BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Intelligent Design should be taught alongside Evolution in science class, in USA High Schools.

The existence of intelligent design certainly is a complicated topic. Intelligent design basically says that everything was created with an intelligent cause, unlike evolution which says we evolved here from something else. Intelligent design and evolution can both be argued to not be a science. Rather, both are theories for our existence. When children enter the public school system they should be taught both theories side by side. A good student will exam both arguments and the information presented to decide for his own what he believes. The reason they are both theories is because IT IS NOT PROVEN - EVOLUTION IS NOT A FACT. Just because public schools teach it does not mean it is the law of the land (just look at some history books they use now). Furthermore, your point about intelligent design being a smoke screen for fanatical religion is far from the truth. Intelligent design does not come from the bible. Rather is just says we are just too complicated and intelligent to come from a monkey. No where in intelligent design does it mention biblical times, so there is no need to teach our public school kids about religion. Intelligent design, unlike evolution, has answers for important questions. Evolution has no answer for how life was started. If evolution were true then why are no monkeys having humans as babies anymore? With the extensiveness of DNA and the perfectness of human beings the way we are, wouldn't something "intelligent" have to design us? How come Earth was the only planet in our solar system to have the perfect composition of gases and materials to produce intelligent life? With these answers unexplained by evolution maybe that theory should not be indoctrinated in to our student's minds alone. The only reason I can think of why people like you do not want our children taught about other ways of thinking than you own is that you are afraid your theory may look puny and unrealistic to even a young science student.
Intelligent Design should be taught alongside Evolution in science class, in USA High Schools.

The existence and possibility of Intelligent Design is a complicated topic, that throughout history has been debated by many people and important figures. Some arguments extend furthur. They extend to the topic of "Should Intelligent Design also be taught in science class?" I believe it should not. There are many reasons why not including: A) Intelligent Design is not a Science. B) Intelligent Design is purely a smokescreen for fanatical Christian and Islamic (or any "Jesus/God-believing" religion for that matter) beliefs to be brought into the American public school system. C) Intelligent Design has no evidence and cannot be proven scientifically (it requires mere untrusted, unquetioned faith). D) Evolution is proven fact (we teach facts in schools, not unlikely possibilities). It is through these statements, working coherently, that I believe that Intelligent Design should not be taught in science class in the United States public school system.
Resolved: North Korea poses a more serious threat to United States national security than Iran.

Regarding the first question: The question posed in this debate is about which nation is more of a threat, not which nation is militarily stronger. If you continued your argument out, one might say that Canada or the UK are great threats, but this is not the case, since they are not antagonistic to the US. Regarding question two: I never said that most Muslims are murderers, just that the ones in power (thus controlling the resources) are. And we're not just talking about Al Qaeda, what about Hamas? Regarding question three: The whole Muslim population is either unaware of the commands of radical Islam or tends to ignore the, shall we say, distasteful parts? Regarding question four: They would attack the US because the US is an ally of Israel. My crossfire has the following questions: 1. Is the debate about military strength or military threat? 2. Even if North Korea has a stronger military, you need to consider whether they are likely to attack. 3. Ideologies play a large part in global relations, don't they? 4. And isn't the Iranian ideology more likely to be anti-American?
Resolved: North Korea poses a more serious threat to United States national security than Iran.

There is a couple things wrong with my opponent's argument, as I will point out in here. This is the crossfire. I will ask a few questions. Please answer these questions next round. 1. Does it make sense to say that the militarily weaker country is more of a threat? 2. Knowing that al Qaeda and Iran practice opposite branches of Islam, and that most Muslims aren't murderers, does it make sense to say that Iran is dangerous because of jihadists (al Qaeda)? 3. If the Koran states that Christians and Jews are infidels, and that infidels need to be killed, then why isn't the whole Muslim population in the jihad with al Qaeda? 4. Even if Iran was controlled by jihadists, their war is against Israel. Why would they attack the US?
Resolved: North Korea poses a more serious threat to United States national security than Iran.

While my opponent presents a convincing argument regarding the ballistic/nuclear capacities of North Korea as opposed to Iran, he neglects to deal with the issue of the ideologies present in both regimes. While it is true that North Korea, as a primarily communist nation, is economically opposed to the United States, the much more dangerous threat comes from the radical Islamic militants in Iran. The jihadists, while not militarily equal to the North Koreans, are certainly more prone to using their military resources against this country. North Korea does have increased military capacity but has thus far no distinct reason for using them. Iran, however, is a country controlled by Sharia law and the radical Islamic faction. The Islamic jihadists believe that, as the Koran says, Christians, Jews, and their supporters are infidels, and the Koran commands faithful Muslims to kill infidels. There can be no more convincing ideological motivation that the violent demands of a radical religion. The general ideological base of Iranian terrorists is the general reason that Iran is more dangerous to the United States than North Korea. Note: I am not saying that all Muslims are radical murderers, just that the ones that control Iran are fundamentalist jihadists (not to mention their leader, Mahmoud Amedinijad, bordering on insanity).
Resolved: North Korea poses a more serious threat to United States national security than Iran.

Answers: 1. Military threat has a lot to do wit military strength. There is no way to execute threats if there is no strength to back them up. 2. You have provided no evidence that says they aren't likely to attack. 3. Yes they do. North Korea hates the US for supporting South Korea just as much as Iran hates us for supporting Israel. 4. No, it isn't. This is apparent because there haven't been any attacks on the US from Shiites. Now I'll start my second speech. First I'll rebut my opponent's points, then I'll support my own. During the last crossfire, my opponent claimed that it was the country with harmful intentions, and not the country with the strong military, that is threatening. In some cases he is right, as one would trust a police officer with a handgun, but not an unarmed mugger, but in this debate he is wrong. The Soviet Union was feared not for its ideology, which was against the capitalist system of the West, but for its mighty military strength, which rivaled the US. Today, North Korea is much stronger militarily than Iran, as I've proven in my first speech with a description of their proliferation abilities and their arsenal of biochemical weapons. As with the Cold War era, it's the militarily strong country and not the one that wants a fight to the death that is a threat. My opponent also said that the Muslim population as a whole was either unaware of the commands of radical Islam or ignores the distasteful parts. Last time I checked, most people know and embrace everything in their religion: believing in a Creator, not believing in evolution, and other things, and most people don't follow a religion that supports murder. The only explanation for radical Islam is that it's a separate branch for the ignorant and violent. Al Qaeda belongs in this group. My opponent has not shown that Iran does as well, and even if he did, he has no evidence to prove that Iran's enemy is the US and not just Israel. My opponent also assumes that because Iran is an enemy of Israel and we are an ally of Israel, we are an enemy of Iran. This is simply not true. In the Vietnam War, we were allies with South Vietnam, but were not enemies with North Vietnam until we decided to join the war and use bombers against them. Likewise, we are not Iran's enemies until we decide to act against them. My opponent has not refuted any of my points, so I will reiterate them. North Korea is much closer to developing nuclear weapons then Iran, thus making North Korea a much greater threat. North Korea has ballistic missiles and biochemical weapons to attach to those missiles, making them a much greater threat. North Korea has the ability to use terror themselves, thus making them a much greater threat than Iran. Thus North Korea is a greater threat to US national security than Iran.
Evolution is a proven fact against creation.

Let me just say you should read my comment; it will further explain my stupidity. :( Believing there is a "creator" is just having a faith. If there is a "creator" why isn't he making new things everyday like he made the universe? Scientist can prove that we have evolved from animals. The supposed "missing links" have been found. "Ida" is the fossil which links us to our ancestors. It was preserved in rock for 47 million years which they found in New York. Have you researched the fossil records which can prove we have evolved slowly from animals? What about the theory of survival of the fittest? What evidence does creationism have? Creationism has no evidence. Everything in life changes. So why wouldn't we have started out as animals and become humans when everything started one was but has changed to make up what we have today? So far, the biggest complaint I'm seeing about evolution is that the theory changes. Yes, the details do change - Darwin had no concept of Mandolin genetics. There are likely other features we will discover in time. What this complaint comes down to is that science can admit that it wasn't correct in every aspect. Evolution is updated as we get more info - and the second that info undeniably asserts a god, it'll go in the theory. I know that Cairo is a city in Egypt. I don't know, or have a very poor idea, of what the residential district looks like - does this mean that Cairo is no longer a city in Egypt? Just because details change, that doesn't mean that the premise is wrong.
Evolution is a proven fact against creation.

My opponent's second round argument is still perplexing. My opponent first quotes: "How could this universe just come about without a designer? Everything that is designed has to have a designer. " Creationism is essentially the belief that an omnipotent Designer (or Creator) created all things. With the question my opponent asks, she is supporting creationism by essentially saying that this universe had to have a designer. That contradicts her stance for the debate and completely supports mine. When my opponent states that everything designed needs a designer, she is once again supporting creationism over evolution, which contradicts her stance and shows more support for my side of the debate. My opponent then quotes: "Is it not true that believing in creationism you are believing that some "God" has designed this universe? And if so then where did this "God" come from? " If one believes in creationism, then he/she essentially believes than an omnipotent Creator has created all things. This Creator is omnipotent and thus did not really come from anywhere, instead, the Creator essentially was there from the beginning. My opponent further states: "He would also have to have a creator because like I stated before someone or something has to be the designer of him. And as science has proven nothing can just create something without using other objects. " Why would the omnipotent Creator have to have someone that previously created him? The Creator is believed to be existent from the beginning of time and thus separates himself from any explanations of someone creating him. My opponent's reference to science has a lack of evidence and really does not bring anything significant to the topic at hand. My opponent's final remark is actually quite confusing and needs further clarification. I believe the victor of this debate is quite clear. My opponent has essentially provided no pieces of evidence to support her side while her arguments supported mine.
Evolution is a proven fact against creation.

Yes, I was referring to creationism. How could this universe just come about without a designer? Everything that is designed has to have a designer. Is it not true that believing in creationism you are believing that some "God" has designed this universe? And if so then where did this "God" come from? He would also have to have a creator because like I stated before someone or something has to be the designer of him. And as science has proven nothing can just create something without using other objects. Thanks for accepting the challenge and helping me with improving my debating skills.
Evolution is a proven fact against creation.

As my opponent really does not make an opening argument, I will allow her to clarify exactly what we are arguing in the second round of this debate. When my opponent states in the resolution that evolution is a proven fact against creation, she is probably referring to creationism, but once again, I will let my opponent clarify exactly what we are debating in the proceeding round. I would like to ask my opponent to specifically address what we are discussing and hope to take part in an interesting debate. Thank you.
Resolved: On balance, I am not a troll.

Resolved: On balance, I am not a troll I am not a troll. At least, not usually. The burden of proof is all on my Opponent, he must convincingly argue that I am a troll. I am permitted to Cross Examine him. To win I only need to disprove my Opponents arguments, I will not post my own. I contend that using the definition of troll, a special exception can be mae for this site. Like you've said yourself debate itself is inflammatory, so using that logic every single person on this site who has been in a debate is a troll. You must prove how I am more inflammatory than most for this point to stand.That is incorrect sir, by defintion we are all troll's, we can not out of the blue up and decide that because it is better for your side of the argument we must make an expetion for this site, unfortunatly life does not work that way. It is true, i am a troll, you are a troll, and everyone on this site is a troll, and you just admitted yourself that you are indeed a troll. you just conceded this entire debate by agreeing that you are a troll at all times. -actually, if it isn't my fault thn I am NOT a troll, suing your definition. Troll: Im sorry for the confusion, i was just saying that in an attempt to be nicer, it is your fault, the way you act and appear is the reasons why people desire you (which you didnt deny) both of these can be changed by you so you intended to do so. Cross ex- 1. You state that I am a troll because I post "off topic" debates. If I could find some "off topic" debates from some very well respected membes would they be considered trolls too? yes, as i mentioned earilier we, on this site, are all trolls. 2. Also, how do you know that those debates are "off topic", what gives you the right to decide such a thing?I did not decide it, i am going off the four baisc, yet broad catogory's used in the discription of debate.org 3. Since the resolved states "on balance" wouldn't you agree that as the Prosecution you must prove how the majority of my debates are "trolls" and if you fail to, I win this round?that is a fair statement, but you agree'd that you are a troll every time you debate.4. Moving on to your second point, since we can agree that debate is an inflammatory activity, you must prove how I am more inflammatory than the average debater, correct? no, just because it is an inflammatory activity does not mean we can alter the defintion of troll, i am simply going of the resalution and your defintion of troll.
Resolved: On balance, I am not a troll.

=Rebuttal="Notice how they said religion, politics, science, and sports, they did not include a miscellaneous category." - False, a Miscellaneous category does exist, if you o not believe me try starting a debate, and under "category" select Miscellaneous. Just because DDO's statement doesn't mention Miscallaneous debates, they've shown their endorsement of them by creating a category for them. Furthermore, even if you were right that they didn't endorse Miscellaneous debates, they haven't specifically spoken out against them, and anything that is not explicitly against the rules is legal.So that Contention falls."By being on a debate site you are already by definition being inflammatory, you are arguing with someone in an attempt to change there point of view, which in every case has to be brought up by passion or gives your competitor some type of emotion" -I contend that using the definition of troll, a special exception can be mae for this site. Like you've said yourself debate itself is inflammatory, so using that logic every single person on this site who has been in a debate is a troll. You must prove how I am more inflammatory than most for this point to stand."so even though it may not at all times be your fault, you are a troll by definition because you are both inflammatory and extraneous." -actually, if it isn't my fault thn I am NOT a troll, suing your definition. Troll: "a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response."Intent: "the design or purpose to commit a wrongful or criminal act" [1] so if I didn't do on purpose (I.E. not my fault) I am not a troll.=Cross Examination=1. You state that I am a troll because I post "off topic" debates. If I could find some "off topic" debates from some very well respected membes would they be considered trolls too?2. Also, how do you know that those debates are "off topic", what gives you the right to decide such a thing?3. Since the resolved states "on balance" wouldn't you agree that as the Prosecution you must prove how the majority of my debates are "trolls" and if you fail to, I win this round?4. Moving on to your second point, since we can agree that debate is an inflammatory activity, you must prove how I am more inflammatory than the average debater, correct?I look foward to the Prosecutions reply.=Source=1. http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Resolved: On balance, I am not a troll.

I will start by using a couple definitions, and then explain how he is, by definition a troll (for the most part if not all the time).Troll- a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response.inflammatory- Arousing passion or strong emotion, especially anger, belligerence, or desire [1]Extraneous-1. Not constituting a vital element or part. [2]2. Inessential or unrelated to the topic or matter at hand; irrelevant [2]I will combine extraneous and off topic.Now to beginContention one, you are extraneous.Debate.org's statement describing who/what they are goes as follows:Debate.org is a premier online debate website that features active discussion on thousands of debate topics. Find ongoing debates on everything from religion, politics, science, and sports. Exchange your opinion with other community members over today's most pressing issues. [3]Notice how they said religion, politics, science, and sports, they did not include a miscellaneous category. The majority of your topics for debate do not fall into any of the category's listed in the description, making them off-topic/extraneous. Here are the titles of just a few of your extraneous debates..."On balance, Slytherin house is better than Gryffindor.""Resolved: On balance, I am not a troll.""cats should be afforded the exact same rights as human beings""cats are more intelligent than humans""Resolved: That mimes can be considered, with little doubt, the worst non-criminal people.""in a fight, megan fox could defeat taylor swift""i cannot lose this round.""Feeding the trolls is more fun than leaving them alone""sunglasses""I will win this debate""I will beat my opponent in this debate"keep in mind that that is not all of the extraneous debate's you have been in, but only a few that i saw as i skimmed over your recent debates.Contention two, you are inflammatory.By being on a debate site you are already by definition being inflammatory, you are arguing with someone in an attempt to change there point of view, which in every case has to be brought up by passion or gives your competitor some type of emotion.You also have understand your effect on people... Im sure you can agree with me that the vast majority of the people on this site find you to be a beautiful human being, they want you/desire to be you. That, though maybe not your fault, makes you a troll all the time.so even though it may not at all times be your fault, you are a troll by definition because you are both inflammatory and extraneous.[1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...[2] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...[3] http://www.juggle.com...
Resolved: On balance, I am not a troll.

I am not a troll. At least, not usually. The burden of proof is all on my Opponent, he must convincingly argue that I am a troll. I am permitted to Cross Examine him. To win I only need to disprove my Opponents arguments, I will not post my own.Think of this as my "trial" of sorts, regardless of your personal opinion of me vote Pro if I'm "not guilty" and Con if I'm "guilty".No semantics.Troll- a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response.[1]1. http://en.wikipedia.org...(Internet)