BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Courts have the responsibility to create racially balanced schools

Negative Assertion #1: Court ordered desegregation plans do more harm than good. My evidence is that the African Americans had the chance to get a better education for themselves. Also people started to learn how to live with each other. A judge should not be able to tell parents where their children must attend school. It allows six choices based on location and quality. Then the new schools district plans gives equality in their education. Negative Assertion #2: Courts are powerless to combat prejudice. One evidence would be that people had to start getting used to one another, eventually it did worked. Then the only person who can bring or put all races together in one place is the judge. The court does not have power to reduce the effects of racial discriminaton. The court puts whites and blakcs together but they still do not get along. By creating equlaity, it does not change the people's mind. Congress could've passed a law against force busing. Negative Assertion #3: Schools shouldn't be used as battlegrounds to address inequality and discrimination. Fighting on school grounds is the only chance they have because that is when and where they only have the opporunity to see the other kids to get into a fight.
Courts have the responsibility to create racially balanced schools

Affirmative assertion #1- In 1974, court-ordered busing was the only strategy that could have desegregated Boston's public schools. Neighborhood's where segregated so colored kids would go to there neighborhood school that were only attended by blacks. After that Boston decided to build new schools meant to be for everyone but even after the law damanded schools had to be disagregated it didnt work things got worse. Affirmative assertion #2-Students and society benefit when more kids are able to attend racialy intergrated schools.More intergrated schools would give black and colored kids to get the same education white kids were getting. Also if schools were intergrated and they seen that it was actually working out society would most likely start to realize everyone could actually be equal and discrimination would be less of a problem. Affirmative assertion #3-I believe the court has the power to stop discrimination. It would take some time but it can be done.
God exists and evolution is false

There are no irreducibly complex structures. Many can be hypothetically broken down into smaller parts. Others have other uses. (e.g, a wing could have broken an early bird's fall, like a parachute). The eye, for example. 1. Start with a light sensitive patch on a cell. This patch will tell the organism the level of daylight. Light sensitive cells are very common in nature. 2. Add more patches in a cluster, and warp them to give a sense of direction. 3. Add mucus to focus the light (like a cornea). 4. Add a hard lens for even more focus. 5. Continue adding more light sensitive cells (rods and cones) in a genetic "copy-paste" manner. This may be simplified, but it proves the eye is not irreducibly complex. "Half an eye" is still more useful than no eye at all. There are organisms with all levels of eyeballs, and this pattern of eye development is even reflected in the development of humans in the womb. Our eyes start out as buds. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_development www.vetmed.vt.edu/education/curriculum/vm8054/eye/EMBYEYE.HTM The Darwin quote that you may be referring to was taken out of context. He was actually proving that what "seems" absurd really isn't. It may seem absurd that the earth revolves around the sun. He was simply demonstrating that "absurdity" is not a scientific standard. www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA113_1.html The complexity of a watch doesn't tell us it was designed. We know it must be designed because (1), it can't reproduce, (2) it can't experience natural selection, (3) It is not subject to epigenetics or mutation, for it has no DNA. We have, however, observed these processes in living things, either in minor changes, or through fossils. "The creation proves the creator" is a tautology, since it asserts the universe is a creation. Again, the way things seem isn't the way things are. The sun appears to be going around Earth, but it is not. Humans may seem designed, but they're not. There are different types of mutations. The fruit fly experiment artificially increased the mutations using microwaves, so it is not fair. No one, except creation propaganda websites, says bacterial evolution is caused by a loss of information. Nylonase was created through a frame-shift mutation. Lenski's bateria were examined in-depth. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment The source from Wikipedia, if Wiki is unreliable: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3461117/ According to the theory of Punctuated Equalibrium, evolutionary and genetic changes speed up faster in isolated populations than in vast populations. (Look at incest. Good genes and Bad genes from incest are more exaggerated) That is why there are very few transitional forms. But they do exist. Look up some pictures of human and ape skulls, and you will see the line between human and ape is artificial. (I don't know how to include pictures.)
God exists and evolution is false

A system that is irreducibly complex is one in which all the components work together and are essential to perform the system"s basic function. (A mousetrap is a simple example.) It is not possible to build such a system gradually, one component at a time, since it cannot function unless all components are present. Many living systems exhibit such irreducible complexity (e.g vision, blood clotting, etc.). When you look at a watch, you assume there was a watchmaker. A watch is too complex to "happen" by chance. Yet living systems are vastly more complex than a watch. Darwin considered this fact one of the most serious challenges to his theory of evolution. The magnitude of this challenge has increased exponentially since Darwin"s time as the details of living systems have been uncovered down to and below the level of the cell. The incredible machinery of life exists in networks so complex and interdependent that they could not have arisen gradually or through random chance " they simply had to be designed and created. Secondly, Mutations are thought to drive evolution, but they cannot increase information. Mutations can only change DNA by deleting, damaging, duplicating, or substituting already existing information. The vast majority of mutations are harmful or have no apparent effect. Over 100 years of fruit fly experiments have clearly demonstrated that mutations only result in normal, dead, or grotesquely deformed fruit flies " they are still fruit flies! Even mutations which are in some way beneficial (such as antibiotic resistance in bacteria or wingless beetles on windy islands) result from the loss of information. This is the opposite of the vast increase in information required to get from amoeba to man, as proposed in the theory of evolution. Lastly, if evolution were true, we should be surrounded by a zoo of transitional forms that cannot be categorized as one particular life form. But we don"t see this"there are different kinds of dogs, but all are clearly dogs. The fossils show different sizes of horses, but all are clearly horses. None is on the verge of being some other life form. The fossil record shows complex fossilized life suddenly appearing, and there are major gaps between every major "kind" of life. Darwin acknowledged that if his theory were true, it would require millions of transitional forms. He believed they would be found in fossil records. They haven"t been.
God exists and evolution is false

First of all, there are some differences between DNA and languages like English and Computer Code. First of all, language, doesn't replicate/reproduce. Second, DNA can mutate. Some creationist-scientists will tell you "There is no mutation that produces an increase of information." without clarifying. No matter what definition of information, the argument is wrong. 1. If Information here is a number of "Letters", then the statement is false. There are mutations that produce an increase in the number of nucleotides, and mutations that swap one for another. ghr.nlm.nih.gov/handbook/mutationsanddisorders/possiblemutations 2. If information is simply a change in DNA, then all mutations increase information. 3. If information is visible in "complexity", the argument is invalid, since complexity is subjective. 4. If information is useful/beneficial, then the argument is false. Look up nylonase and Lenski's experiments with bacteria. It may resemble a code in some aspects, and some may even call it a code, but that is metaphorical. DNA doesn't contain the information to produce life, anymore than baking soda and vinegar contain the information to produce bubbles. It's a polymer. livinglifewithoutanet.com/2009/07/05/dna-is-not-a-code/ Natural selection is used to select good genes and eliminate bad genes, streamlining the species. It happens AFTER mutations, which are random. Evolution is essentially mutations plus natural selection. It's a random process plus a non-random process. Mutation takes many generations to happen in large amounts. It only takes a few months or years for a bacteria or virus, but it takes deep amounts of time for it to happen to humans. If evolution wasn't true, we wouldn't have to get a flu shot every year, and we would have one for AIDS.
God exists and evolution is false

Let's look at DNA. Such a complex identity. Such a language. The letters are ACGT which build up, literally, who we are. Now would you agree with me that DNA is a language? If so, we can say that every language has a composer. Look at English. The language we are speaking right now consists of 26 letters (like ACGT) that when put together makes words and sentences. When putting together ACGT you make genetic code (a gigantic language) that develops your traits (hair color, eye color etc) So now that we understand that DNA is a language we look at English. It was created by an intelligence. Someone made these letters and connected them with sounds. Same with every other language: it was created by an intelligence. Well if DNA is a language, then there must have been an intelligence behind it! Secondly, natural selection as a backup for evolution? I don't think so. The concept of natural selection was originally developed by natural theologians, who thought that it worked to preserve distinct created types. Darwin argued that natural selection, if given enough time, could actually create new types. However, field and laboratory observations of natural selection in action confirm that it only changes the relative abundance of certain already-existing characteristics, and doesn"t create new ones. For example, Darwin observed that the average beak size of finches increased in dry years, but later observers noted that this trend reversed in wet years. This is very different than the kind of changes that would be required to transform a finch beak into some other structure or a finch into a completely different kind of animal. In other words, scientific studies of natural selection demonstrate, without exception, that Darwin was wrong. Those are two strong points (one supporting creationism, the other attacking evolution) that I have stated. Please address my points and create your own for rebuttal.
Christian Theology Is Nothing More than Obfuscated and Exaggerated Lies

Hey and thanks again, look I know about these problems with the Bible and how for hundreds of years the church (mainly catholic) ruined, changed and cut large sums of it out for population control reasons. The issue for me is the speeches and parables he gave to fellow man the miracles the gospels say he performed. When he died the temple was somewhat ruined to rubble. You don't have to trust the bible you just must Jesus. The Mary telling Jesus he is the son of god is false. At seven Jesus was left in the temple and when found said "You know that I must do my Father's bidding?" If she did tell him he got the message out. Out of any false Messiahs at that time. The story I believe in acts shows one of the high priests say after evaluating the caught disciples. "We have done this before brothers? If he(Jesus) is not holy then nothing will come of this silly followers. But if he(Jesus) is holy than there will be no way to stop them and you are going against God." Looks like he was holy? The 11 after Judas then 12 again sure got the message out. All but John died horrible deaths by natives or just plain non-believers. Would you die for something that is false in nature? I am not that's for sure. But I AM willing to die for Christ. Baptism in blood. The man who raised Jesus was related to King David, Joseph. He was the only son of god and raised by a man that had kinsman like genealogy. Look you're not going to change and either am I but if you stop and look at this planet the way it works. Water cycle, gravity, nature, oxygen cycle, human instincts. The way everyone things works and its some random bull-crap? Goodness exists and so does Evilness why? I think you may know. But yeah great conversation/debate so far back to you PRO.
Christian Theology Is Nothing More than Obfuscated and Exaggerated Lies

Thanks Con for taking up this challenge!Though much of your argument is off topic I will endeavor to rebut those that are on topic.Point 1: " "The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham:"Technically, if you claim Jesus is the Son of David, Son of Abraham, then this destroys the Virgin Birth myth, since in Judaism, only the Husband or Father can carry lineage.Since with a Virgin Birth there is no Father except God, Jesus cannot possibly be in the Lineage of King DavidBesides, to be the Son of David, he must be considered for the thrown of Israel, which Jesus Christ certainly was not. The tale that Jesus was the Messiah predicted by the Old Testament is absolutely False, Jesus never really fulfilled the Messianic Prophesies, he certainly was not in line for the throne of Israel, Jesus was most likely the son of the Roman soldier that seduced/raped Mary and caused he to claim a Virgin Birth, as did many women that the Romans raped, since to be carrying a Roman baby in that region was a stoning offense at the time, so many women claimed virgin births to avoid being stoned to death.Problem for Jesus was that very likely Mary told Jesus he was a child of God and he believed her, thus his delusional quest. I think in the end, Mary regretted telling Jesus that lie, as he may have lived longer and a more normal life, had she told him the truth. She disappeared off the scene after the death of Jesus, probably in shame of her lie that caused her son's death.http://www.youtube.com...Only the Son of David and heir to the throne of Israel could be the Messiah: That was never Jesus Christ.The Gospels are confusing in these points as well, they contradict each other concerning the lineage and birth of Jesus.Point 2: Con goes through a Lineage ending in: " Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ." Problem there is Joseph was not in line for the Throne of Israel either, the Messianic prophesies only cover a direct lineage by Blood, it was known that Joseph was not the blood father of Jesus, thus Jesus would not be covered by the Prophesies. Again, Jesus was not the Messiah that the Old Testament sought.http://www.debunkingskeptics.com...http://christianthinktank.com... Con stated: "I pray and worry for you. I am guessing you are a good moral man and that you mean no harm but you must believe. "Thanks for your concern Con, but such statement of concern can be construed as a Coercion.Coercion to faith is fallacious.My studies into Theology (lies and reading the Bible) is the reason I no longer believe.If the Bible had been more rational and realistic with less nonsense and contradictions, maybe I'd still believe. http://www.youtube.com...Though, thanks for your argument,Back to you Con.
Religous zealots should not be eligible to vote

Not everybody has the right to vote in most democratic electoral systems: convicted criminals, the mentally ill and children are denied the right to vote because they are not deemed capable of reaching sound decisions based on properly considered evaluations of the candidates' policies. This principle should be extended to those frothing nut-jobs that are so completely deluded that they actually believe that, as if by magic, some deity created the Earth a few thousand years ago and think that the scientific evidence that proves otherwise was all just made up to test their faith. In view of their preposterous beliefs it is clear that evangelical Christians, devout Muslims and orthodox Jews, like children, criminals and mental patients, are not capable of reaching properly informed decisions and should, therefore, have their eligibility to vote withdrawn. Thank you.
On Balance, Naturalism Is More Plausible Than Theism

My opponent has lost the opportunity to criticize my case, so I cannot defend against anything in this round. He will also have nothing to write in Round 4 as a result. He will still have the opportunity to defend his case in Round 3 if he doesn't forfeit again, but he has basically lost the debate because he will have no opportunity to offer counterarguments. I am disappointed in you, Con.
On Balance, Naturalism Is More Plausible Than Theism

Greetings, the debate of philosophy relating to the fundamental questions, is there God, is a common occurrence, but unfortunately often results in the side supporting theism losing to the theory of the isolation and sole existence of the perceivable world. There is no reason why this is the case, to begin we must realize that both theism and naturalism are theories, neither have been proven to a degree that allows them to be considered law. This means that there is no more evidence supporting the theory of naturalism then theism, and there are several explanations to the arguments against theism. In order for this to be an effective debate I must provide a definition of both theism and God. In the course of this debate my reference to theism will mean "the belief in one god as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation" (dictionary.reference.com). As for the reference God, for my use it means one who is greater than any other force, one who is above all natural and super-natural worlds and has power over both of these worlds. The main focus of my argument is that there is little proof that would discourage theism, and several valid points that support its existence. In support of theism is the fact that in the natural world, all things originate from some point. The classic example of the need for nature to originate is the Chicken or the Egg sincere (Wikipedia). By natural means it seems impossible to find a situation in the physical world that allows nature to create itself from nothing. Though this concept is dated, its meaning and value remains. In order for nature to exist, it must have originated from a source that does not need a beginning, or in short a world where the laws of nature do not apply, the super-natural world. For the evidence of God, there must be some coordinating entity that actively defines and regulates the rules of existence, we all know that while on Earth there is gravity, that 1+1=2. Nature is chaotic, natural disaster and radioactive decay are examples, and would not by its own behavior tend Because of this there must be some force that brings regulation into the world, this is why the chaos theory is needed. There must be a force that ensures nature remains calm. This leads to the assumption that God is this force and also for nature to remain in balance, God is needed. This debate is not meant to change long term beliefs, but is instead meant to examine in depth the possibilities and likelihood of the existence of God and a world outside that of nature. If either of us offend any one throughout the course of this debate please realize that is not the intent and we apologize for the anger it might cause. References: http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://dictionary.reference.com...
Economic Growth at the cost of Environment is Devastating

My dear , Frankly speaking I was taken aback at your statement , "Sacrificing nature now will benefit humanity now and for the centuries to come " . So indirectly you mean ,Environment can risked for human's 'greed' . Mahatama Gandhi once said , " There is enough for everyone's needs but nothing for anyone's greed " I think you must not be knowing what sacrificing nature actually means . Without flora and fauna , sir , can you think of surviving on the planet . It won't be possible either . Just imagine how will it feel if u have to buy oxygen for breathing . There is no need of mentioning what nature gives us . We must not go against the nature's rules . The pollution level , the new kind of diseases and and the greedy nature of humans is increasing as never before . This must be taken care of , before its too late . And thank you for your concern abut my life in poverty , I will better live in some poverty now then have to see my coming generations ( centuries to come ) , fighting for food etc. That's it .
Economic Growth at the cost of Environment is Devastating

Hello sir/maam. I would like this to be my acceptance and opening statement for the issue of Economic Growth at the Cost of the Environment. The present world I must agree is growing at a very alarming rate with our population booming faster than even rabbits. We sacrifice our old homes for the benefit of those around us and while yes it is potential that we might lose some aspects of our planet, does that mean we should let our own people suffer in poverty in the name of the environment? I ask you, would you want to be in poverty you couldn't get a job at one place in defense of the environment? Throughout the debate I will show you why sacrificing nature now will benefit humanity now and for the centuries to come unlike what my opponent believes.