BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Evolution occurs

"Changes in DNA (mutations) in an organisms germline can be passed on to subsequent generations." Changes in germline passed on to subsequent generations are not proof for evolution, as a Mutation(Change in DNA) can be caused by death with this outline, 1, Death causes Breakdown of Any Life or Function into either Nonexistence or Non-Function. 2, DNA is subject to death 3, Thus death caused an accidental mutation, an example would be the Change of a Heart, a Heart when over time broken down into nonfunction(death) will not function as should, and can either beat too fast or too slow, or skip a beat, this malfunction was caused by death, likewise DNA changing it's structure/Mutation can be caused by Death, the change can be beneficial or not. " Should the changes be beneficial to the population they will be selected for. If they are deleterious, they will be lost." A selection, ie. Selecting something is something intentional, all you argue is Intelligent Design/Intent.
The United States government or governments (federal, state or otherwise) should not ban trans fats.

1. Yes. Trans fats are unhealthy. But we live in a free society. We should be able to live and choose what foods we eat even if they are fatty. "No one can read our Constitution without concluding that the people who wrote it wanted their government severely limited; the words 'no' and 'not' employed in restraint of government power occur 24 times in the first seven articles of the Constitution and 22 more times in the Bill of Rights." http://www.libertarianquotes.com... 2. Trans fats are awesome!!! They make foods delicious. http://www.joeyheadset.com... 3. The natural rights listed in our preamble include liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is un-American and immoral for the government to restrict these rights. 4. Trans fats hurt nobody except the person eating them. It is the person's right to eat whatever they want to eat. And it is not the government's right to stop him. 5. We must fight hard for every single liberty we have. Cambodia, Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany all prove this. It is rare when enormous rights are taken away instantly. For example, in Nazi Germany, Jews were forced to wear a gold star and they were cool with that. Then, Jews had to register as such. Hitler, eventually, suspeneded the constitution. And finally, there were concentration camps. When the Jews saw the trucks taking them away, they did not fight, because they were used to the destruction and ignoring of rights and th German citizens accepted it only because it was gradual. This will happen in America if we allow it. It is not unreasonable to believe that if we allow them to take away trans fats, they will take away the next food, and the next right, and the next right, until we are finally stripped of all human rights. Protect our human rights! History tells us to fight against every violation of rights!
Euthanasia

Hello, Iannan13, As you said in one of your comments concerning euthanasia, "You legalize Euthanasia, then you give the government the right to kill the sick and elderly." I would like to disagree with you. True, this kind of problem might appear if euthanasia is legalized. Most people are afraid that euthanasia can be used maliciously, as a justification for murder. Despite the fact that the argument against legalization of euthanasia sounds reasonable, especially in Russia, for instance, I believe that it can and should be legally regulated. Medical practices nowadays provide a solid platform for many lawsuits; thus, hospitals already have whole departments that provide legal service. These lawsuits usually concern medical malpractice and conflicts of interest between the patient and his/her family. In some sense, it could also cover the case of euthanasia. Therefore, thoughtful legal regulations that involve medical evidence of someone having a terminal disease along with the patient"s consent will most likely be enough to deal with the entire legal issue of euthanasia.
Abortion : Should Abortion Be Legalized

1. The opponent stated that "The unborn's not always gonna die" however, abortion is "the termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo before viability"[1] . Therefore abortion is the death of an unborn child whether induced or spontaneous. 2. Not all women in all countries have access to safe abortions," Even in cases where abortion is legal, or legal in specific instances, women may still seek unsafe abortions. High costs, a lack of providers, deficiencies in equipment or an inability to demonstrate or meet the criteria needed to obtain the abortion may contribute to her decision to access an unsafe abortion."[2] According to reproductiverights.org, every minute 40 women undergo an unsafe abortion, 10 of whom are girls between the ages of 15 and 19. My opponent asked how many people died per year from getting abortions, here is his answer,"Almost 80,000 women die each year due to unsafe abortion and millions more are seriously injured" [2] which outweighs his estimate of 47,000 women dying from NOT getting one. It is evident that unsafe abortions are more likely to kill women, however ,"Of the estimated 42 million abortions that take place every year, only 22 million occur in a safe and legal environment" [2] Therefore, due to the lack of equipment, medical facilities, money women, especially those in less developed countries are subjected everyday to unsafe abortions. In these countries even if abortion were to be legalized, women would still die from the lack of facilities available to properly carry out safe abortions. Now, imagine if they were legal. More women would get abortions....more women would die. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://iwhp.sogc.org...
Abortion : Should Abortion Be Legalized

Notice: my opponent accidentally said "adoption shouldn't be legalized". When voting, spelling and grammar should go to me.REBUTTALS1. Protection of the unbornThe unborn's not always gonna die2. Less people?If "criminals" have rights to their body and baby, certiainly a good citizen should have the same rights3. Death of woman? 3. Risky for the woman?When done with trained professionals, abortions are safe with little or no risks. [1]Besides, my opponent has to suggest it is better to not get an abortion rather than getting an abortion. How much people die each year getting an abortion? Again, 47,000 people die per year from NOT getting an abortion, far outweighting my opponent's vague unknown number. (See source [2] in round 1, as well as the picture below for proof) [1] http://www.reuters.com...
Abortion : Should Abortion Be Legalized

Federal Laws Protect the Unborn 1.Federal law prohibits the death penalty for pregnant women until they give birth. (18 U.S.C.A. S.3596) [1] The law sees the unborn child as a human being in his own right and thus does not punish him along with his mother for a crime he does not commit. If the law protects an unborn child by not letting the criminal actions of his mother affect him, how can she choose to take his life ? 2. You said, "Illegalizing adption does not stop it",however making it a criminal offence does reduce the number of abortions carried out. Illegalizing theft does not stop people from stealing but less people steal now than if there were no such law. 3. Women can die in the process of abortion as well, even if it is deemed 'safe and legal', abortion can be deadly for both mother and child, it can lead to complications and several women die each year from so called 'safe and legal' abortions.[2] [1] http://www.lifenews.com... [2] http://www.safeandlegal.com...
Abortion : Should Abortion Be Legalized

But women have rights to their own body, and it isn't really killing because the fetuses when removed are tried by scientists to let them stay alive. Plus, women also have rights to what to do to their babies, and therefore have the right to abortion. Most times the fetuses die because they can't live on their own, not directly because of the removal. Plus, illegalizing abortion does not stop it. It is estimated that there was 1.2 million illegal abortions per year from 1950-1960. [1]Besides, women can die if abortion does not happen. 47,000 people die every year around the world due to maternal death because they didn't get an abortion. [2]IN CONCLUSION-Women have rights to their body and their babies-It's not always murder-Women can get killed along with the baby if she doesn't get abortionVOTE ME.[1] http://www.guttmacher.org...[2] http://whqlibdoc.who.int...
Intelligent extraterrestrial life forms would be viewed as Christians by millions of people

Pro brings up the use of missionaries by Christians. This outlines my point perfectly. Indeed, it was the very point I was making. Christianity would dispatch missionaries to convert the 'unenlightened' aliens. Pro suggests that the existence of a major religion among a different intelligent species would not threaten Christianity. On the contrary, as history has shown, all alternate religions threaten Christianity. Different interpretations of Christianity even threaten Christianity. Nothing Pro has mentioned suggests this would not hold true with alien religions. Since no scientific data exists for this topic, it is a bit of a stretch for Pro to suppose that deity worship is popular among intelligent lifeforms. Humanity is the only one we have to go on so far, which is hardly a large enough number of species to make such a claim. Even more outrageous is his claim that "these would be 'Christians'. "
Intelligent extraterrestrial life forms would be viewed as Christians by millions of people

history:I believe that Aliens would be treated much differently than other Earthlings, because there are missionaries on Earth that constantly "save" these people and furthermore, their existence does not threaten the concept of Christianity the way a completely different planet that never received the messiah would. I believe it is very likely they would have worshipped a deity at some point. It is very popular among intelligent lifeforms to worship them (we are civilized and industrialized yet we do) and it is overwhelmingly possible that SOME aliens (out of possible billions of them) would still worship this God. These would be "Christians". Christians have a history of assimilating new data into their master plan AND CHANGING THE PLAN to make the data fit(geocentrism). Making the aliens converts would mean that they never received the messiah; it could deal a fatal blow to the underlying tenets of Christianity (John 3:16). How could we convert them if God never loved them?
Intelligent extraterrestrial life forms would be viewed as Christians by millions of people

Note that Pro did not address my point on History, so it extends to the final round. Pro suggests that Christians would interpret any alien god or religious figure as Christian in nature. Their motive, he posits, is to cope with the blow that another civilization exists beyond earth. The flaw with this position is that it assumes that it is 'overwhelmingly likely' that aliens would, at some point in their history, have worshiped a messiah. Many other possibilities exist: they may worship a god with no messiah; multiple gods; no god; they may worship their ancestors; or any number of other possibilities. Even if we assume that at some point in their history they worshiped a messiah answering to a single god (which is quite the stretch), the differences in practice, worship, &ct would be so stark as to render it impossible to confuse the two, even with translational barriers. A more likely scenario is that Christians would view aliens as potential converts.
Intelligent extraterrestrial life forms would be viewed as Christians by millions of people

The appearance of aliens would demonstrate a fatal flaw to Christianity: why would God only send his seed to one world? If they are "people" in every sense that we are, why wouldn't God care about them enough to "save" them? Christians, with their backs to the wall, would seize the moment and declare that God did send his messiah. It is overwhelmingly likely that at one point there would be a story in the aliens' history, maybe even still prevalent in their culture (similar to ours) in which either a deity is worshipped or a messiah is sent on behalf of a deity. Since it would be easy to say that the writings and pictures don't match exactly because of translational barriers (they would no doubt be huge, obviously alien Jesus would not look like our Jesus), they could say that at least some of the aliens are Christians. Christians are becoming more "lax" in their interpretations of scripture every century (electric guitars at church?). This would just be another easy transition
Intelligent extraterrestrial life forms would be viewed as Christians by millions of people

I would like to briefly thank Rob1Billion for providing the opportunity to debate this unique and interesting topic. I stand in opposition to the resolution, that Intelligent extraterrestrial life forms would be viewed as Christians by millions of people. I would like to first point out that Pro has a greater burden of proof in this debate, since it is he who is making the outrageous claim. I will, nevertheless, provide a brief argument of my own in addition to refuting his position. === HISTORY History can oftentimes be a good indicator (or predictor) of future activity. In past generations, Christians and non-Christians alike have not viewed newly discovered peoples as Christian. In nearly all such cases, the Christian community viewed them as potential converts. Of course, in order to be converted into a religion a person or group must first be considered as outsiders to the group. Nothing yet proposed by Pro suggests that this would not hold true with extraterrestrials
Intelligent extraterrestrial life forms would be viewed as Christians by millions of people

Please note the 1,000 character limit. 2 hypothetical scenarios: 1) We discover intelligent life that is relatively near our stage of development (both biologically and technologically) on another planet. 2) Aforementioned life lands on Earth (not clandestine {it is sad that I have to specify this}). A significant amount of people (many of which Americans) would likely view these life-forms as Christians.
Debate.org should have a message system so members can communicate more efficiently.

Good luck Olhando, but I am afraid it is my duty to point out the flaws within your plan. -FIRST POINT: • This is simply the format in which the message system will appear. • Arguing the format of something that should not exist is unnecessary. • THEREFORE, I will not argue this point directly at this moment. -SECOND POINT: -----ENHANCES CHEATING----- • My opponent's plan would make sharing arguments significantly easier. • Private message systems would make planning to collectively vote AGAINST someone they dislike more attainable. • THEREFORE, my opponent's plan would enhance cheating. -----DEFEATS THE PURPOSE----- • This plan would allow for more personal communication and building friendships. • The point of this site is to debate. • THEREFORE, my opponent's plan defeats the purpose of this site. -THIRD POINT: -----EFFICIENCY----- • The new system wants to solve slander on this site. • Problems regarding slander could be solved simply by alerting the webmaster to keep a closer eye on comments. • The latter takes less work in order to solve the same problem THUS the latter is more efficient. -----SOLVABILITY----- • This new system doesn't solve slander that occurs on the debate page. • This system couldn't solve the problems of slander on the debate page because the question of, which debater has the power to delete? • THEREFORE, the power to delete should lay SOLELY in the hands of the webmaster. -FOURTH POINT -----HUGE ASSUMPTION----- • The new system would have more features. • More features does not always mean more entertainment. • THEREFORE, the system is not more fun. -----FALLACIOUS----- • There is a logical analysis that states: "Quality over quantity". • My opponent advocates the opposite. • THEREFORE, my opponent's fourth point is logically unsound. _________________________________ I am more than willing to offer examples and explanations in order to clarify, if needed. As of now, this is enough information for one to negate the topic and vote CON. Thank you for this opportunity, -Protagoras of Abdera
Debate.org should have a message system so members can communicate more efficiently.

Hello all, I'm bored here so I thought I'd think about ways to change our site. 1- By having a message system, like Myspace or Facebook - as in mail / comments - members will have access to better communication. 2- This will help spand out ideas. Friends can talk about a debate without it being posted on the debates comments, saving room and time. 3- The system will also be similar in the way that you can approve or deny a comment, so no slander will be shown. 4- It will make the site more dynamic. It will have more features, and thus be more fun. In conclusion, if pro wins we should all message the admin's and have this done What do you guys think?
Mere graduation is not education.

Definitions:1.Graduation:"the receiving or conferring of an academic degree or diploma"http://oxforddictionaries.com...2.Education:"the process of receiving or giving systematic instruction, especially at a school or university"http://oxforddictionaries.com...Rebuttals:1."Mere graduation is not education."To graduate you need to have received some education and be able to recall the information learned. For example, to graduate in electronic engineering in Trinity, "each student undertakes a major individual project that is assessed by a presentation and an end-of-year dissertation."http://www.tcd.ie...If people who graduated did not learn anything, then we would be living in a much different world as scientists and engineers wouldn't be able to do their job. 2. "graduation alone cannot teach a person certain ethics and values"Actually, if one were to take a course in philosophy, one would learn a lot about ethics and other philosophical branches. Also, there are different types of education. I can receive education by learning about, for example, nanotechnology. However, by learning about nanotechnology I wouldn't learn anything about ethics. Sill, I would be learning and so I would be receiving education. Arguments:1. As a nihilist I do not believe morals to be important. Unless one can prove to me that it is important to be moral, I see no reason to learn about ethics. 2. As I've pointed out in the rebuttal, to graduate you need to learn and by learning you receive education.
Objective Belief

Sure, let's carry on using God as an example. I think if you tell a non-believer that you believe something, what can they really say back? They can disagree with you. So what if they do? They can argue with you, but again, so what? And there's certainly no harm in debating it. Both sides of the argument will have one thing in common and that is subjectivity. Just like a theory. It's an opinion by its very nature. People are entitled to their opinions. However, the quality of an argument for a proposition improves when evidence is brought to the table. One thing I disagree with is something being true for one person but not true for someone else. That's clearly illogical. People are not entitled to their own facts because then they could use those facts to justify whatever they wanted. That's not how it works and I think a mindset like that is incredibly dangerous. It is for this reason that a belief (even if it is true) is subjective until it is proven, then it is knowledge.
Objective Belief

Thank you for the clarification. But God can still be used as an example. Adding on to that if i believe that but i tell it to someone who does not believe what i do . To him it is not proven. For example the theory of evolution from the perspective of a man/woman it is proven. but to me it is not. this isn't the time to say why it is not. But the oxford definition of knowledge is proven info. thats what you said right? it might have been proven to some people but not to others. So to some people it is belief but to others it is not real. Im so sorry i cant speak well. Its hard to get the meassage through my head
Objective Belief

Thank you for agreeing to debate with me and welcome. I want to begin by saying that I'm not here to debate the existence of God. I assume that what you believe makes you happy and that's great. It's not my intention to refute that and I will therefore write my arguments in this tone throughout. With this in mind, I'd like to focus on the fourth and fifth sentences in your argument if I may: "I as a proud religious man, do not believe, I know. For me it is not my opinion my faith in god is high so therefore I know." I wasn't necessarily referring to religion in my description but for the purpose of this debate I don't mind including it. As you are challenging me, would you agree that what you speak about here is objective belief? You believe to such an extent that you know? In our every day lives we use faith, as per the second definition. It's necessary because we draw on our experiences in order to make decisions, often in our subconscious. This faith/trust/confidence is subjective because most of the time we lack complete evidence. But that's fine because we gauge likelihood as best we can and indeed we can get it right or wrong. In order to make fewer mistakes we try to narrow the gap between opinions and knowledge. The key to this of course, is evidence. To claim that God exists is an extraordinary claim. Like I said, I'm not debating truths here. But an extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence does it not? Sure, it could be true, just as it could also no be true. Only when it is proven is such a claim considered to be knowledge. Not before. I therefore hold that even if God exists, you do not know because you have no way of knowing, unless you can present evidence and prove it first. Until this time, you believe, you have subjective belief.
Objective Belief

First of all i'm new to this whole system so sorry if i cant use this properly. If you're referring to religion in this then belief is technically not an opinion. It actually always bothered me when people told me that "this is what you believe and this is what i believe" if you 'believe in a religion that means that you are low in confidence and faith. I as a proud religious man , do not believe, i know . For me it is not my opinion my faith in god is high so therefore i know. If someone tells me that i 'have beliefs' i'm guessing hes an atheist.Because he doesn't "believe". Now i do agree with you that the proper definition of believe is what you wrote. But however when you enter religion words have complete different meanings. E.G. English people say that a Muslims mandatory worship is praying. But we don't actually pray sometimes we use the closest word to the actual meaning. That's what happened in the word belief, it doesn't fully fit the actual meaning of the word but its the closest thing to relate it to and i pass it to you