BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Fight isn't between Science and Religion, But Worldviews.

"Could this process cause the increase in genetic information necessary for. . . . Evolution? " Yes. Let's examine a few types of genetic mutations shall we? Missense mutation; the substitution of one amino acid for another, Doesn't create nor destroy information. But what about insertion mutations? These involve the addition of DNA and a resulting increase in the DNA base. Duplication Mutations? I think the name speaks for itself, But the more interesting part is the fact that these can alter the function of the resulting protein. Gene fusion and Fission? The combination or splitting of transcripts to create new genes. These "new genes become fixed in a genome. . . . Add to the differences between species and serve as the raw material for evolution (Ohno, 1970). This is easy to see in the case of gene duplication. Gene duplication results in two or more copies of a gene: one that can maintain its original function in the organism, And other(s) that can be "played with" to take on new functions. As a consequence, New duplicates are a main source of genome innovation and often evolve under positive selection, In which rapid changes in the protein encoded by the new gene occur to gain a new function (Presgraves, 2005). This process is referred to as neofunctionalization of the new gene. "[1] Then comes the concept of gene deletion which you allude to as evidence against speciation. "One unanticipated consequence of gene duplication and gene loss is that these events can become the basis for some incompatibilities between species. Duplications and losses have been shown to play a role in hybrid breakdown and in the reduced fitness of the descendants of matings between genetically differentiated populations. Thus, These processes might contribute to the process of speciation (Masly et al. , 2006). " Therefore loss of genetic information is just as integral in evolution as the increase in it as it aids in the loss of compatibility between hybrids and their "parent" specie and thus contributes to speciation. (https://ghr. Nlm. Nih. Gov/primer/mutationsanddisorders/possiblemutations) and (https://www. Nature. Com/scitable/topicpage/origins-of-new-genes-and-pseudogenes-835) Therefore increases in genetic information are possible through some forms of mutation. That being said, I rest my case. -HayekOnDrugs
The Fight isn't between Science and Religion, But Worldviews.

"Natural selection cannot produce design. " You are assuming the presence of design in the first place, Design being the very thing that's under dispute. You are begging the question. "Abiogenesis is used. How did life come about for evolution, Except by abiogenesis. " Abiogenesis is not included in the theory of evolution. Evolution is defined as "the process by which different kinds of living organism are believed to have developed from earlier forms during the history of the earth. " Nowhere in here is abiogenesis mentioned. One doesn't need to believe in abiogenesis to believe in evolution (though I would argue that abiogenesis is consistent with the theory of evolution). Abiogenesis is a precursor to evolution and thus it is not included in the theory of evolution, You are moving the goal posts. "One would expect the DNA of living things on this earth to be similar in some ways since we live on the same planet. " You literally give, False, Examples of how this expectation is realised in the very next sentence. "Actually we have 50 percent of DNA similarities with bananas and have more DNA similarities with mice than with chips. " Actually we share 60% of our DNA with bananas and 96% with chimps (https://www. Getscience. Com/biology-explained/how-genetically-related-are-we-bananas) Mice share 75% of their DNA with humans. (https://journals. Plos. Org/plosbiology/article? Id=10. 1371/journal. Pbio. 1000112). To sum up. My opponent has done nothing but try, And fail, Time and again to discredit the theory of evolution using myths and obscure terminologies that do nothing more than demonstrate his embarrassing lack of comprehension of the theory. His argument lies on a bedrock of unfounded claims, Straw-man arguments and a surprising amount of gibberish that does absolutely nothing to support his original claims. Where is the evidence for Creation? You haven"t provided it because it doesn"t exist. How is Evolution a religion? You haven"t answered because it is clearly not. How does evolution rely on faith? You provide no answer because you have no answer. You unduly dissociate evolution from natural selection and fail to explain why. He lacked the decency to ask me about my opinions and positions and instead assumed, Wrongly, That he knew what these positions were. Putting up and taking down straw-man after straw-man even after I ask him to stop. We haven't achieved very much in this debate and hopefully we get another chance to debate a more grounded and specific topic. It is too bad that uploading arguments here was so troublesome. I look forward to our next debate. -HayekOnDrugs
The Fight isn't between Science and Religion, But Worldviews.

Fine, I'll bite. Firstly, Creationism and evolution are not competing. Evolution explains the development of life as it exists, Creationism tries and, In my opinion fails, To explain the origin of everything. The one is seriously discussed among members of the scientific community, And the other is mostly discussed by philosophers. One is a hard science, The other conjecture. Secondly, Evolution is not a religion, It is a scientific theory supported by observable facts. Creationism is also not a religion, But a hypothesis that can't bear scientific scrutiny. There is so much evidence for evolution that it leaves little room for faith, There is so little evidence for creation that faith is an absolute necessity and clearly the one with more evidence is more logical no? Also, I feel like your definition of religion is a little too vague and thus adds no value to the conversation. So It would help if you could actually define what you mean by religion.
Proof of Intelligent life on other planets, totally disproves God. Therefore Aliens cannot exist.

First part of Pros argument had nothing with the subject of the debate. Nevertheless, I will point out the numerous flaws presented in Pro's argument Let me start off by saying that the OBSERVABLE universe is 13.8 billion (and expanding) light years across. Water can be found many places in the universe and there a millions of Earth-like planets in the universe. Completely ignoring this, purely on the fact that there is a POSSIBILITY of a eternal being in foolish. http://www.space.com... http://www.space.com... On November 4, 2013, astronomers reported, based on Kepler space mission data, that there could be as many as 40 billion Earth-sized planets orbiting in the habitable zones of sun-like stars and red dwarf stars within the Milky Way Galaxy. 11 billion of these estimated planets may be orbiting sun-like stars. The habitable zone of the Solar System range from 0.725 to 3.0 astronomical units. Thats 108 458 456 to 448 793 612 Kilometres! So no, if the Earth was an inch closer or inch away, we wouldn't burn or freeze. The estimates can be challenging, if we include mercury, and Venus along with greenhouse gasses. For different solar systems, the habitable zone can vary on the stars. http://en.wikipedia.org... Before we go any further, the lists of potentially habitable planets can be found on this site: http://en.m.wikipedia.org... "Suppose giraffes were intelligent, just as or more than us. How long would it take for the NFL to draft a Giraffe? Animals are not physically built to be intelligent." NFL would never draft a Giraffe, because a giraffe does no contain the proper body to play football. Such as hands. "They would have to be like humans. They would have to be able to survive in he almost exact same environment with the same intelligence or some sort of inner cognition." How do you know that they have a different biological structure? Yes, it most likely is similar because life requires a specific environment. But, how do you know life besides bacteria has to be human? Perhaps they carried a different evolutionary process. "'our' refers to God and his holy angles." What do you mean "our"? If god really does exist, how can you TOTALLY disprove an idea, that has more valid reasoning than god himself? How do you know its the Christian god? You see, god is a very broad term.
Proof of Intelligent life on other planets, totally disproves God. Therefore Aliens cannot exist.

I admit I fell into some deep ditches and with your final conclusion, I'm doomed. Conduct as well as mere no plus rebuttals to match your arguments. I would like a second debate to occur in sometime when life isn't so hectic, between school, home, and friends I have no time for debates, which I love to participate in. I think a short timeout will let me regroup about the subject. I will return Commondebator I will return.
Humans will be much better off if gays suppressed their homosexuality and had hetero sex only

The primary evolutionary purpose of sex in all species on earth is for the purpose of procreation. There is, however, a strong secondary purpose of sex which has been developed as a result of human evolution. This secondary purpose is that sex is beneficial in the development of the human pair bond. As homosexuals are unable to find satisfaction in the development of a pair bond with the opposite sex, I would posit that denying them the ability to develop relationships which give them satisfaction could cause any of various psychiatric disorders and could lead to a general inability for them to function at full capacity within human society. Think, for example, if we had a very brilliant person who could end up curing cancer, but this person just happened to be a homosexual. Why would it be beneficial to humanity to deny this person the ability to develop a normal human pair bond as this could potentially distract that person from what would be very important research which could be performed for the betterment of humanity? You could make the argument that without this person being able to procreate, their genes could not be passed on perhaps preventing possible highly intelligent offspring from being introduce into the gene pool, but homosexuals are capable of procreation. Not every sexual act should be geared towards procreation as this would cause an increase in population that would over tax the available resources on earth. Homosexuals can still procreate either through the act of having heterosexual sex at least a few times in their lives for the purposes of procreation or by having their genetic material used through in vitro fertilization so that they can procreate.
Humans will be much better off if gays suppressed their homosexuality and had hetero sex only

Okay, so you have pretty much reposted the exact same argument that you used in round two, and I have already explained why much of this argument is either invalid or based upon logical fallacy. As such, I will make this easier for you to understand. Blacks are responsible for more violent crimes than are whites, and I will provide links to this information at the bottom of this post. Many would say that this is because of the fact that there are more blacks living in poverty and would point out other social issues which contribute to this problem. According to your view of the world, though, the best way to stop the violence in black communities, especially the black on black violence, would be to basically outlaw the African American subculture that exists in this country and force them all to act more white. By your argument, since whites commit less violent crimes, based on their percentage of the population, outlawing African American culture and forcing white culture on them would be of benefit to humanity. I would disagree with this, though, as there is no evidence that African American culture is responsible for an increase in violence among that community. Likewise, you cannot prove that homosexual activities are responsible for the increases in STDs and the various other negative affects you have listed. You can make the assertion that they are more prevalent in these communities, but as I have said, one of the reasons for the high prevalence of HIV in the homosexual community is that this was one of the first and primary groups that this disease hit. If any new disease infects a particular population, especially to the extent that HIV spread in homosexual communities, one would expect that this particular population would be responsible for the majority, and even an increasing majority, of new infections. This is simple mathematics. In short, you have proven your case that gays are more at risk for contracting certain diseases. You have proven your case that gays might have more psychological problems than other communities, but you have not been able to prove that this is an effect of homosexual sex. The only way that you could possibly prove this would be to take a test group of people who were once straight and decided later on that they were gay while keeping a control group of people who have always been straight and compare the two to prove that, after having decided that they were gay and engaging in homosexual sex, these people experienced an increase in the prevalence of sexually transmitted diseases, breast cancer, etc. As you have not listed a reference which has attempted this type of study, you cannot say that any of your points are not related to other issues. At best you can say that things look bad for the homosexual community, but you do not have proof as to why. http://www.google.com... http://www.chicagotribune.com... http://www.zerohedge.com...
Should P.E be required in school

Physical education is not just working out, as many people believe that it is, it is actually the study of the body and the mind and how it relates to physical activity. Are you meaning to suggest that people who are physically or mentally disabled should not have to learn about the human body and the mind? I believe that this is a ludicrous statement, and would challenge you to counter this point. Students who are physically disabled, contrary to popular belief have a structured curriculum where it allows them to do physical education, within the confines of their disability. They are not excluded from P.E. they are actually allowed to participate in the activities that suit their disability and the others that can't wait till the next.
Should P.E be required in school

Hello sir and thank you for presenting an open challenge on this interesting and evolving topic. I look forward to a good and lively debate against you on this topic. Physical education is not just working out, as many people believe that it is, it is actually the study of the body and the mind and how it relates to physical activity. Are you meaning to suggest that people who are physically or mentally disabled should not have to learn about the human body and the mind? I believe that this is a ludicrous statement, and would challenge you to counter this point. Students who are physically disabled, contrary to popular belief have a structured curriculum where it allows them to do physical education, within the confines of their disability.
QUESTION Debate!!!!

1. K....ant you F....oster more C....reativity? 2.K....ould i have mistaken you F....or somene would C....ould have come up with better questions? 3.K......ant blame you because in F.....irst round i said anythng C......ould happen. 4.K……rappy questions will F…..ind themselves getiing C….razy responses 5.K.......iller instinct is one of my F.......avorite C.......lassics : ) 6.Ken… Fei Long….. Chun-li 7.K….eep looking F….orward in life you C….an achieve anything. 8.Kuriboh …….Fortune Lady….Cyber dragon 9.Kabira vindicator…..Faceless Devourer…..Cabal Ritual 10. Popeye's is better
QUESTION Debate!!!!

The debate is simple, Pro and Con will ask questions and then Pro and Con must answer each other questions the best they can. Questions dont have to make sense they can be anything and about anything and again it doesnt not even have to make sense, the purpose is to create the most entertaining answer Rules Nothing regarding rape,molestation, murder of family or friends,nothing related to any body parts or porn or sex related. Other than the rules anything goes, you could even say "^%^*YGDUEG@?" as a question, doesnt matter, what matters is the opponents response. They dont even have to answer the question they just have to respond to it. again its about who had the most creative or entertaining response. round 1 ask the 10 questions Round 2 answer the questions rest is up to Voters to judge based on their answers not their questions. 1. Why do people do bad things when they have foreknowledge knowing that it is bad? 2.what is infinity minus infinity? 3. I got fun do beep see dog run jump try fly vroom? 4.What is your full name, Social security number, address and phone number and credit card number? 5. Why dont we see many black people with tourette syndrome? 6.WHy do black girls have big butts? 7.Why are two males and two women NOT able to have children through natural means? 8.What is the name of Chuck Norris socks that have a hole in them that are in his bottom drawer to in his second house located in caifornia that many people go to parties at? 9.Why? 10.If you were the president how would you fix the economy if you only had 6mths 2 days 18hrs 30seconds and 67 miliseconds how would you do it?
Saying that 9/11 was an inside job is a verbal assualt to families who have lost them

Ignoring the fact that saying 9/11 was an inside job doesn't always have to be a verbal proclamation, I negate the notion that expressing such a sentiment is an "assault" on anyone. The dictionary defines assault in several ways: 1. A sudden, violent attack; onslaught: an assault on tradition. 2. Law. An unlawful physical attack upon another; an attempt or offer to do violence to another, with or without battery, as by holding a stone or club in a threatening manner. 3. Military. The stage of close combat in an attack [1]. First of all, the Burden of Proof Fallacy applies to this debate. As Pro, my opponent has the burden of affirming the resolution and as such his dismissal of Round One to leave the Con to make the first argument was a bold, yet incredibly weak move. In a debate, the burden of proof always rests on the Pro position. That said, my initial contention (as I have nothing to refute, yet) reads: - FREEDOM OF SPEECH - Freedom of speech/expression is an unalienable right granted to us through documents such as the United States Constitution, as well as recognized by international and and regional human rights law. The restrictions to freedom of speech include violations of: the interests of national security; territorial integrity or public safety; the prevention of disorder or crime; the protection of health or morals; the protection of the reputation or the rights of others; the disclosure of information received in confidence; or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary [2]. Pro has the burden of proving such a claim (that 9/11 was an inside job) violates any of these boundaries in order for his statement to be valid. Assuming that Pro would attack the notion that such an expression would violate the protection of health or morals, and/or the protection of the reputation or the rights of others, I maintain that (1) It simply doesn't, thus the application of Free Speech applies, (2) Ignoring the facts that support this theory would be irrational, dangerous, and possibly oppressive, and (3) Placing the blame of the attacks on a government "scam" hardly affects the FAMILIES of the deceased, but rather negatively portraits the establishment. Criticizing or critiquing the establishment is another right of American citizens, and some would argue that it is the basis or foundation of democracy in general. That said, I'll refrain from including additional arguments at this point; I feel as though I have effectively argued against the resolution thus far. I look forward to Pro's rebuttal so that I may introduce any new counter-arguments in the next round(s). Sources: [1] http://dictionary.reference.com... [2] http://www.idebate.org...
It is the governments responsibility to help individuals after a natural disastor.

First off, I'd like to welcome my opponent to debate. org, and I do hope that she sticks around on this rather interesting website. I'll be keeping what I have to say brief, to ensure that both sides are able to effectively debate. I have 2 Arguments for why it is the government's responsibility to help individuals after a natural disaster. 1. It is ethical for the people through the government to provide aid to those harmed by a natural disaster. The government taxes its citizens, one of the purposes being to assist those who recently suffered a natural calamity. This is, by extension, the people as a whole aiding those harmed by a natural disaster. This is ethical because it upholds the golden rule, which is that one ought to act in the way that they would want others to act. If my home were to be destroyed by a tornado this evening, I would most certainly hope that along with private aid and home insurance, the government would be able to lend a helping hand in getting my family a new home to live in. As would any sane person. If a wildfire were to start outside of Baton Rouge Louisiana, proceeding to decimate a part of the city, I would think it right that my tax dollars would go toward helping the people there. Some people that also find it ethical to help others in need include the Dali Lama, Jesus, Confucius, the Prophet Muhammad, and God (As reported by the Old Testament. ) 2. The government should help individuals after a natural disaster because it helps the economy. The government, by helping people who suffered significant losses in a natural disaster, help the economy in two ways. First, the act of helping is good for the economy because the products purchased and the labor paid for by the government adds to our nation's GDP, which is a key indicator of economic prosperity. Second, the result of help from the government is that people who otherwise would not have been able to thrive are able to, with the money and resources given to them by the government. By giving people "seed" money and resources, they are better able to make money later on, which in turn helps the economy as a whole. It is the government's responsibility to help individuals after a natural disaster because it is ethical and it helps the economy.