BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
There is no proof of vestigial parts, that have been found, so far.

I accept. I look forward to seeing pro prove the benefits of some of the most commonly thought to be vestigial human parts. For some reason I feel like the burden is on me, even though Pro is making the claim. Either way, I will start by listing several parts of the human body that do not seem to grant any benefits. It should go without saying that In order for me to win this debate all I must do is prove the human body poses at least one "vestigial part". Wisdom teeth: At you point in history, our ancestors needed these third molars to help break down their tough diet of roots, nuts, and leaves. Today, a humans diet consists of a much softer foods which are more easy to chew. It is believed that our jaws have shrunken due to this. As a consequence, our mouths don't have enough room to fit in the third set of molars. This can cause teeth shifting, gum recession, or even influence spreading an infection in the mouth. [1]. It is believed that 35% of the population is born without wisdom teeth, and that some day they will disappear completely from the human body [2].These teeth are not only useless, but also a harm. Auricular Muscles: These are the muscles that are located surrounding the ear. In some animals they are used to help swivel the ears toward the direction of a sound [3], but humans no longer seem to poses this function. The Cecum: It is a intraperitoneal pouch located at the front of the large intestine. In herbivores, the cecum stores plant material where bacteria are able to break down the cellulose. This function no longer occurs in the human cecum so in humans it is simply a dead-end pouch forming a part of the large intestine [4]. Male nipples: Men do not lactate. So there is no purpose for men having nipples. Granted there have been rare cases of this being found, this is not the norm. If these get toppled down I will throw a few more back up. Best of luck to Pro. [1]http://www.elbagarciadentalclinic.com... [2]http://mentalfloss.com... [3]http://www.medicaldaily.com... [4]http://en.wikipedia.org...
The Biblical God is Immoral

My opponent hasn't explained why the rule about the Sabbath makes God immoral. I don't see anything immoral about it. He merely quoted a verse and never stated how it made God immoral. The Bible actually states that God is good and upright. Psalm 25:8 says that "Good and upright is the LORD; Therefore He instructs sinners in the way." In other words, God is perfect and therefore is the ultimate source of guidance. There is also Romans 2:15 which tells us that God is the one who put the moral law on every persons' heart. Basically, the Bible makes it very clear that God is moral. As for the Sabbath day, I can only guess my opponent doesn't see the importance in the day and therefore thinks that God is killing someone for no reason. It would have been more helpful if my opponent had explained more. But...the whole point of the Sabbath was to set aside a day for holiness. It also represented the rest that God provides for his people. In other words, it was a day where people recognized that they needed God in their life. Matt Slick says that "The O. T. system of Law required keeping the Sabbath as part of the overall moral, legal, and sacrificial system by which the Jewish people satisfied God's requirements for behavior, government, and forgiveness of sins. The Sabbath was part of the Law in that sense. In order to "remain" in favor with God, you had to also keep the Sabbath. If it was not kept, then the person was in sin and would often be punished" (https://carm.org...). So I really don't see how my opponent sees anything immoral in God's character in this passage. Note: My opponent should define the word immoral.
Anthropogenic climate change.

Anyway, let's start off by saying that the General sientific conscensus used to be that the earth was flat- these guys have been so wrong so many times, why should be believe them now? Back in the 70's they made predctions about where the global temparture was going by 2015, which we now know were completely innacurate. Al Gore predicted that by 2014 we would cease to have any artic or antartic ice sheets. {1} None of which came true; in fact it turns out that the global temparture goes in perods of warmth followed by a cold period, and we are simply following this pattern. {2}In addition to this, Gobal Tempartures are dropping, yes- dropping, not rising. {3} This is why Antartic Sea Ice is growing. {4} Do the math, 3.25% of CO2 emmissions are man made, and 0.04% of ouratmosphere is CO2, {5} the global temparture can only increase by 0.0013% as a result of CO2 emmissions. Mathmatically speaking, it makes no sense that such a small influence on the atmosphere can cause gobal warming. And look at this graph: The temparture has rose by 0.6 degrees in the past 120 years, 0.005 degrees annually. {1}. . http://www.dailymail.co.uk... {2}. . http://www.longrangeweather.com... {3}. . http://www.newsmax.com... {4}. . https://www.nasa.gov... {5}. . https://www.esrl.noaa.gov...
Anthropogenic climate change.

R2 ArgumentsNote, my opponent has deviated from the structure in round one and should be penalized. Suggestion, one point for conduct. A scientific consensus exists on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. " But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen." [0]Man-made climate change has already claimed human lives and continues to do so. "in a general context where the anthropogenic contribution to climate change is becoming more plausible, led to an excess of 14,947 deaths in France, between August 4 and 18, 2003. The greatest increase in mortality was due to causes directly attributable to heat: dehydration, hyperthermia, heat stroke." [1]"The association between climate change and the frequency and intensity of extreme heat events is now well established. " [2]"The World Health Organisation estimates that the warming and precipitation trends due to anthropogenic climate change of the past 30 years already claim over 150,000 lives annually. Many prevalent human diseases are linked to climate fluctuations, from cardiovascular mortality and respiratory illnesses due to heatwaves, to altered transmission of infectious diseases and malnutrition from crop failures." [3]"The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper. Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al " [4]My argument is succinct and should prove that man-made climate change is extremely likely to exist. Thanks for debating. Sources:0. http://science.sciencemag.org...1. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...2. http://dx.doi.org...3. http://www.nature.com...4. http://iopscience.iop.org...
Anthropogenic climate change.

I will contend that anthropegenic climate change exists. The contender will contend that anthropegenic climate change is non-existent. StructureR1 Acceptance & definitionsR2 ArgumentsR3 RebuttalsR4 DefenseBurden of proofBurden of proof will be shared equally. This is because I am making the affrimative claim and the instiagator, yet am arguing for what is normally accepted in the scientific community. Therefore, the burdens of proof cancel each other out resulting in neutral 50/50 burden of proof. Further explanation of r1 setup. First round is just for acceptance and definitions if need be. Common definitions are assumed, unless otherwise stated and agreed upon. Round two each person will make their argument, but no direct responses to the other person' argument. Focus on making a convincing argument that if not for your opponent's rebuttal would sell your audience. This is the only round to make new arguments for your case. Round three each person will respond directly to their opponent's round two argument pointing out any logical fallacies and attempt to find flaws. Round four each person defends their round argument against their opponent's round three argument. For example if I say that is a cherry picking fallacy in round two, my opponent would explain why me calling their argument a cherry picking fallacy is incorrect.
Anthropogenic climate change.

Round 4 defense. My opponent has deviated from the r1 structure again. "Round three each person will respond directly to their opponent's round two argument pointing out any logical fallacies and attempt to find flaws." Stupidape My opponent responded to my round three rebuttal in lieu of my round two argument as RonPaulConservative was supposed to. Proof: "There are so many things wrong with this theory of global warming that my opponent is pushing, I will go over them and in effect respond to all of the claims that my opponent made in the last round. " RonPaulConservative "My opponent cannot simply dissmiss newsmax because he think's they have a quote 'right bias,' is just an ad-hominid attack, my opponent has used primarily liberal sites but seems to think that these are not bias. " RonPaulConservative I am supposed to defend my r2 argument against a non-existent r3 rebuttal. "Round four each person defends their round argument against their opponent's round three argument. For example if I say that is a cherry picking fallacy in round two, my opponent would explain why me calling their argument a cherry picking fallacy is incorrect." stupidape Therefore, I can't respond to my opponent's round three defense, without breaking the structure myself. I must pass the round then. Thanks for debating.
Anthropogenic climate change.

There are so many things wrong with this theory of global warming that my opponent is pushing, I will go over them and in effect respond to all of the claims that my opponent made in the last round. THE MATHIf 3.225% of CO2 emmissions are man-made, and 0.04% of the atmosphere is CO2, then man made global warming cxan only alter the global temparture by 0.000013%. In addition to this, CO2 is actually a very weak greenhouse gass. In fact, doubling the CO2 composition of the atmosphere would only increase the temparture by 0.6 degrees. {1} FEEDBACKSThe theory was that an increase in the CO2 composition of the atmosphere increased, and if this increased the global temparture, then the ammoun of water vapor in the atmosphere would increase, which would reduce the global temparture as water vapor, or clouds, reflect sunlight back into outerspace. This is actually demonstrable, if it is raining outside, is the air colder or warmer? Colder, of course, whilst, if this theory of possitive feedbacks were true, the temparture should increase when it is raining outside. Water vapor reflects sunlight, and every degree of heat on this plaet comes from the sun, directly or indirectly. In addition to this, the effectiveness of CO2 as a greenhouse gas diminishes as its composition of a given atmosphere increases. {2}THE TRENDAs I said before, we are in the middle of a natural trend where the global temparture has been increasing, my opponent claims that climate change is still man made because 'there is no evience this trend will decrease,' but that's just nonsense, the global temparture has been rising since before man made CO2 emmissions. The temparture has been rising since 1600. GLOBAL COOLINGMore ice= colder tempartures, if warmer tempartures created more ice, then people would put ice cubes in their oven to freeze them, not their freezer. This is just common sense- if Antartic Sea ice grows,m this means that the temparture has declined, claiming that tempartures have declined because of global warming is just completely absurd. My opponent cannot simply dissmiss newsmax because he think's they have a quote 'right bias,' is just an ad-hominid attack, my opponent has used primarily liberal sites but seems to think that these are not bias. Fact is, the global temparture is cooling because the sun has cycles of higher activity and warmer activity, creating natural global warming , which is now coming to an end as solar activity is declining. {3} {1}.http://notrickszone.com...{2}. https://wattsupwiththat.com...{3}. http://isthereglobalcooling.com...
Republics are More Collective than Full Democracies

An argument is acceptance of debate. I have had people call me collectivist for believing in full democracy rather than representative democracy. While it may seem that a full democracy is collectivist in nature, really representative democracies collectivize much more. In a full democracy, each person can individually pick their stance on each individual issue. In a representative democracy, voters are given a choice between candidates that each have their own set of values and political views. Unless you have a candidate for every single combination of issues, you probably don't have enough representation to represent the exact views of every single person. As such we get stuck in situations such as the 2016 election over 50% of voters do not have adequate representation for their issues, thereby forcing them to vote for a lesser of two evils. As for "50.1% over the 49.9%," I believe in even further individualism. If the country was decentralized into many, and I mean many, states, all of which are full democracies, and get rid of the absurd power of the federal government, it eliminates the possibilities of national mob rule.
I know the most horrible Horror story every to be told

I have regrettably become one person to know the worst terrible conspiracy known to man. It is so awful, that if you can not bear to be the possessor of horrible and disgusting information, you should not read the argument rounds of this debate. As this is a debate, You are required to Present your argument as proof I am wrong, by showing it in scientific Facts. IN other words; Because this is a debate: You will provide a more Terrible Horror Story. *Thus proving me wrong ~ through your provided argument - not you denial of the evidence I have provided. [you have no right to consider Countering your opponent(me) a debate argument if you do not provide contradicting facts(evidence which suggests something otherwise* {in this case: there is a more terrible horror story})] SO< ROUND 1: Prove me wrong. this debate cannot be accepted if you do not believe that you know the worst of the worst {conspiracy compatible} horror stories. POST YOUR HORROR STORY { compatible with the debate criteria ]
Are Plants Animals (Just for fun)

Thank you for the prompt response, and first I would like to define the term 'Kingdom Animalia' Taxonomic kingdom comprising all living or extinct animals. http://www.biology-online.org... Therefore, the only requirement for this is to be an animal, which I can prove by proving plants meet the other requirements. So to start, Plants are multicellular and are eukaryotic. On the second point, I would like to state two things First, since plants consume nutrients in the soil that come from other dead animals and plants they could be considered heterotrophic, and some plants do survive on other organisms, such as the venus flytrap. While plants do not have a cell membrane, their cell wall is very similar and the main difference is the cell wall is not living. However, they have cells with cell membranes and some have cell walls covering cell membranes. Plants are able to move through their growth. This is evidenced by how trees and other plants grow towards sunlight. The blastula stage is when there are 128 cells in an embryo, which seeds and plants do reach. On sensory organs, plants " can sense, learn, remember and even react in ways that would be familiar to humans." which means they have a way of sensing their environment. http://www.pri.org... In conclusion, plants meet all the requirements for being considered an animal.
Are Plants Animals (Just for fun)

Thank you for accepting my silly debate(unless you actually believe it, then it is not silly) Yes, that is the general definition, but this is the professional one: "A living organism belonging to Kingdom Animalia that possess several characteristics that set them apart from other living things, such as: (1) being eukaryotic (i.e. the cell contains a membrane-bound nucleus) and usually multicellular (unlike bacteria and most protists, an animal is composed of several cells performing specific functions) ( 2) being heterotrophic (unlike plants and algae that are autotrophic, an animal depends on another organism for sustenance) and generally digesting food in an internal chamber (such as a digestive tract) (3) lacking cell wall (unlike plants, algae and some fungi that possess cell walls) (4) being generally motile, that is being able to move voluntarily (5) embryos passing through a blastula stage (6) possessing specialized sensory organs for recognizing and responding to stimuli in the environment" (http://www.biology-online.org...)
If you're "pro-life" then you necessarily must be against sexual reproduction

Maybe I've committed this fallacy as well, but I don't think "life" is relevant in the abortion discussion. Bacteria constitute "life", my salad was once "alive" but neither of these matter. Instead what we're talking about is moral significance. So, when does the fetus gain moral significance? I don't know, but it seems absolutely clear to me that an entity without the ability to experience pain cannot have moral significance. This is why we don't have any moral obligations to rocks or plants, for example. With that being said, abortion up until 20 weeks is almost certainly justified. After that point, it becomes slightly trickier and while I could give an extremely long discourse on the relative rights of human versus animals, this would be beyond the scope of this debate. Suffice it to say that I think desire constitutes rights and fetus cannot "desire" life (desire being a complex interaction in the frontal cortex) until well into development. I'm a little disappointed that we have nothing to disagree about, but better to be right than argue for the sake of arguing.
If you're "pro-life" then you necessarily must be against sexual reproduction

I understand what you're saying, but IMO, I don't believe, unless a fetus is nearly-fully developed, it isn't constituted as life. Yes, science might prove otherwise, but that doesn't mean it should be accepted. lives are lost in sex. potential lives are lost in male masturbation. There are probably other instance where this argument can be applied, but these are the most prevalent.
If you're "pro-life" then you necessarily must be against sexual reproduction

I think there's a large amount of confusion here. This argument is a reductio ad absurdum. It is, of course, completely absurd to think that sexual reproduction is wrong, and so I am arguing that if you're pro-life, you are forced to accept this absurd argument. For the record I against the "pro-life" position, and in favor of abortion especially early in the pregnancy.
If you're "pro-life" then you necessarily must be against sexual reproduction

So you've pretty much posted a Catch-22 just to get a win, huh? Your logic is really flawed. Fertilized/Unfertilized eggs really aren't life yet. Same with an aborted fetus in the first trimester. It's not developed enough to truly be called a lifeform. If you really want to call those things lifeforms, then you can't really be alive if you're a pro-lifer, can you? You kill organisms everyday. Do they hold weight as a human being would? No, but neither do underdeveloped fetuses.
If you're "pro-life" then you necessarily must be against sexual reproduction

I remembered hearing in a class I took a while back that a large percentage of fertilized eggs (conceptions) do not make it to full-term birth. To back this fact up, I did a quick search on the internet and found a New England Journal of Medicine article which confirms this fact, by claiming that "Only 50 to 60 percent of all conceptions advance beyond 20 weeks of gestation. Of the pregnancies that are lost, 75 percent represent a failure of implantation and are therefore not clinically recognized as pregnancies." (if you have access, link here: https://content.nejm.org..., citation is Norwitz, E.R. . "Implantation and the survival of early pregnancy." The New England Journal of Medicine vol. 34508 Nov. 2001 1400-1408.) This fact means that when you try to get pregnant through usual sexual reproduction, 50-60 percent of the eggs that are fertilized DIE. If you are a pro-lifer, this should be extremely troubling because that means that when you have sex and fertilization occurs you are placing a being with full moral status at a 50-60% chance of death. If you take the view that conception is the moment of moral significance, then you should not be willing to engage in normal sexual reproduction, because the risk of some horrible happening is so high.
is the bible truthful, moral and something we should base our lives on

Morality can exist without religion, and if it cant that just shows how idiotic we are as a race. We should be able to learn right and wrong without the help of a book but with common sense. The bible might have been very helpful in older times, but now we are smarter and we are already together, in a way the bible is the cause of conflict, from segregation, abuse and war, terrorists are fighting for their bible or the Q'uran or whatever they believe in. Many people use the bible as an excuse to be mean and ignorant. Many scientific, philosophical and psychological achievements have been put back because of religion. The bible is also teaching very bad things, money is not bad nor is power, we shouldn't put our selves down because of a god. There have been many times when parents have neglected medication for their sick children because of a god. The bible might have helped us achieve many things before, but now it is used as an excuse and a way to blind people.
is the bible truthful, moral and something we should base our lives on

I am actually an atheist, but in the spirit of debate, I will debate on the side of religion. The Bible has many teachings that have roles in our society that are key in keeping people together. The Bible advocates for love and faith instead of the evils of money, such as "For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs," -Timothy 6:10. Without religion, morality can't exist. Religion teaches morality. And while not all statements of the Bible are true, religion is not about truth, it is about being the best person possible. Another example of this is in the Lord's Prayer, a widely used prayer in many Catholic and Protestant schools, it clearly states "forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors," which in simpler terms means we will forgive and you will forgive. This helps human kind get along better and bring us together through forgiveness, thus creating more peace throughout the Earth.
is the bible truthful, moral and something we should base our lives on

The bible teaches and accepts many wrong things like keeping slaves, killing and discriminating homosexuals, beating women and much more. The bible teaches ignorance, to not question authority, have opinions of your owns, and to not care about your self. The bible and god might have been useful before but now it is a useless and disgusting piece of art, used to blind children and strengthen wrong beliefs and discrimination some terrible bible verses "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent." (1 Timothy 2:12) This is what the Lord Almighty says... "Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey."" (1 Samuel 15:3) "Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel." (1 Peter 2:18)