BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
There is not enough evidence to support mutation as a primary mechanism that drove evolution.

In the third article provided, . http://www.pnas.org..., what the authors of the paper did was to showcase a new method they developed of tracing lineages within E. coli strains. They created ten different lineages using 1 cell to start each line, making each at the beginning genetically uniform. They transformed each ancestor cell with a plasmid containing microsatellites, which are repetitive strings of DNA that are highly susceptible to mutation. Because of this the cell lines would quickly differentiate genetically, and the authors were able to track which microsatellite alleles were present at what percentages with subsequent generations. They closely monitored these percentages, and when one allele displayed a significant increase in prevalence, they inferred that the cell line that had that allele experienced a beneficial mutation. This is not necessarily a demonstration of mutation creating significant novel biological structures. The exact genetics of the mutations that occurred are not closely analyzed nor described in detail, as this was not the purpose of the paper. Beneficial mutations were assumed, not directly observed. It is possible that a novel structure that provided an advantage was created. However another possible scenario is this: there are genes that inhibit the expression of other genes. This kind of regulator gene experienced a mutation and became inoperable. The other gene that was previously being prevented from expression was now free to, and provided the cell with greater fitness in this specific controlled environment. This is an example of a beneficial mutation without the creation of a wholly new physiological process. To determine what type of beneficial mutations took place is unknown based on the findings of this experiment. The other two articles provided, . http://www.pnas.org... and . http://www.pnas.org... are review articles. The first one concerns the effects that random and assymetric selection has on recombination, mutation and migration. In the second article the author sets out to: "I will first consider phenotypic evolution controlled by multigene families, because there is a large amount of interesting data, and the interpretation of new findings in this area is relatively simple. I will then discuss the evolutionary changes of protein-coding and regulatory regions of genes in relation to phenotypic evolution and their implications for the general theory of evolution. " While both of these articles are related to the topic of the debate, they do not directly address it. They are review articles and thus their topic is very broad and references numerous studies. As I mentioned in the comment section I am looking for single case studies, ones that deal specifically with the creation of significant novel biological formations via mutation. Again if you find in these review articles mention of such studies you could choose those to provide for this debate. The first article provided, . http://www.pnas.org..., was a single case study. I would like to ask Con to provide two more case studies.
It is very unlikely that any extraterrestrial organisms would be humanoid as depicted in pop culture

Pro mentioned that intelligent creatures "need to develop a spoken and written vocabulary like humans." He mentions a few semi-intelligent organisms, particularly the octopus. I would say that if an octopus-like creature ever did evolve to be space faring, it would first develope land-dwelling capability, and thus legs and hands. It wouldn't need it's extra limbs, and would eventually lose them in the evolutionary chain (due to them being a hinderance).
It is very unlikely that any extraterrestrial organisms would be humanoid as depicted in pop culture

Humans are most probably the first link in evolution on Earth that will come in contact with alien life. We are partially spacefaring already, and if it is possible to reach another star from this planet, humans are the most likely candidate for discovering this. The humanoid form is simply two legs (bi-pedal), two arms, and a head. There are a great many variations of this same form. It is the best form for our environment, and the most-likely-to-arrise spacefaring form on any planet similar enough to ours, and any planets with conditions for producing life are likely very similar. There may be myriad forms a species may arrise in, but any spacefaring species would likely come from a planet similar to ours, and therefore would likely have evolved in a similar way to humans.
It is very unlikely that any extraterrestrial organisms would be humanoid as depicted in pop culture

Points:First, all humanoid aliens in pop culture, are inspired by earth life and not any actual extra-terrestrial.It would also be absurd for aliens to be primate in form as if they had common ancestory with humans.Humanoid shape is also not the only way for intelligent life, and their is a lot of options. Extraterrestrials very well could be bilateral, multilateral, radial in symmetry, have no symmetry, be marine or winged, varying sizes also accounts for The vast selection of forms lessens probability that they would arise at the conditions to be humanoid like the popular face of greys.And intelligent creatures, do not need to be land-dwelling, bipedal or need to develop a spoken and written vocabulary like humans. For example on our own planet, very intelligent organisms like cetaceans and cepholapods do not have any of that. Octopus have no bones, are marine, have 8 arms (better than 2) and communicate through the light spectrum rather than sound spectrum. They still use tools and have the ability to manipulate nature, learn, and precieve themselves, and they are on our own planet and nothing like us.
US Law permits gay marriage

Ten Reasons to Make Gay Marriage Illegal 01) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning. 02) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall. 03) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract. 04) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn’t changed at all like many of the principles on which this great country was founded; women are still property. 05) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of marriages like Britney Spears’ 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed. 06) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn’t be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren’t full yet, and the world needs more children. 07) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children. 08) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. 09) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That’s why we as a society should expressly forbid single parents to raise children. 10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven’t adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans. http://www.stopgeek.com...
US Law permits gay marriage

US Law is codified in the United States Code, published and reviewable, which is cited as USC. There are no Statutes in this code relating to marriage. The US Constitution does not address marriage, that is to say it is moot on the subject, which grants any authority which may be prevelant to each individual State. Every State in the US has adopted the licensure process for marriage and has adopted Contract law, subsection Family, as the governing jurisdiction. All parties involved in the legal contract must be licensed and the contract must be witnessed. All citizens of the age of majority may enter into contracts provided conditions of Contract are met. (Terms are legal, parties have a meeting of the minds and there is an exchange of consideration) In days of old the consideration exchanged were termed consortium, and dowry. Loss of consortium is still an actionable offense. Inasmuch as marriage is a contract, and all adults may enter into a contract, any and all discrimination on the basis of sex, sexual orientation, race, religion, or disability is de facto unconstitutional and illegal, against the very principles of Liberty upon which this nation is founded.
Anyone who doesn't enjoy Disney's Frozen has no place in civilized society.

To address the feminists, it seemed that their complaints are extremely hypocritical. First, she claimed that some of Elsa's and Anna's flaws were unnecessary to the plot, and then complained when they had different flaws (Anna rushing into an engagement, for example)! I feel confident putting the feminists in a group with the PC guys, what with the not wanting flaws and such. "Perhaps these people do not have computers." They could watch it with a friend or coworker. If they have neither, then their role in society would be like the sound a tree makes when it falls, but no one hears it. "Well, once Skynet takes over the world..." Hold the phone. This will NOT happen, at least in this universe. All possible dates have already passed, so nope [1]. "This may come as a great surprise... can still be rehabilitated and made to understand the brilliance of Frozen." Of course they can be rehabilitated. But until then, they are all probably on welfare, leeching off of the government to survive [2]. Now, about 1/5 of same sex couples have children [3], and the rest went to see it to support Satan's movie that was trying to turn children gay [4]. What LGBT person wouldn't support the fight against God and heterosexuality? "Thus, although the opinions and thoughts... become worthy members of society." There are two flaws with this plan. 1. These are the type of people that will refuse to work with someone who disagrees with them. 2. They're taking away jobs from good, Frozen-loving Americans. Why would we want that scum touching our laundry or making our food, when we could have someone with good taste in movies do it? 1. http://terminator.wikia.com... 2. God 3. http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu... 4. http://www.rightwingwatch.org...
Anyone who doesn't enjoy Disney's Frozen has no place in civilized society.

While it should have been inferred, no semantics. There are two groups of people that don't enjoy Frozen- I. Those that haven't watched it II. Those that have seen it but not liked it, with several sub groups -a. Religious nuts -b. People who go overboard on political correctness -c. People that disliked it but with no reasoning (if I missed any let me know next round and I'll tackle them) Now, I'll show why each group of people I listed (or at least the people in them that don't like Frozen) has no place in civilized society. I. Those who haven't watched it These people haven't watched it for one or more of several reasons. a. They can't afford it. This seems reasonable, but if they haven't seen it due to a lack of money, than they either don't have internet access/computer skills, making getting any job nearly impossible which removes their societal role, or is one of those people that says "Piracy? Can't you get arrested for that?", which shows a lack of world experience and/or intelligence. b. They don't have time. Now, Frozen is 108 minutes long, including credits. I'm assuming most people have at least 108 minutes of free time per day, and what sort of freak chooses to masturbate or sleep in that time? Not one I'd want in my society. II. Those who watched it and disliked it. a. Religious nuts. Now, this is as in super religious fundamentalists, that are offended by the magic in this movie. This is the type of person that holds back society, not the kind that should ever be in it. b. Overly politically correct people. These people are against it for one of two reasons, both of which shows a lack of intelligence/critical thinking skills: 1. Lack of PoC's in the movie. Now, the legal system is similar to that of medieval Europe, minus the organized religion. So, one could assume that it takes place in Disney's equivalent of medieval Europe, making PoC's extremely rare, especially in one isolated country. 2. Giving every man at least one negative trait. Now, many people are saying that Disney thinks every man is a moronic, immature, backstabbing jerk because men had these traits in the movie, which is complete BS. What? Disney had NOT PERFECT characters? What sexists! c. Now, someone who has so little thinking skills to the point where they are unable to back up such a simple thought with rational arguments clearly can't have an everyday conversation.
School Uniforms are unnecessary

1) School uniforms cost a lot money https://www.gov.uk... 2) Also, most students despise school, so why would they want to have a memoir of being part of a school. Any ways, when they have finished school, they're not going to keep the uniform as there is no need of it any more 3) Evidence: A 2007 peer-reviewed study found that "school uniforms increased the average number of assaults by about 14 [per year] in the most violent schools." [26] A 1999 Texas Southern University study found that school discipline incidents rose by about 12% after the introduction of uniforms. [14] According to the Miami-Dade County Public Schools Office of Education Evaluation and Management, fights in middle schools nearly doubled within one year of introducing mandatory uniforms. [72] [73] David L. Brunsma, PhD, Professor of Sociology at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech), co-authored a study that analyzed a national sample of 10th graders and found "no effects of uniforms on absenteeism, behavioral problems (fights, suspensions, etc.), or substance use on campus" and "no effects" on "pro-school attitudes, academic preparedness, and peer attitudes toward school." [14] [66] Brunsma also found a "negative effect of uniforms on academic achievement," and later found that uniforms were equally ineffective on elementary students and eighth graders. [14] A 2009 peer-reviewed study found "no significant effects of school uniforms on performance on second grade reading and mathematics examinations, as well as on 10th-grade reading, mathematics, science, and history examinations... [I]n many of the specifications, the results are actually negative." [2] 4) Students oppose school uniforms. Evidence: A 2012 peer-reviewed study by researchers at the University of Nevada at Reno found that 90% of seventh and eighth grade public school students did not like wearing uniforms. [25] A 2007 survey of Harford County, MD public school students found that 87.9% of the students were opposed to uniforms. [9] In the year following the introduction of mandatory school uniforms to the Long Beach (CA) Unified School District, 81% of middle school students said uniforms did not reduce fights, 76% said they did not help them fit in at school, 69% said they did not make them feel more connected with the school community, and 71% said they felt no safer travelling to and from school. That is why I believe school uniforms aren't necessary and are no help to our education except to make us look smart and all the same.
School Uniforms are unnecessary

1) In a crowd it would be easier for officials to find a child if he is wearing a school uniform as the child will stand out among others due to the distinct uniform. 2)" Schools these days are encouraging an appreciation of diversity" but can you surely say that there is no discrimination at all between teachers and students? It is still being "encouraged", discrimination and partiality has not yet been eradicated and if all students can not be made equal economically at least they can be deemed as an equal by common clothing. All students are not equally capable which makes teachers partial, there is no need to enhance this partiality by allowing students to wear clothing of choice. I have first hand experience of how the under privileged children are treated by teachers in schools. 3) Burden of Proof missing 4) A school uniform is of sentimental value to alumnis of the particular school. It is something that all children deserve to have as a memoir of being a part of their school
School Uniforms are unnecessary

School uniforms are unnecessary because: 1) How does school uniform help school officials to recognize students faster? In any ways, it would make it harder because school uniforms look the same and it would be harder to differentiate one student from another. 2) Schools these days are encouraging an appreciation of diversity. Teachers decide to teach us about people like Rosa Parks, Susan B. Anthony, Booker T. Washington etc... We learn about people who expressed themselves and we can't even express ourselves in the hallways. Don't schools do enough damage, making all us students think alike? Now they're trying to get us to look alike, too 3) There is evidence that school uniforms increase violent attacks and lower academic achievement, however there is none that suggests school uniform benefits the students at all. 4) Also. if there was a stalker/paedophile and he /she saw pictures of a student in their school uniform, they would know where the person went to school, thus leading to other circumstances.
School Uniforms are unnecessary

Uniforms are necessary: 1.Many schools across the world especially government schools receive students from culturally, ethically and economically diverse back grounds and having a similar clothing provides the students with a sense of unity and equality. Having uniform makes all students equal representatives of the schools whereas wearing clothing of choice creates division among students and partiality from teachers. 2. It helps the school officials to recognize their student much faster in case of any emergency. School uniform is the best and safest way to avoid any sort of obscenity inside the school premises. 3.Embracing one"s individuality can subdue others". Uniforms prevent that. In competitions outside school uniforms create togetherness in students from the same school. 4.It also prevents students from wasting their time on taunting, teasing and/or admiring other students" clothes or dressing style.
Abortion is wrong and needs to be stopped

In the wild a beautiful Mallard duck lays an egg, an example of what comes from the beautiful concept we call procreation. For a human to come and stomp on this egg, to snuff out a young animal life for no reason, should be considered absolutely cruel and horrifying. Although I will not try to act as if an animals life means as much as a humans, because it simply does not, but parallels can be drawn between my previously mentioned scenario and abortion. Abortion is nothing short of murder no matter how you look at it, and there are little to no excuses for getting one. Sure there are always extreme circumstances that should allow an individual to get an abortion, like the birth resulting in the mother"s death. Though these circumstances can always be met with a solution, like only certain, life risking, pregnancies can be dealt with properly. And for all this, "the baby is part of my body, and I can do whatever I want to it," there"s a phrase for this kind of talk. Talking out of your a$$. The moment you decide to be stupid and negligent that life is out of your hands. The are so many ways to prevent pregnancy it"s mind boggling, and for those saying, "well a lot of the birth protection products are not 100%," there is one thing that always seems to work. Not having sex. This might be hard for most people out there, but in all honesty...suck it up. If you want to have sex that"s ok, just be prepared for the small chance that you could get someone pregnant, or you could get pregnant. That fetus has the right to life just as much as you, or I do, and aborting it, no matter how painless or not, is murder.
Abortion is wrong and needs to be stopped

I would like to start this debate with saying that I will not be arguing from a religious standpoint, because I realize that not everyone believes in the same religion and I would only be digging my own debate grave if I mentioned any form of religion. I won"t need to stoop to mentioning why it"s wrong in many religions, because I"m pretty confident in my ability to arugue this topic through science and reason. I"m looking forward to arguing with anyone who challenges me. Good luck.
Abortion is wrong and needs to be stopped

"In the wild a beautiful Mallard duck lays an egg, an example of what comes from the beautiful concept we call procreation. For a human to come and stomp on this egg, to snuff out a young animal life for no reason, should be considered absolutely cruel and horrifying." - Why is this unjustified? "Abortion is nothing short of murder no matter how you look at it, and there are little to no excuses for getting one." - A murder is defined as an unjustified killing. So, why is outright killing unjustified (murder), and why thereby is abortion murder? "Though these circumstances can always be met with a solution, like only certain, life risking, pregnancies can be dealt with properly. And for all this, "the baby is part of my body, and I can do whatever I want to it," there"s a phrase for this kind of talk. Talking out of your a$$. The moment you decide to be stupid and negligent that life is out of your hands. The are so many ways to prevent pregnancy it"s mind boggling, and for those saying, "well a lot of the birth protection products are not 100%," there is one thing that always seems to work. Not having sex. This might be hard for most people out there, but in all honesty...suck it up. If you want to have sex that"s ok, just be prepared for the small chance that you could get someone pregnant, or you could get pregnant. That fetus has the right to life just as much as you, or I do, and aborting it, no matter how painless or not, is murder." - Okay, you're getting ahead of yourself here! Why is outright killing a person objectively wrong?
Weasels should run America

The resolution never states that weasels must rule over the hoomans of America. It simply stated that weasels should run America. Weasels are very intelligent and will have a language if they become the leaders of America. Hoomans need to just interpret what they say to them just like any other language of the world. The school systems would also be better because they would incorporate more weasel facts into the yougin hooman knowlage. Therefore VOTE PRO!!
Weasels should run America

They might have cute little faces, but weasels are also bloodthirsty. It"s a matter of presidency: they have super-fast metabolisms and need to kill and eat about half their body weight every day jus liek trump. As a result, they"ve become fearsome hunters and are fit to run the country. The weasel corners and grabs its prey, wraps its muscular body around the animal to immobilize it jus liek a gud president would and then delivers a single killing bite to the back of the head to scare the other countries so they dont mess w the US bietch, puncturing the skull or spinal cord. You know what other animal kills like that? The jaguar. And jaguars are cool so the weasel is also cool. If you have a really cool pres in the office aint nobody gon mess w your country. Plus weasels liek immigrants n they dont want all the daca drama leik someee people. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. So see how weasels would contribute to a lovely country n make the US better than it is now. aalso. . nobody knoews this but I studi weasels and they have lazer vision and can kel their prey jus leik trump :)) so they are betttr than trump.