrium." The premise behind this theory is similar from the Hopeful Monster in that there is conveniently no trace of evolution, and the excuse is even more vague. What was agreed upon by the two was that evolution happened in short bursts of time with long periods of stasis, thus, making these transitions imperceptible. However, after reviewing punctuated equilibrium (sometimes coined 'equilibria') I am personally not at all impressed by the theory. In fact, after viewing it and reviewing within several year intervals, I remain just as unimpressed now as I was years ago. My opponent then must give compelling reasons why 'punk eek' is a viable hypothesis. *DISCLAIMER* We are NOT debating the theory of evolution or creationism holistically. Please do not derail my thread. Anyone taking this debate must be at least nominally familiar with the theory of punctuated equilibrium, and must positively defend it. Thank you, and good luck.
Punctuated Equilibrium: the absence of evidence is evidence of absence

Unfortunate that my opponent has closed his account before writing a rebuttal. I'll ask then that you judge based on the information we've both given up until now. I believe I've sufficiently addressed his concerns without needing to add anymore to my argument. Please vote based on the better argument made, not on your personal feelings towards the premise. If you feel the need to justify your anonymous vote, please do so in the comments section. Darth_Grievous_42 out.
morality is only a cage without the option to do something.

Morality describes beliefs about what is right behavior and what is wrong behavior. http://www.merriam-webster.com... By definition, morality weighs different options and choices about doing things. The Bible provides a moral guide and says we have free will to make choices that are moral or immoral. The Bible contains a lot of moral contradictions and is not the singular best source for morality. http://ffrf.org...
morality is only a cage without the option to do something.

Pro says that beliefs are immoral. He doesn't explain which beliefs are immoral. It is logical to believe that moral beliefs are moral, due to the logical concept of the law of non-contradiction. Pro says there is no morality in Christianity, but that is irrelevant, even if it were true which he has not proven. http://www.logicwarrior.net... Morality concerns itself with doing what is righteous. It provides options and seeks to find what is good. Morality is important in both religion and law as well as other aspects of society. http://www.equip.org...
should we increase mass transportation infrastructure

Definition) We- the US Rebuttal 1) My opponent states that it will create more jobs. This is true. BUT, a lot of ideas create jobs. This is one of the not as important and not as efficient ideas. The cost of this is enormous and outweighs the number of jobs created. It costs $5 billion for just TWO MILES of subway in NYC. Amtrak has a $151 billion plan for the Northeast. (1) Obviously, this costs a lot. Argument 1) Again, mass transportation infrastructure costs a lot. Argument 2) It's not necessary. The PRO has the burden to prove that we NEED mass transportation infrastructure. If not, I automatically win. People are fine these days and would actually get mad if taxes are increased just so we can implement this system. I suggest all the voters look at this article. (1) . http://www.bloomberg.com... I await my opponent's responses.
Vocaloid music

No, it will not make the "American Super-race" less "pure". In fact it adds to it. What makes America great? Diversity. Different languages and forms of entertainment, including entertainment, that is not is not in english. Aside from that, there are english vocaloids, the Japanese ones just help so you have skills later in life. It shows you don't HAVE to know exactly what is sad to get the idea of the song.
Vocaloid music

I think that people, especially should listen to vocaloids, especially ones that speak a different language, because it helps one learn how to translate from other languages, into one that you can understand. Each song has a different message, that should be searched for. Besides they are really good. Vocaloid-a voice synthesizer program that is used to "sing" in Japanese and/or English. It's basically a voal instrament that uses words. examples for voacaloid music. (if anyone has any questions, I'll answer what the songs are about) Alice Human Sacrifice. (multiple vocaloid singers, including Yamai Meiko, Tourai Kaito, Hatsune Miku, Kagamine Len, and Kagamine Rin) http://www.youtube.com... World is Mine (Len Kagamine, Tho older sister, of the Fourth Alice.) http://www.youtube.com... Teto a Fake Diva (none other than Teto Kasane herself) Love is War- Miku http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com...
The former Soviet Union was Capitalist

Don't resort to Ad hominem attacks and PHONY OUTRAGE. If resources are not allocated by the price mechanism than it is not a capitalist system You are describing state owned enterprises and trying say their somehow capitalist. A monopoly and ownership are different. In the soviet union the government has ownership over the means of production. In a capitalist economy most sectors are competitive and monopolies by the private sector are rare. A monopoly in the private sector of a capitalist economy is not the same as owning that sector. "There was nothing Communal or Communist about the USSR" Just because the USSR failed to achieve its expected results, economic equality, does not mean it was not communism. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A STATE CAPITALIST. A state owned enterprise is not capitalistic as there is no price mechanism allocating resources. What you may be trying to articulate is crony capitalism such as what is occurring in America because of big government.
The former Soviet Union was Capitalist

"There is nothing capitalistic about it. In soviet Russia, the state did not have a monopoly over all goods and services; it OWNED IT." Which is what a monopoly is! My opponent clearly has no idea what he is talking about as he doesn't know the definition of English terms. I would like to think, at think point, I have proven my case but my opponent clearly has zero demonstration of understanding that, words have meanings and he/she doesn't get to change them as he/she likes. I normally don't like to go out of the way to insult my opponent, as I believe everyone has the right to be an imbecile but you my friend, abuse that privilege. In conclusion it is clear there was nothing Communal or Communist about the USSR. Karl Marx would be rolling in his grave if you think that is communism. Instead my opponent decides to live on fantasy island of his/her own definitions. In conclusion "The former Soviet Union was Capitalist" and state capitalist at that. Thank you and have a good day!
The former Soviet Union was Capitalist

Communism: A society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs. Capitalism implies a price mechanism is allocating resources. State capitalism is thus an oxy moron, a word constructed by the left to imply capitalism in a word salad. What you are describing is merely the government owning the means of productions; a state owned enterprise. There is nothing capitalistic about it. In soviet Russia, the state did not have a monopoly over all goods and services; it OWNED IT. "Employers aka capitalists." Capitalists are people who believe in the capitalist economy so your equation is false. A person who believes in capitalism (a so called capitalist) could be anyone; an employee, employer etc. You are again substituting irrelevant words into a word sandwich. "There was nothing communal about it" OF COURSE THEIR WASN'T. The non bureaucrats were all EQUALLY poor and the government bureaucrats held all the power.
The former Soviet Union was Capitalist

" In the absence of the price mechanism to allocate resources in an economy, an elite group of decision makers must allocate those resources." This is not "communism" this is "state capitalism" aka Monopoly . Everything a capitalist loves. I am not switching terms. You are calling communism an ideology where one class has power over another. If you actually read Karl Marx you would know he is against class warfare. There is nothing communist about the USSR. Power was at the hands of a few "Employers aka capitalists" and the masses got nothing communal. There is nothing communist about "Communist Russia". There was nothing communal about it. That is why it is state capitalist. The state is the boss and the people are the workers from which there is no "quitting" because the state capitalistic Russia had a monopoly on labor and the job market. You are calling communism something that it is not. You have no understanding of what that term means it would appear.
The former Soviet Union was Capitalist

"Under actual communism all the people of Russia would have equal access to resources and opportunity." This is a falsity. In the absence of the price mechanism to allocate resources in an economy, an elite group of decision makers must allocate those resources. Thus communism, instead of diffusing power, concentrates power into the hands of the elite decision makers. Compared to the price mechanism, these decision makers are clumsy ie they cannot be aware of the needs of every single state owned firm nor have the knowledge to judge what those firms need. This inefficiency is the main source of poverty in socialistic states. Your right in saying "Resources and opportunity were held and controlled by a private class of individuals." Yes indeed, by the elite government bureaucrats. The USSR was not state capitalist because there was no price mechanism, no competition, resources were allocated by GOVERNMENT. You are playing semantics by merging definitions into a word salad.
The former Soviet Union was Capitalist

A lot of people today think that the former Soviet Union was in fact a communist regime. I would like to argue that it was in fact capitalist. State capitalist to be exact. Under actual communism all the people of Russia would have equal access to resources and opportunity. In fact the opposite is true. Resources and opportunity were held and controlled by a private class of individuals. A capitalist is someone who assumes control over what is produced, when its produced, , how its going to be produced, and the means in which resources are distributed to those under his control (employment). USSR was in fact a state capitalist. A capitalist who controlled all means of production and beat out the competition (as is any capitalist's goal) by eliminating the right to vote. Every capitalist loves a monopoly. There was nothing "communist" about the USSR. Thank you
Baseball is the greatest sport

Baseball is the greatest sport, better than basketball, football, or soccer. Baseball is the greatest sport because it IS the most difficult, contrary to popular belief. It remains America's national pastime and tends to mold the strongest of men. Baseball has the most benefits as an evolving human being, while also being the most engaging of sports. In all aspects and areas, baseball is, and will continue to be the greatest sport due to its many positive traits and aspects
Evolution Makes More Sense Than Creation

I will debate the position that Evolution makes more sense than Creationism. To correct the Con, the scientific standpoint is that Evolution is the process life uses to create diversity of species. As for the origin of the Earth that would fall under Cosmology. I’m open to arguing both but I believe that it would be simpler to keep the Evolution vs Creationism debate isolated to Evolution, and not needlessly expand it to Cosmology unless you view it as critical for your argument. If the Con could be so kind, I would like to know the Cons definition of beauty, complexity, and random when you present your arguments. Otherwise I’ll have to ask you for those definitions later. And finally not to be too nitpicky, but are you intending to argue all versions of Creationism, or are you picking one of the two popular versions like Young Earth Creationism, or Intelligent Design. You’re free to argue both, or all of them, but I feel it would allow both of us to focus better on the finer points of our arguments. Since you’re the Instigator you get to present your argument first.
Evolution Makes More Sense Than Creation

My argument is fairly simple. I am arguing the statement that "Evolution Makes More Sense Than Creation", from a scientific standpoint, which states that "Evolution is the absolute science of the earth's origin." I will be debating against this statement in three points.1) Origin.2) Complexity/Beauty of the world.3) The act of random.And also a minor fourth point: Early scientific revelation found in the Bible. I will be using secular scientific sources and contrasting them against the other obvious science, Creationism.
Evolution Makes More Sense Than Creation

In the end we must ask ourselves what makes more sense. A world where we doubt our observations, or a worldview where we only state what we can test and observe. Young Earth Creationism leaves us doubting very simple observations such as the speed of light. Intelligent Design leaves us doubting present observations like the three-toed skinks. If our reality is nothing more than a nonsensical lie then yes it is possible, but does it make sense that it would be nothing more than a lie. It is my position that Secular, Theistic, and Biological Evolution, along with Cosmology is far more sensible than believing that everything about the world is a fabrication.
Evolution Makes More Sense Than Creation

You contradicted YEC when you claimed that the 7 day creation could be any period of time. Presumably, you did so knowing that the Earth, and Cosmos, can be proven to be several order magnitude older than the 5 to 10 thousand years YEC claims it to be. If you want proof you only need to look at the stars, and pick one that is between 5 and 10 thousand light years away. Are there any Stars being created by supernatural means 5 to 10 thousand light years away? No, and that’s why YEC is provably false, among other reasons. Unless your think you can come up with a reasoned argument for an instant speed of light, or want to argue about the nature of reality there is nothing you can do to support YEC claims.Your argument for the worlding being beautiful so God created it is circular reasoning, and is a logical fallacy.When someone provides citations for their claims it is in your best interest to read them. If you had read citation 7 you would know that you can indeed see the three-toed skinks evolving the ability for live birth in the present. You don’t need to wait millions of years.The demand that I backup the belief of spontaneous generation, or answer how the first organism occurred is a false dilemma fallacy. Research into abiogenesis is far from complete, and claiming spontaneous generation because God exists would only be circular reasoning.Equating the evolution of the iPhone to the evolution of man is nothing more than an equivocation fallacy. iPhones evolve by being reproduced, and changed by people. People reproduce, and change via sexual reproduction. As a note sexual reproduction results in crossover mutation in every generation without the need of supernatural intervention. Simply put, half your DNA come from your father, and half from your mother resulting in a near unique combination every time. Even though there are similarities your iPhone example is fallacious.Your fun fact about the heretical Newton, and other scientists is also an appeal to authority fallacy. Neither does his heretical denial the holy trinity make the opposite true[1]. If such fallacies were true then why not use Euclid. Arguably all of math, and science is built upon his work. Should we all believe the way the Ancient Greeks did prior to adopting the Christian Bible? Or how about Pope Benedict the XVI who sides with Evolution[2]?I believe this debate really comes down to another false dilemma pushed by Richard Dawkins[3], and creationists. That dilemma is that you either pick God and Creationism, or you pick Evolution. Theistic Evolution is chosen by Catholics, Anglicans, and other theists, and it is still Evolution, and not Creationism. There is no reason to side with the nonsensical logic of Creationism that has been presented.[1]http://www.ldolphin.org...[2]http://www.nbcnews.com...[3]http://www.pbs.org...
Torture is not right

I can understand your logic, and have heard many such arguments before. You seem to have made basically two arguments: -that the harm on the masses might outweigh one man's pain. -and that someone who has done something bad enough does not deserve to be treated as a human. 1.It is true that many people may die in some scenarios, from the result of someone not being tortured. Your example of the bomb in New York is commonly used to the point of being clichï¿½. I will state the problems with this hypothetical situation: -How would you be sure that this person knows where the bomb is? You could be wrong; he might not be the right guy. If you are convinced he is the right guy, you just keep drowning him, freezing him, shocking him, shoving needles up his finger nails, or whatever. He then, from the unbearable pain he is experiencing, gives you an answer. This answer is not correct, obviously, and many people die. -The government, if there was such a scenario, and had the right to torture suspects, would accuse people that they don't like. Anyone who the government wanted to torture could then be tortured. If you don't believe me, look at what the government is doing now. They now have the right, with the patriot act, to spy on terrorist suspects. They choose who these suspects are. -Once the government had the right to torture Americans in extreme scenarios such as this, they would slowly push it. They would use it in less and less extreme cases, until finally everyone was used to it. The executive branch would eventually have the power to torture whoever they wanted, whenever they wanted. As I state in many of my debates, they slowly ease us into a centralized government, and we have to slow it down, and be more aware. Lest democracy die. So we can see that we can not let the government torture people, even in an extreme case like this, in which many peoples lives are threatened. 2. As for forfeiting human rights, every one has human rights, if they are a human (hence the name "HUMAN rights"). Now, unless the person does something that involves turning into a duck, zebra, moose, ant, platypus, or something he is still a Human, as far as I am aware. The UDHR (Universal Declaration of Human Rights) has an article on against torture, so Humans have this Human right. That was the technical argument, now I will give you my moral one: No one ever "forfeits" their human rights. Part of the reason we have human rights is to protect those who have done "bad". What is the use of human rights if we can declare that someone no longer gets to have them if they break our laws? Shouldn't UNALIEBLE rights transcend the breaking of a law? The purpose of the UDHR is to set ground rules for human rights that EVERY human has. "rights (as freedom from unlawful imprisonment, torture, and execution) regarded as belonging fundamentally to all persons" -Merriam Webster online definition of "human rights" http://www.un.org... (UDHR) look at article 5
Torture is not right

You have asserted that there is no possible situation in which torture would be permissable. Your main argument in support of this is that it hurts. Alot. I would dissagree. Here are my arguments: 1. Relative harm versus good. While there may be alot of pain inflicted on the victim, if the pain can be used to prevent even more harmful effects, such as the death of dozens or even hundreds, it is permissable. The total good generated by the torture is greater than the total harm the turture causes. 2. Relative harm versus good, in relation to rights. I would argue that sometimes it is permissable to take away rights from someone if in doing so you ensure the safety of many other's rights. 3. Forfeiture of human rights. If the torturee has done horrible things, such as murdering a family, I would argue that he has forfeited his basic human rights by taking away another's basic human rights. Therefore, there is no moral reaon not to torture him. 4. Possible cumulative effects. LEts sayyou tortuere one man,and stop the death of five people he was going to kill. Had he not been tortured, and his crime discovered, he mostly likely woulld have killed again. Therefore, there are more negative actions a tortureee could do than just the immediate one, lending even more wweight to my earlier arguments. An example to support this would be a terrorist. He is captured, and tortured. His torturers brutally torture him. He reveals the plan he just set in motion which would have resulted in a nuclear bomb being set off in the center of New York. I would say that the harm done to the torturer is outweighed by the good done to the people of New York. For the above reasons I would argue that there is no way to argue that torture is NOT morally required if it will help ensure the safety of others, and if it will create more good than bad.