BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
What if Fred had a transient cat apostrophe in his email inbox, impossibly forwarded.

Education in the context of this dabate and as it is generally, currently understood is the process of granting or acquiring instruction. Why can't people spell debate? At least in a debating forum I would imagine they would know how. I rest my case. No I DON'T. That Neatly sums up the following conclusion regarding the undeniable improbabiltity relating to What if Fred had a transient cat apostrophe in his email inbox, impossibly forwarded. I rest my case against a wall for a short time, it was a sunny midnight in early July late Octember and the case contained a highly pertinent but not loaded question, in the form of a trans gender Tom and Jerry episode of some sort. In conclusion and in the first instance: A) What if B) it's not a question because there is no question mark. C) Who the hell is Mark D) Again no question or indeed apostrophe. This should clarify any doubts remaining regarding whether an emotional plea is justified Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh it hurts... please help me! Please, Please vote Pro or Conservative. It is likewise unjust like a moral outrage again and for the FINAL TIME I rest my case because admittedly it is a little tired. And I make no apology for lifting this entire Idea from another Masterdebater on this very site. It merely validates my point raised like an Icy spear penetrating the womb of tired consciousness. Die, Die, Die you argh it just hurts so much. Will there ever be another round. What is it with circles? and why oh why are they smug like Buddhists smiling at me from which ever angle I look at them. Am I allowed to use the word bastard if I put it in parenthesis like this (bastard) or how about apostrophes 'bastard'. I don't know a thing about this topic if I'm truthful, but then which of us does if we truly look within our hearts. And finally having almost entirely used up all my remaining characters except for the alien ALF, which due to copyright restrictions is not mine. I rest my cases. Why has my previous argument come up here in the second debate round? Never mind. I must admit I am a little bit disappointed in the glib way my opponent seems to want to appeal to those voting on this highly relevant issue. He says that I just need this debate to vote, and it could well be true (in fact it undoubtedly is) but this does not alter the facts as previously stated/outlined/coloured in with crayon. Thank you, thank you and once again I thank you for kind patience oh great Chinese nation. My case is by now very well rested and has risen from the grave.
What if Fred had a transient cat apostrophe in his email inbox, impossibly forwarded.

Education in the context of this dabate and as it is generally, currently understood is the process of granting or acquiring instruction. Why can't people spell debate? At least in a debating forum I would imagine they would know how. I rest my case. No I DON'T. That Neatly sums up the following conclusion regarding the undeniable improbabiltity relating to What if Fred had a transient cat apostrophe in his email inbox, impossibly forwarded. I rest my case against a wall for a short time, it was a sunny midnight in early July late Octember and the case contained a highly pertinent but not loaded question, in the form of a trans gender Tom and Jerry episode of some sort. In conclusion and in the first instance: A) What if B) it's not a question because there is no question mark. C) Who the hell is Mark D) Again no question or indeed apostrophe. This should clarify any doubts remaining regarding whether an emotional plea is justified Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh it hurts... please help me! Please, Please vote Pro or Conservative. It is likewise unjust like a moral outrage again and for the FINAL TIME I rest my case because admittedly it is a little tired. And I make no apology for lifting this entire Idea from another Masterdebater on this very site. It merely validates my point raised like an Icy spear penetrating the womb of tired consciousness. Die, Die, Die you argh it just hurts so much. Will there ever be another round. What is it with circles? and why oh why are they smug like Buddhists smiling at me from which ever angle I look at them. Am I allowed to use the word bastard if I put it in parenthesis like this (bastard) or how about apostrophes 'bastard'. I don't know a thing about this topic if I'm truthful, but then which of us does if we truly look within our hearts. And finally having almost entirely used up all my remaining characters except for the alien ALF, which due to copyright restrictions is not mine. I rest my cases.
Evolution

The only thing close to: " it stumps their reproduction, so the 0.000001% which are resistant remains at 0.000001%" in the article was "Most bacteria and other microbes cannot grow or reproduce in honey i.e. they are dormant and this is due to antibacterial activity of honey." [1] This does NOT mean 0.000001%, for all we know, it can be 50.000001%. To address: "If it does not affect all cells, the rest of the cells would reject the new material, how do you not know that?" Of course I did know that. Evolution is beneficial to the species, not just for the individual. When the primitive gamete cell of the fern is transferred to the other fern to perform homogeneously recombination, surely you didn't think that the 'fixed' cell would go back the fern that it was from, did you? Chances are it would produce another fern with the fixed DNA, while the other fern would die off due to said genetic defects. "Ok, evolution,; survival of the fittest, and adaptation; adapting to a different environment, I am referring to adaptation, such as a rabbit growing longer ears in a hotter climate, or a rabbit growing shorter ears in a colder climate, even though both parents could have the opposite, you are talking about survival of the fittest (evolution) where a creature randomly alters its genetics and the fittest survives, I was saying that the fern cannot develop combine genetic reproduction through adaptation because it would not recognize the threat, I later stated why evolution would not work either, that is because it is too complicated, only one creature could do it if that is they mutated to develop flowers, and this would utterly prevent them from reproducing." It appears that you do not understand the meaning of 'adaptation'. "In biology, an adaptation, also called an adaptive trait, is a trait with a current functional role in the life history of an organism that is maintained and evolved by means of natural selection." [2] Adaptation IS evolution. Anyways, in the previous arguments I have already explained the evolution and functional reason for such evolution which makes such adaptation possible. "Isaac Newton and Gottfried Leibniz both developed calculus with no contact from each other, couldn"t one creature develop the same traits as a human without being related, it is more than feasible for a chimp to develop these traits in some 250,000 years, when newton and Leibniz developed the same thing in the same century." Actually, evolution requires many variables to be true in order to consider a certain trait to be considers 'favorable'. Climate, predators, availability of food are just some examples. Isaac Newton and Gottfried Leibniz have somewhat similar reasons for developing calculus as and tool, and additionally it is still disputed who actually created, or if they did it at the same time. [3] (They also developed certain parts of calculus as well, (Likely due to differed motives)) [1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org... [3] https://books.google.ca...
Evolution

The cause for honey to be such a good antibiotic is because it naturally produces hydrogen peroxide (H2O2)[1][2] I do not know where you got you're information from, but it does not stump reproduction. [3] Yes that is a very weak piece you made; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... Theoretically is defined as 'In theory', so I'm saying "In the theory of evolution...", not some 'random guy's theory'. To address your actual point, a fern indeed has many cells, but every single cell has the same DNA. They don't need to homogeneously recombine all cells, just one, which is how sexual reproduction basically works. Seeing that this works with one celled bacteria, this is how it would work in a fern as well. [4] If it does not affect all cells, the rest of the cells would reject the new material, how do you not know that? Seriously? I very clearly stated "The bacteria do not need to know" and "The living organism does not need to be sentient of the benefits for evolution to occur." The key word there is NEED. Ok, evolution,; survival of the fittest, and adaptation; adapting to a different environment, I am referring to adaptation, such as a rabbit growing longer ears in a hotter climate, or a rabbit growing shorter ears in a colder climate, even though both parents could have the opposite, you are talking about survival of the fittest (evolution) where a creature randomly alters its genetics and the fittest survives, I was saying that the fern cannot develop combine genetic reproduction through adaptation because it would not recognize the threat, I later stated why evolution would not work either, that is because it is too complicated, only one creature could do it if that is they mutated to develop flowers, and this would utterly prevent them from reproducing. My father is genetically 'similar' to me. Using DNA testing, we can find that we shared a direct relationship. An ape and a human share 99% [5], making it very likely for it to have either a common ancestor, or one evolved from the other. Isaac Newton and Gottfried Leibniz both developed calculus with no contact from each other, couldn"t one creature develop the same traits as a human without being related, it is more than feasible for a chimp to develop these traits in some 250,000 years, when newton and Leibniz developed the same thing in the same century.
Evolution

"This was not my point, yes a small fraction may develop a defense, but this remains at a minuscule percent because honey does not actually kill the bacteria"s, it stumps their reproduction, so the 0.000001% which are resistant remains at 0.000001%." The cause for honey to be such a good antibiotic is because it naturally produces hydrogen peroxide (H2O2)[1][2] I do not know where you got you're information from, but it does not stump reproduction. [3] "Hmm, "Theoretically", I thought we were going off facts here, not some random guys "theory", now I also want to point out that Eukaryote bacteria work a little differently than ferns, a bacteria could evolve, a multi celled organism cannot, how you may ask, because a cell is one cell, it"s easy to absorb something and screw with its genetics, a fern has many cells per bulb, so it is IMPOSIBLE to directly, and instantaneously affect every cells genetics in the exact same way, the chance is exactly 0, a primitive cell still going off of RNA finding a stray piece of carbon and absorbing it is feasible, with a fern it is not that simple, it would have to find the genetic material to make an entire flower, every cell to absorb this same strand even though they would not accept foreign material anyway, then for this design to allow for combine genetic reproduction, and for more than one fern to do the exact same thing (If it reproduces sexually it goes extinct if there is only one), the chances of this are as I said before; exactly ZERO." Theoretically is defined as 'In theory', so I'm saying "In the theory of evolution...", not some 'random guy's theory'. To address your actual point, a fern indeed has many cells, but every single cell has the same DNA. They don't need to homogeneously recombine all cells, just one, which is how sexual reproduction basically works. Seeing that this works with one celled bacteria, this is how it would work in a fern as well. [4] "But said creatures would not recognize the benefit." Seriously? I very clearly stated "The bacteria does not need to know" and "The living organism does not need to be sentient of the benefits for evolution to occur." The key word there is NEED. "Well this is a very peculiar way of "proving" something, pawning it off to "fossil records, I think I already explained how this is not credible, you cannot "prove" an organism s descended from another group, you could say that it is "similar" but that hardly makes it an ancestor." My father is genetically 'similar' to me. Using DNA testing, we can find that we shared a direct relationship. An ape and a human share 99% [5], making it very likely for it to have either a common ancestor, or one evolved from the other. [1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [2] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [3] http://www.lenntech.com... [4] http://mr.crossref.org... [5] http://humanorigins.si.edu... (Apologies for not citing sources before)
Evolution

Evolution is False: Article 1; Reproduction: This is one of the largest issues with evolution, is the unrealistic switch from asexual reproduction (Cloning), to sexual reproduction (combined genetics), to explain how, I will explain the evolutionary theory; The Theory of Evolution states that ferns developed a means of sexual reproduction (growing flowers) as to increase genetic diversity. I will disprove this by stating simply that the fern is incapable of recognizing asexual reproduction as inferior to another form, in simpler terms, it does not have a direct gain, and organisms are only capable of recognizing threats/ benefits which harm/ benefit them directly, an example of this is that honey was able of being an antibiotic, and staying just as powerful today as it was 10,000 years ago, it stumps bacteria reproduction, since the bacteria does not recognize the honey as harming them, so they do not develop a defense. The next problem with this is that it could only apply to an individual, because a shift from one form of reproduction to another is unfeasible without a "evolutionary leap" because it cannot develop gradually due to an inability to spread genetic material (It reproduces Asexually remember) which only applies to an individual, and if there is only one of the sexually reproducing ferns, then you have a real problem because they need another organism to reproduce. Article 2; Unfavorable traits: According to the theory of evolution, only traits which are favorable will survive, so it is reasonable to say that compassion for offspring is realistic, whereas compassion toward other creatures will be unfavorable as they would most likely become competitors, so if evolution was reality, then all of humanity would be composed of Mafiosi"s who are immensely protective of their children, but could care less about others, yet this is not reality. Article 3; Piecing an organism together, and "evolving it into a human: According to the theory of evolution, all life is descended from one cell which was by incredible (non- credible) means pieced its self together, and formed a functional set of RNA, piecing these sections together in unrealistic proximity so that they could be fit together perfectly with no interference, this is unrealistic for obvious reasons. Another problem is that the time it would take to evolve just the right genetics to evolve from a microbe into a human is much more than the lifespan of the universe, let alone the lifespan of earth, let alone how long ago evolutionists propose this occurred.
"I believe God doesn't exist" is not Atheism

:: vi_spex said, "in your example, i know a dog is charging me, i dont have to imagine that" But would you try to evade the dog? If you do, you are operating on the belief/possibility that it will bite you. You have to imagine it. As the dog is charging, if biting=belief=false & biting=possibility=false, what do you do? :: vi_spex said, "it is about belief that god is true or false, not belief that god exist. as i said, false exist, religion is false" And that is perfectly fine as your belief. A lot of the following argument step from miscommunication as we have had before, specifically in definitions. There are no sources that back up your choice meaning of these words. belief (1.1) : Something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion. [1] disbelief : Inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real. [1] :: vi_spex said, "the agnostic position becomes specifik, as no one knows god is true, so the agnostic position becomes i accept i dont know" How could you possibly know that no one knows that God is true? There are many theist who will staunchly disagree with you; there are millions that say that they "know" God is true. Your labels are irrelevant to others, because they only rely on *your* physical experience. To you, *I* have to be imagined, thus, I am false. To *me* I am true. Now, who is correct? [1] Oxford Dictionary - http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
"I believe God doesn't exist" is not Atheism

possibilities are false, reality is not possible in your example, i know a dog is charging me, i dont have to imagine that books are not necessarily religious it is about belief that god is true or false, not belief that god exist. as i said, false exist, religion is false theism=beliefatheism=disbelief the opposing positions on any imaginary claim knowledge is the opposite of belief, knowledge is truth, and belief is false, know is true know=absolute, i know you cant read these words on the screen with your eyes closed agnosticism has nothing to do with knowledge as its a position on an imaginary claim, not about truth agnostic=i accept i dont know the agnostic position becomes specifik, as no one knows god is true, so the agnostic position becomes i accept i dont know belief is theism do you know that i am wearing a hat right now?
"I believe God doesn't exist" is not Atheism

Firstly, I shall respond to a couple of your points, specifically. :: vi_spex said, "possibilities are false, imaginary" All possibilities cannot be false, one possibility must be true. If a dog is charging towards you, snarling and bearing it teeth, it is a merely possibility that the dog will bite you, albeit, a strong one. It is also a possibility that the dog may be charging something that is behind you, instead. If you hold all possibilities as false, then you cannot act upon them. :: vi_spex said, "religion comes from the mind, not from books" This statement makes no sense. First, religion does come from books (i.e. Bible, Quran). Second, ALL books originate from the mind. Books are a compilation of ideas from the one or more minds. ------------------------------------- Secondly, you have interpreted this argument incorrectly. Theism and atheism do NOT pertain to the TRUTH of whether God exists or not. Read the definitions (presented below) - they pertain to the BELIEF in the existence thereof. Theism : Belief in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe. [1] Atheism : Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. [1] Before you react to that, I know that this doesn't coincide with your philosophy; we are playing on different fields. You claim to hold no beliefs, correct? Well, that I do not believe. You also have to realize that one can KNOW something and still be FALSE. Knowledge is not absolute; knowledge is belief beyond all doubt due to evidence and proof. If you have ever answered a math question incorrectly and then corrected, you should be able to understand this. Agnosticism pertains to knowledge. In religious context, specifically, it is the belief that one cannot know of God's existence. It is quite possible to be an agnostic theist; one can believe that God exists, but also believes that no one can know the truth for certain. Agnostic : A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God. [1] [1] Oxford Dictionary - http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
"I believe God doesn't exist" is not Atheism

possibilities are false, imaginary you are talking about god can be true, what god can be, not what god is god is false, false is imaginary is it true for you to say that i am wearing a hat as you read this? does religion exist, does belief exist, does lies exist? religion comes from the mind, not from books belief=false, as i dont know is true=be lie you changed the scope in what you are saying, you said that, "The former *believes* that God exists while the latter *believes* that God does not exist", which revealss the atheist and the theistic position. but by existence you mean true, its not about existence, lies exist, so its about true or false you can believe god exist, believe that god dosnt exist, or accept you dont know, the only 3 existing positions on any imaginary claim, any claim i dont know and i have memory of atheism is defined as the negative position, that god isnt true, the your a lier position, disbelief atheism is antitheism, disbelief negative is anti positive, atheism is antithesim
"I believe God doesn't exist" is not Atheism

Hi, vi_spex. To preface this debate, when you accept another person's debate, it is generally assumed that you accept all of the definitions and rules that are presented by the instigator of the debate. This is even more so assumed when you don't openly challenge those definitions. I shall truncate my planned argument to a significant degree, because much our disagreement will reside in the use and definitions of words. I would choose to abort my standard argument, but in the spirit of the debate, I shall provide it to fulfill my BoP. I am confident that you will not be able to rebut my argument without resorting to definitions and custom word usage. After this round, I shall address your arguments. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I shall begin by explaining that the question of God's existence is a dichotomy, meaning that there are only two possible resolutions: either God exists, or God does not exist. There are no other possibilities, and only one of these possibilities can be true, being mutually exclusive of one another. This establishes that there are two opposite sides to this argument: God exists vs. God does not exist. To hold either side true, one must have a belief that it is the truth. The former *believes* that God exists while the latter *believes* that God does not exist. Since these are both positive claims, two entirely separate "sub-arguments" are created. In regards to the "God exists" side, there are two possible positions based on the arguer's state of belief: I believe that God exists -or- I do not believe that God exists The former position is Theism, which *believes* that God exists. The latter is Atheism which is *absent of the belief* that God exists, as Atheism is defined. Theism asserts that God exists while Atheism merely rejects that assertion. Nowhere in this sub-argument exists the position of "God does not exist"; that argument belongs on the opposite side of the dichotomy, which I will describe later. An example of this can be found in the US legal court system. "Innocent until proven guilty". The court is charged with determining whether the defendant is either Guilty or Not Guilty; NOT Guilty or Innocent. The court systems are not designed to prove one's innocence. When one is deemed Not Guilty, it indicates that there is insufficient evidence to prove the defendant Guilty; this verdict, in of itself, doesn't necessarily mean that he did not actually commit the crime. It only means that the prosecutor could not prove that he did beyond a reasonable doubt. We almost always hear the sub-argument between God exists and God does not exist, so the other side of this may seem alien. While the former side pertains to Theism, this opposite side pertains to "Antitheism". The prefix "anti-" means "opposed to, or opposite". This side of the argument has a mirror structure, but this is not necessary to explain at this time in the debate. In conclusion, when a person states "I believe that God does not exist", his statement is a positive claim stemming from the stance of Antitheism, NOT Atheism.