BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Evolution May Be Goal-Oriented

Con says that "For something to be goal-oriented, the thing itself must have a goal" and I agree. In my example, I demonstrated an instance of Evolution with a goal. Just because the goal was imposed on the instance of Evolution among the population of mosquitoes does not negate the fact the Evolution had a goal. Using Con's logic, one could argue that the things coming out of President Obama's mouth at the podium have no purpose, no goal, no point. So, if I asked Obama what was the point of his big speech, then, if Obama used Con's logic, Obama would reply, "There is no point of my speech, for my speech is not sentient. For my speech to have a goal or purpose, it must be sentient."And then there's an uncomfortable silence and then I reply, "Thank you Mr. President", and go sit back down with the other journalists.You see, goals can be imposed on innate things. In my example, an instance of Evolution-in-action had a goal imposed on it by humans.Thanks for this short debate. Next time you do something and someone asks you, "What was the point of saying that!?" you will have to reply, "No point at all!" if Con's logic is correct, because the action of speaking is not a human.
Evolution May Be Goal-Oriented

The resolution specifically states that the goal-orientation must pertain to evolution, not to some humans carrying out an experiment on it. For something to be goal-oriented, the thing itself must have a goal. Evolution, cannot possibly have a goal of any kind because having a goal necessitates sentience in the thing obtaining it. Let's define goal: The object of a person"s ambition or effort; an aim or desired result [http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...]. This means that you must be able to think to have a goal. In fact this means even a cat cannot have a 'goal'. They can have an objective drinking milk, which may be why they drink it, but they have no end-game goal other than the involuntary outcome of survival (the lack of intention destroys its possibility of being a goal). Evolution is merely a foundational theory on which many fields of biological research are based [http://www.newscientist.com...]. Without it, genetics, microbiology and palaeontology would not be fields of research and wouldn't have any justification. Evolution itself cannot have any goals, nor be headed towards them. Some humans may subjectively channel evolution's power towards goals of their own orientation but that would make humans goal-oriented, not evolution. According to 's logic, if a gangster uses a gun to shoot an opposing gangster, guns are gang-oriented. This is simply not the case. An inanimate, non-sentient entity cannot have goals, it can only facilitate the goals of goal-oriented human beings. The goal of evolution is not even natural selection or "survival of the fittest", these are merely the processed that enable the grand scheme, named 'evolution' to continue.
Evolution May Be Goal-Oriented

From http://www.biofortified.org..."Thanks to Medfly research, we now have new tools. One of these new tools, the RIDL genes explained in part two, is what is currently being tested in the Cayman Islands. Genetically modified Aedes aegypti have been released in an effort to bring the mosquito populations down past the number where they can spread disease. They’re only releasing male mosquitoes which don’t feed on blood, so they can’t transmit the disease to humans.There’s an even cooler ecological quirk to this technique, though. The lethal protein takes awhile to build up in the mosquito larvae, which means the mosquito larvae take a while to die. Before they die, they actually compete with wild type larvae for resources which should help to keep populations from quickly rebounding."This is an example of Evolution having a goal. Or, put another way, this is an example of descent with modification with the goal of reducing a mosquito population. This proves that Evolution may have a goal, such as in this instance.Your turn, Con.
Evolution May Be Goal-Oriented

Pro did not demonstrate an example of evolution with a goal. He demonstrated an example of human beings with a goal using natural selection to get to their goal (evolution is cross-species so his example doesn't qualify). Genetic modification isn't even evolution to begin with but that's besides the point. The things coming out of Obama's mouth are not goal-oriented, they are tools used by Obama to achieve his own goals, needs and desires. They, themselves, however, have absolutely no goals for they are incapable of the sentience that is required to wanting to achieve any. Obama probably wouldn't reply that, and you'd probably be speaking to his double. The example you provided is irrelevant as to the validity of my arguments and thus does nor suffice as a rebuttal to them. A goal cannot be imposed on something. A goal is defined as the object if a person's ambition or effort; an aim or desired result. Thus, for someone to have a desired result, or even to have ambition or to be capable of putting in effort, they must have sentience featured in their being that is capable of thought to the level of a 'person'. The end example provided by Pro is incorrect because saying something can have a point to the goal-oriented human being saying it.
Henry VIII of England was a good king (3)

Considering the princes in the Tower, murdered by Richard III just before the Tudors came to power, I had promised not to focus excessively on Henry VIII's personal character. Yet it rises to such egregious proportions I think it affected his rule and the welfare of England. The £1.3M he garnered by sacking 800 monasteries could have been saved had he refrained from that one last war with France I mentioned in round 2. Henry would elevate the hatchet man for the monastery job, Thomas Cromwell, to Earl in April 1540 but chop his head off two months later. While my opponent tells us Henry was strong against the feudal lords, was this beheading done to placate a Duke of Norfolk Henry may have been more afraid of than we suppose? [1]And his addiction to jousting, a sport expected of young kings but hardly of a 44-year old monarch, in 1536 caused him a serious accident that would leave him able to walk only with difficulty the rest of his life, as ulcers from the leg wound festered. He had been expected to die right then, and when Anne Boleyn heard the news, she was so shocked she miscarried her baby, who would have been a male and perhaps Henry's long-sought heir. [2]Thomas Cranmer, the Architect of the Church of England, burnt at the stake under Mary. Of course I realize Henry couldn't foresee that Mary would become Queen regnant, yet smart monarchs consider such possibilities [3]. Even if Mary had stayed a princess, that would have been a problem itself - her marriage alliance prospects would have been limited to France or Scotland, with no Spanish crowned head likely to offer a hand after Catherine of Aragon had packed her bags.I will grant my opponent that England had money at Henry's 1547 death, albeit more of this in the private hands of sensible Englishmen than in the Exchequer. Yet I doubt the break with Rome ended feudalism, which was always more a matter of powerful secular nobles than of the Pope. England suffered considerable intellectual loss, because the monasteries had been schools, while the universities at Oxford and Cambridge went through repeated faculty turnovers as religious requirements see-sawed back and forth. Hawkes informs us of Cranmer's paean at the stake, two decades after Henry had declined his request to allow the capable Bishop Fisher to omit the Oath of Succession also costing the latter his life that day:A heavy rain isnow fallingover Oxford. [4]Henry's Reformation wasn't worth it at the time. England might have done better had Henry VII's eldest son Arthur lived to mount the throne. Now finished, I tip my hat to an honorable opponent for this excellent debate.[1] Thomas Cromwell's fall: BBC History, http://www.bbc.co.uk...[2] accident & miscarriage: The Independent, Apr. 18, 2009, http://www.independent.co.uk...[3] Cranmer at the stake: John Foxe, Acts & Monuments, 1563.[4] paean: Robert Hawkes, Cranmer and Pole: Archbishops, Broken Jaw Press, 2000, p. 31.
Henry VIII of England was a good king (3)

As you can see, this is the third time that I have attempted to debate this subjuect. The first time, my opponent totally trolled and the second time my opponent forfeited. Therefore I am hoping to have a civil debate about this for once.The premise for this debate is: Henry VIII was overall a positive influence on England during his reign. I will take the Pro position of the premise, while my opponent will obviously take the Con position. The debate structure will be generic, with the first round being for acceptance only. Good Luck! Also, the person who loses this debate consents to getting their head chopped off, so accept at your own risk.
Bill O'Reilly is neither fair nor balanced.

What we can take from my opponent's argument is this: Bill O'Reilly holds himself to different standards than he holds others. However, let us consider what this means for the topic at hand: does this make Bill unfair and unbalanced? I contend that it does not. I contend that no one truly holds them selves just as responsible as they hold others. Even if there are a few who do, this high standard is not needed for one to be classified as fair or balanced. Perhaps it could be said that Bill O'Reilly is not the fairEST nor the MOST balanced, but if the worst my opponent can do is bring up times when he's required less of himself than of others, it's clear that he's a fair and balanced guy. He treats third parties equally, or at least equal enough for him to be considered fair and/or balanced. While we don't really have solid definitions of fair or balanced for this debate, remember that I only have to show that Bill is either fair OR balanced, since my opponent is affirming that he is neither. I assert that one does not have to treat himself equal to others to be considered balanced. It's human nature to hold oneself in higher regard than others, and I hold that it is unfair to call someone unfair and unbalanced for having this trait. That is all.
Bill O'Reilly is neither fair nor balanced.

Thank you for your comments. Concerning the sarcasm in Smerconish's comments, it is something that I certianly did not pick up on the first time that I heard them. More important than winning a debate, in my view, is being fair and honest. It appears that you are correct about the sarcasm in those comments, and i probably just missed it completely. My point with the video, however, is still the same. Bill feels that if you are going to hold one person accountable for their comments, you should hold all accountable. There should be a balance there. Yet, Bill does not always hold himself accountable. Another example is the blunder in bringing up the massacre of Melmedy, where Bill stated that Americans were guilty of the war crime when they were actually the victims of it. When he recieved an email about it, he would not apologize. He claimed that the viewer just misunderstood his comments. The transcript of the show on his website was then changed from what he actually said. Evidence of this can be found on youtube under "bill oreilly melmedy". I would post a vid here but it would have Kieth Olbermann in it and quite frankly I think that Olbermann is the biggest idiot in America and I can't stand him- but I'll save that for another debate. Another of my problems with him is how, after repeatedly criticizing other networks for glorifying immoral and pornographic behaviors and figures, he has a nude model on his show, and labels her a patriot for sending signed calendars to the soldiers in Iraq. He also spoke very boldly for years against all forms of degrading sexual harrassment. We all know about his sexual harrassment law suit which he personally paid a large sum of money to keep quiet. He clearly acts in hippocracy and does not hesitate to attack others for their blunders, while not holding themselves to the same standards.
Bill O'Reilly is neither fair nor balanced.

Bill O'Reilly is indeed fair and balanced. It is my opponent's burden to show that he is not so. I believe both my opponent and the voters are aware that I could give examples of Bill O'Reilly being fair and/or balanced, but this would not conclusively prove that he is indeed fair and balanced overall. It is therefore solely my opponent's burden to show that he is in fact neither fair nor balanced. This would be done by showing that he is both unfair overall and unbalanced overall. Since my opponent has made no progress convincing the voters in round 1, I am willing to do the same, and allow him to now make his arguments. I look forward to a good debate Also, I would like to confirm that I will not use the tactics suggested in the comments section: namely, I will not use Bill's complexion to argue that he's "fair" nor will I use his ability to physically balance himself to show that he's "balanced." I was considering it, but as I said in my own comment, I don't want to look like a strategy thief.
Voting Age

You're very welcome.... How is it that 18 year olds are "fully mature"?!? They can't even drink a beer.... lol At that age the crime rate is highest, less family oriented, and have far less responsibility then any other adult. How is that they can come up with a responsible decision on who will benefit the population best? Again, very easily influenced by their parents and by their professors. I'll go out on limb and say that at least 90% of kids 18-21 vote depending on those two influences. So, is it far that daddy gets not only his vote but the votes from his two kids also? Speaking on college students, how can they come up with a even remotely educated vote seeing how they are still learning about the world in which they live in? Not to mention that the kids 18-21 pay the least taxes in this country. Being in that age group once, obviously, know that the are not concerned with the real issues of the world yet concern them self's with little more then sex, drugs, and rock n roll!!! Let alone the current income tax reforms, health care premiums, and many other issues that they have yet to deal with. Thus proving that they are ignorant in terms of fully understanding the importance of political agendas, there recourses, and have no room to interfere with family oriented, tax paying, economically responsible adult decisions.
Life begins at conception.

Calling anyone on this site fascist is an even more absurd claim than my own. Sadly, LiberalProlifer failed to refute my claim again. Most cancers have the same genetic code at their "conception" as they do when they are removed. Most zygotes have the same genetic code at their conception as they do when they become alive as they do when they are removed and become children. Both zygotes and cancers can have mutations after conception.
Life begins at conception.

I accept your definition of conception. Saying that life begins at conception is a fact based claim. BOP is a requirement for the Pro side in fact based claims [1]. C1 Zygotes are as much life as cancer is life. The same fundamental argument that a zygote is life, that they have a different genetic makeup from the host parent and that the genetic makeup stays the same through the zygotes development can also be used to say that cancer is life. Cancer is simply a scary word that means a mutation in the genetic code. This mutation of the genetic code makes the cancer cell different from the host parent. The genetic code of the cancer will stay the same at its formation as it will be further into its development. Following my opponent"s logic, this different genetic code that does not change during its development must mean that the cancer cell is alive and a different life from that of the host parent. Sources [1] http://www.debate.org...
The Theory of Evolution Supports The Existence of a God

I am glad to see my opponent return to the debate. Let me address his concerns. What this debate is about is whether evolution provides proof or evidence of the existence of God. My opponent doesn't seem to realize it, but neither of his two responses have given us a single reason to make such a conclusion. What he has done, is given us reason to consider evolution consistent with the idea of a God. He appears to be confusing the two. Take his tower analogy. This is nothing more than an explanation as to how God could technically be responsible for life as we know it without having taken part in every last step. Sure, this is possible, my opponent shows how many things are possible but gives no reason to consider one explanation over the other, beyond a blank assertion that it seems better for him. The closest my opponent gets to an argument is to point out how rare beneficial mutations are and how unlikely it was for humans to actually occur. This betrays a misunderstanding on his part as far as how evolution works. For many, they consider evolution to be an unguided process of time + random mutation, unless you factor in some sort of intelligence. What they often forget, as my opponent seems to, is the implications of natural selection. Whenever a harmful mutation occurs, it doesn't get passed on to the next generation, or quickly dies out. The only mutations that get passed on are the beneficial or neutral ones. I'd like my opponent and the audience to check out the video I'm attaching [1]. It shows how a computer simulation works in much the same way. Does my opponent believe that God is guiding the program to create the horse-like creature? Or the crab like creature? None of these were intended to be made, yet they mimiced a strategy found in nature, merely because it was an effective strategy that allowed it to procreate and pass on the trait. There is no reason to add in a God in this equation. There is no reason to consider that a God had a hand in evolution. It is possible, but that's all it is. That isn't evidence for a intelligence. If God did not exist, and was therefore not responsible for life in any way, in what way would we expect the development of life to differ? I already showed how it is possible, and even likely, that life would develop through the self-replicating molecule. We see how evolution works, and we see how it requires no intelligence behind it to work, and therefore there is no reason to posit an additional explanation on top of an already sound one. Occum's Razor takes care of my opponents argument quite nicely. The process of random mutation in conjunction with natural selection in no way requires a God to work, or to begin in the first place. It's possible, but not necessary, and therefore evolution itself is not evidence for God. [1]
The Theory of Evolution Supports The Existence of a God

I accept my opponent's definition and this debate. Thank you for sponsoring such a topic that has such an interesting spin on an old debate.My only caveat is that I'd like to define "support" to mean "provides evidence for". Basically, I want to ensure that we aren't simply establishing that evolution doesn't disqualify the existence of a God, but provides positive evidence for.Again, thanks to my opponent. I look forward to this.
The Theory of Evolution Supports The Existence of a God

As pro I will be arguing that the theory of evolution by natural selection , defined below, lends support to the existing of a deity or god who has created or shaped the world. ev·o·lu·tion [1]n.1. A continuing process of change from one state or condition to another or from one form to another.2. The theory that groups of organisms change with passage of time, mainly as a result of natural selection, so that descendants differ morphologically and physiologically from their ancestors.god [2]A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.Structure:The first round will be for acceptance.Round 2 will be for opening argumentsRound 3 will be rebuttals and any further argumentRound 4 will be for further rebuttal and closing arguments/conclusions.Let the games begin![1]http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...'s+theory+of+evolution[2] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Children born in the near future will live to an average age of 120 years or more.

You're making irrelevant arguments and straying from the point. You would have a good argument if your source was reliable. For one you cited from a privately owned magazine... Which would get you a zero if writing a paper in college. Second the sites first two feature articles are titled "do you live in Americas healthiest states" and "McDonald's cuts and computerizes their Menus" That doesn't sound scientific to me much less important to any subject. Not to mention the article was written by a writer with no degree and was about an experiment to extend the lives of worms which supposedly succeeded by isolating variables and having a controlled environment to remove failing parts and add better ones. The equivalent to keeping a human hospitalized all of his/her life while changing out any used up parts to squeeze out as much life from the unlucky person as possible. Not something id want done
Children born in the near future will live to an average age of 120 years or more.

Your hypocrisy is overwhelming, the debate referenced in round 2, proceeded to attack an entire sex in the human race for "amusement to see how people react to certain topics." You think I have made you look appalling? I troll as much as anyone, but even a troll has to draw the line somewhere A well-supported hypothesis leads to theory. Discussion is an important aspect of the process from hypothesis to theory. In 1900, average life expectancy was approximately 45 years-old, currently the average life span is approximately 80 years-old. In over a hundred years, the average life span has nearly doubled. The greatest gains in age extension are still to come with the recent achievment of mapping the human genome and the ability to splice genes to create genetically modified organisms (GMO's) In science, research is first performed on subjects in a lab, eventually leading to larger trials of research. Researchers in the US have been successful in adjusting genetic pathways in worms expanding their lifespan by a factor of five. http://www.medicaldaily.com... Regenerative medicine has made huge advancements in the ability to reproduce aging cells, utilizing stem cells, in order to replace aging organs within the human body. Eliminating the need for donors to donate organs that may not be an exact match, reducing the possibility of the body rejecting the new organ. Advancements in Cancer, AIDS, disease prevention and containment will also contribute to the increased life-span. From this point on, I would ask that you please troll in a less offensive manner, or else you risk giving us trolls a bad name.
Children born in the near future will live to an average age of 120 years or more.

Well.... If you would've actually read the argument and were a smart human being, you would know that I was disproving a claim from someone who believed in the bible, and their argument contradicted their beliefs, so I pointed it out. I do not believe in god nor follow the bible. Also you should know that, that particular topic was to my amusement to see how people react to certain topics. But you realized how little support your claim has, so you proceeded to make an attack on me that would make me look appalling. Even so that is completely irrelevant due to the fact that your argument is based on scientific evidence and not based on religious aspects like the bible. You still have yet to prove your claim.