BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Scientific Evidence Supports the Theory of Evolution

In evolution you always have a dog producing a dog. The dog never produces a cat! The dogs can get big small tall large,but it will never be a cat. This is what we observe and what we observe in the fossil record. The fossil record shows that creatures have a finite number of variations. All fossils are to its own kind. Mutations cause a loss of information, rendering it mathematically impossible for mutations to advance the complexity of life. Entropy increases over time, making it impossible for order to increase on its own. John C. Sanford said, not even the energy of the Sun, which might otherwise reduce entropy in a system not thermodynamically isolated such as the Earth, is capable of turning back the inexorable decline of our planet's collected genomes. Arguments for evolution Evidence from our bodies Vestigial structures Goosebumps Goosebumps are not only used in cold. Animals actually raised their hair when they were angry and ready to attack. However humans don't do this. Goosebumps are needed in life of humans for the warming of the skin. Not vestigais The ostrich wing The wings are indeed "useless" and derived from birds that once could fly. This is possible in the creationist model. Loss of features is relatively easy by natural processes, whereas acquisition of new characters, requiring specific new DNA information, is impossible. Loss of wings most probably occurred in a beetle species that colonized a windy island. Again, this is loss of genetic information, so it is not evidence for microbe-to-man evolution, which requires masses of new genetic information.[1] Atavisms If someone was born with 2 heads you wouldn't claim its evidence of evolution. If a strip of a false tail grows you claim its proof and evidence of evolution,but if it was just something else or somewhere else it would just be a mutation. Evidence from the genome Pseudogenes Junk DNA isn't actually junk. These genes have purposes. Many of the genes are explained because since the fall happened genes are getting weaker. Malaria becoming a threat is because of loss of genes which isn't evidence for evolution, since it doesn't show mutations increasing genetic information. Evolution and our helth This isn't proving any macro evolution. Antibiotic resistance is caused because of a lost of information[2] [1]http://creation.com... [2]http://creation.com...
Evolution is real

I would agree on the definition of evolution (maybe not the non life to life thing, that's the part that's hardest to explain and probably not as widely believed), and I would first like to focus on fossil records (which is a very common thing you hear) and point out that the fossil records show many similarities between many different species, and that certain species changed so much over time that they were very different from the fossil found from farther down on the fossil record. I would also like to point out some supporting evidence, that opposable thumbs are not exclusive to humans, they are found in apes, which actually share quite a bit of DNA with humans (which means that the DNA is similar if there was any confusion there).
Evolution is real

Before starting the debate, I would request that the Pro presents a positive case for his/ her position. . I would then present my positive case and then we can go through the motions of rebuttals and finally closing statements. For starters, I would like to define the term evolution and check with my opponent whether he/ she accepts this as the definition for this debate. Evolution is as what Darwin explained in that all life evolved from non-life to life and as a result one kind evolved into another kind. Micro Evolution is not the issue for debate in that micro-evolution is what Darwin observed with the finches. They remained finches. So this would not be the point of contention. Hopefully we can get consensus on the definition and the process. I await Pro's response.
Evolution is real

Darwin also had less of an understanding of evolution than I do, (and I don't trust that website, it looks like something some random person hosted, and not like something that has been corrected for mistakes). The main thing that does come from Darwin's theory of evolution is natural selection, which is a monumental discovery for evolution. And the so called "sudden burst of species" is no such thing, you have no way of knowing what happened. What's more, it is not as you were suggesting as instantaneous, but rather a thing that happened over millions of years ( https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com... ) and that is probably caused by certain changes that were brought about. (Here is Wikipedia, which states how it is unknown why this happened, but I thought I should put it here, http://en.m.wikipedia.org... ) I would also like to point out this does not contradict evolution, a lot can happen in millions of years. What caused all these mutations to happen quicker than before? We don't yet know, but it does not contradict evolution. I do not have to prove why complex life forms existed "before they should have", because that makes no sense, if you are still talking about 500 million years ago, life had existed for 3.2 billion-3.1 billion years already, there is no "before it should have" about it. There is also a likelihood some of the species had already evolved before the "Cambrian Explosion", and that they didn't die in the correct way to be fossilized before then. I would like to point out that con has ignored my evidence I have provided about how all life evolved from one organism. Con goes on to say that evolution isn't a scientific theory. I disagree it is, in fact, a scientific theory, which helps my case, as that means it has been proven. Yes, you can provide observable evidence, can it be repeated under laboratory conditions? Yes. The methods used in evolution do confirm... If I understand your question. Yes, I can state we evolved from apes (I am not so sure about monkeys, maybe if monkeys evolved into apes, because monkeys have hands for feet). I do not deny that evolution could be caused by some sort of god, but if you have looked at my profile, I am an agnostic, which means I believe that god can not be proven or disproven (but I can discuss in terms of either, because that's just how I am). Yes, one of the sites I sighted might have been an unreliable one, but I am not certain you are right, but I sites multiple. I do agree that evolution is a theory that can be improved and perfected, but that is the beauty of science, it can be improved! Evolution, in it's simplest definition, change over time, I can prove exists, and right here, with our human genome, thanks to a very recent and very recent mutation, purple eyes. (http://www.eyedoctorguide.com...). May I also point out that I didn't respond to gradualism vs. punctuated equilibrium for reasons I stated already. Hope to see your response
Evolution is real

The topic is "Evolution is real". I agree that theory exists and therefore the Theory of Evolution is real. However, the issue is "Does the hypothesis demonstrate that evolution is a real phenomenon?" If it does, then Pro wins but if I can demonstrate that it has conjecture, inconsistencies and contradictions then the affirmative position fails. "Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence." Richard Dawkins Dawkins insist on observable evidence. Empirical evidence is what"s demanded. Reason alone is insufficient. Pro believes that all living things evolved from a common ancestor and I believe that all living things were created originally in the kinds that exist. Kinds may have gone extinct but we have no evidence to show the transition of one kind to another. By making reference to kind, I mean a certain category from which reproduction is possible. An example of kind would be the canine kind. The reason is that two different kinds cannot reproduce due to the chromosome make up and meiosis. With that clarified, evolution can only be declared real if Pro can provide observable evidence that shows one kind evolved into another kind. Below is a definition of "Real" as per the Oxford Dictionary. Actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed: Therefore for Evolution to be real, it must be fully actually existing. Not a single part of it may be imaginary or supposed. If we find any evidence of anything imaginary and/ or supposed in Evolution that would immediately defeat the affirmative case. Natural Selection states that all living things can be traced back to a common ancestor. This means that the burden of proof lies with Pro. Therefore, Pro must provide conclusive observable evidence to show that evolution is real. Pro must trace back the path to that common ancestor without appealing to any assumption. Despite its sophistry and its explanations, it fails the criteria of being real. Evolution assumes that because microevolution is observed we can conclude that macroevolution is true. This lacks evidence and therefore renders it to be conjecture. The Cambrian period shows a sudden burst of already complex organisms. Even the argument that there existed simple cells during the latter part of the pre-Cambrian period fails because from simple to diverse complexities in such a short span goes against natural selection. Gradualism versus Punctuated Equilibrium. Gradualism states that mutation occurs in a smooth transition from simple to complex. However, complex organisms existed before evolution could have brought them into existence. Punctuated Equilibrium states that special consequences led to mutations. However, there were already more complex organisms that would have existed prior to those "special consequences". Haeckel showed that evolution could be noticed by observing similarities in all embryos. Although fraudulent, it still appear in textbooks. Therefore, although laced with scientific language, evolution contains assumptions, contradictions and even fraud. Thanks
Evolution is real

I would like to first direct you to the definition of evolution according to Wikipedia: "Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. " i.e. change over time I would also like to point out the things evolution has going for it from the knowledge of the theory: 1. It makes logical sense 2. It explains how one species can evolve into another, which can explain the diversity of life on earth 3. It is backed up by substantial scientific evidence that has been found in real scientific studies Ok, so I have established that the theory fits (at least relitively well) Now I will show, and try to explain the evidence the theory has on it's side. The first piece of evidence I present to you is the fossil record (the most used piece of evidence to argue that evolution exists), scientists (paleontologists) have unearthed a massive amount of fossils over the years, and have used them to show that there are in fact things that have changed over time in certain organisms, making them change classification of their species if the change is noticeable enough. This change is brought about due to mutations in the DNA of a species, that either become more common in the genes of the species over time (hereditarily normally), or are found, but only in few fossils, and then the gene goes extinct due to it being detrimental to the survival of the organism. The process by which complementary genes usually become more prominent in a species as time goes by, while organisms with detrimental genes are likely to be killed is called natural selection, which is a process that is a part of the theory of evolution. I would also like to point out an obvious bit of proof for evolution, opposable thumbs! We are not the only species to have this magnificent adaptation, it goes without saying that we probably evolved from apes, who happen to share much in common when it comes to humans, both physically, and in their DNA. That is all from me for now, here are my sources that provided me with confirmation on my definitions of things: http://en.m.wikipedia.org... http://en.m.wikipedia.org... http://en.m.wikipedia.org... Look forward to hearing your side
Evolution is real

Thanks again for your response. Once again, I am offering the definition of that evolution is as per Darwin's the natural selection process where one kind evolved into another kind. At this point, how you present your positive case is entirely up to you. So can we agree that rather than waste rounds, we agree on the following: 1. You present a positive case in round three and I present a negative case since you affirm the thesis of this debate. 2. We then use up round 4 to rebut each other. 3. Round 5 will be for closing remarks. While I appreciate your offer with regards to me going first, It is proper for the affirmative position to go first. I await your positive presentation.
In the current world we live in, religion is not necessary

Plagiarism:Proof: http://www.debate.org...; CON has plagiarised his entire round 2 from this site: http://www.academia.edu... Of course he has given the link from where he took it all, but that doesn’t justify his actions and they are still unethical because he is the one participating in the debate and he should be making his own arguments. I’m thereby not at all obliged to respond to his ripped off arguments but, just for the sake of formality I’ll tidy up any loose ends he might have created in my case with his copied arguments. So upon briefly analysing CON’s case one would see that he has clearly not read what he has copied. Either that or he has a very poor judgement because most of the arguments in his case were mostly just iteration and reiteration of the same point. It seems that CON’s source was probably an article written by an over-biased teenage magazine writer. Nevertheless, I have condensed his main case into the following basic premises i) Religion provides mental comfort and caters to the emotional side of humans ii) Religion promotes social unity iii) It inculcates values and virtues in the society. Other points in his case excluding these three main ones, like ‘Religion influencing economy’ were either absurd claims or didn’t have enough evidences to be considered as arguments. So in this round I’ll briefly be focussing on countering those valid claims and ergo, will conclude my case. i) Religion provides mental comfort and caters to the emotional side of humans As I had already dealt with the first part of the argument in my contention C2. Religion offers a false sense of comfort , I will skip it and address the second half of his argument, which claims that religion caters to the emotional side of humans.Yes, it may be partially correct in saying so but the argument goes both ways. Religion has also been known to push the emotional side of humans, negatively. This has gone to extents where large scale wars like the Eighty Years’ War, Nigerian Civil War, German Peasants’ War etc[1] getting caused because of religious reasons. ii) Religion promotes social unity I believe my contention C5. Religion divides us and breeds violence more than adequately addresses this argument. Religion may unite a few people in the same cult but ultimately it divides our whole identity of mankind into bits and pieces. iii) It inculcates values and virtues in the society. This is perfectly correct but what’s not correct is assuming that religion is the only way through which society can learn values. Education for example can do the same without the extra hassles of religion. And CON has failed to address my counter-proposal or any of my arguments for that matter and hence the points in my case stay undisputed. Thus, I have shown that religion is not a necessity in our current world and therefore have upheld the resolution. Vote PRO! Ref.: 1: http://addictivelists.com...
America Does Not Need More STEM Education

This is an argument against the common belief that STEM is the way out of the current financial crisis and into a new age of prosperity. To be clear, I used to personally agree with the belief, but have changed my mind after reflecting about labor economics. As much as any other market, labor markets adhere to how when supply goes up, price goes down. The key to modern prosperity, therefore, is not to increase supply. Raising the supply of STEM in America would only depreciate its value. Instead, we need to resolve the supply we have while outcasting supply from abroad. America today has plenty of nerds who simply cannot network into the workforce despite succeeding in science and math classes while growing up. They are neglected by social alienation due to the deconstruction of humanities and pervasiveness of consumerism, and ignored due to outsourcing and Asian immigration. In order to facilitate their networking, nerds need to be enabled through elevated language arts and discourse ethics. That way, they can actually socialize, communicate, interact, express, and talk their way into a workplace. Likewise, employers need to be motivated to remain socially responsible not only by employing domestic natives first, but also by not supporting the unweaving of social fabric through consumerism. We need to ensure that Americana is preserved through organic, holistic, sustainable folk community where people can thoroughly celebrate who they are. This will ensure that American students remain focused on their studies as well as have rejuvenating outlets so they don't suffer from burnout. It will also give them something to study for while involved with STEM so they're not stuck wondering, "What am I going to need this for?" The bottomline is American nerds lack social skills, not technical skills. STEM education facilitates the wrong skill set.
george bush was a good presidnet

all of what you just said in the previous debate was a downright lie and you know it you accuse me of having no surces well neither did you the bush presdiency was one of great many things look i will do it again 1. he kept america safe 2. he passed a good prescription drug benefit for seniors 3 he passed no child left behind the most singifgant education reform in 40 years 4. he passed the biggest tax relief in american history 5. he was a unwevering leader he was very commited 6. he helped fight aids 7. he made us more energy independent with more offshore drilling and alterntive energy sources 8. he made many free trade agreements 9. He tried to reform socil sercuirty by partially privatizing it 10. passes patrial birth abdotain birth act 11. clean sky intivative 12 paritrot act 13 passsed mnay free trade agreements 14. created a ownership soceity 15. he dealt with the recession at the end of his termvery well working with democrats 1 11.
george bush was a good presidnet

You obviously didn't read the comment oh well...I guess I'll just have to respond.... 1. If America was kept so safe why did the single largest terrorist attack (9/11) in United States history occur under President George Bush 2. Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act this is what your talking about here. There's a couple problems with it though. First, it was designed backwards to fit a price tag. Congress had reserved 400 billion dollars over 10 years to pay for prescription benefits. With the prices, at the time, this money was not adequate to fund such a project so Congress had to work backwards. They basically made a "doughnut hole designed" bill. Here's how it works. There's a $250 deductible that's always there. For the first $2,000, medicines can be bought for only 25% out of pocket. For over $5,000, medicines can be bought for only 5% out of pocket. Between $2,000 and $5,000, medicines are bought 100% out of pocket. Someone who has a chronic condition typically needs to pay 100% of their pay. Most people are between this $2,000 to $5,000 dollars. Second problem, what's the future cost? Almost, immediately after the bill was passed the overall cost changed by 41 billion dollars, even before the act had been fully implemented. It was uncertain how much this would cost in the future. (1) 3. No Child Left Behind was a complete failure. The US public educational system to say the least stinks (2). 4. Lower taxes on rich =/= economic growth (3). Lower taxes on rich =/= more jobs (4). 5. So was Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, the other Adams, Jackson, Buren, Harrison, Tyler, Polk, Taylor, Fillmore, Pierce, Buchanan, Lincoln, Johnson, Grant, Hayes, Garfield, Arthur, Cleveland, Harrison, McKinley, etc. All of the presidents were committed to the United States or they would not be president of the United States. 6. So did Clinton and Obama does not make Bush special. 7. We were still highly dependent on foreign oil: http://www.eia.gov... 8. "FTA could make those countries and the world as a whole worse off" (http://fpc.state.gov...) has the possibility of being bad. 9. An attempt at doing something does not make him a great president. Many presidents attempt to do things. 10. Yes, the Partial Birth Abortion Ban is good if your opposed to unnecessary procedures, which most people are. 11. What about it? 12. So basically, an act which infringes upon Americans rights is a good thing...I'd say no. 13. same as 8. 14. He may of coined the term. But, he did not create the society. People had been doing the basic tenants of this society for a while. Also, it was not an original idea as had been discussed in Europe and America since the 18th Century. 15. It's still a recession and recessions are generally regarded as a bad thing. So it would have been better to avoid a recession. 1) http://journals.lww.com... 2)http://4brevard.com... 3)http://thinkprogress.org... 4)http://thinkprogress.org...
There is mathematical Proof of the Existence of God

"Man cannot be judge of God's existence or in-existence with their own inaccurate measuring tools and their destructive standards, policy, laws, etc..."I agree, we cannot know 100% either way of God's existence, due to the God Hypothesis being unfalsifiable. However, lack of evidence leads us to believe that it is an unreasonable faith to have."Thus, one must determine if Jesus' statements are truth and factual. If his testimony can be proved factual, then Jesus' testimony is the standard for determining the Existence of God."I agree, if you could prove that everything that Jesus has said is true, then God must exist. I think the part that we will disagree on is the proof behind what he has said."as Jesus states through John"I don't see any evidence that Jesus stated it through John. This is not a mathematical proof at all. A mere testimonial is not enough evidence to prove the existence of a supernatural deity."the math and logic used to build numerical New Jerusalem is sound"You have not provided any math or logic, or even attempted to explain what a "numerical New Jerusalem" is.Now, as for all those pictures that you have provided:That's not mathematical proof. You simply created a 3D model and labelled it with numbers randomly. There is no evidence for any of this stuff that you are asserting, such as how you "reverse engineered" a false Jerusalem that doesn't exist.