BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Evolution and Irreducible Complexity

Intuitively, the existence of such a complex structure would lead someone to believe that its complexity couldn't come about naturally. I think you'll find, my friend, the truth of the matter is not quite so simple. Paleontology can't be sure how or when these structures appeared in bacteria as they leave no fossils, but to assert that their complexity either disproves the theory of evolution or strongly supports intelligent design to the point where evolution is ruled out is proposterous. We have observed several speciation changes within evolution about as monumental as flagellum in lab settings. For examle, a famous exeperement (detailed in [1]) showed a strain of flavobacteria developing the ability to digest nylon. If we have events such as this supporting, against intuition, that evolutionary theory is correct in that department, then it takes more than just "That looks pretty weird. So much for evolution!" To disprove the theory. [1] Kinoshita S, Kageyama S, Iba K, Yamada Y, Okada H (1981). "Utilization of a cyclic dimer and linear oligomers of ^9;-aminocapronoic acid by Achromobacter guttatus K172". Agric. Biol. Chem. 116: 547"551. FEBS 1981
Evolution and Irreducible Complexity

YOU DARE DOUBT DARWIN?! HERETIC! I SHALL BURN THOU AT THE DEBATE DOT ORG STAKE! Jokes aside, though, I must warn pro: My oration style is a particular brand of humorist that might come off as intense and/or mocking. Please don't take this personally; It's just the way I talk. I accept this debate. I'll be taking the stance that evolution CAN account for the current level of complexity we see. Pro's opening statements are a bit hard to discern, but I will assume that he is arguing FOR ID (Hence being pro) and not just against Evolution. Because of this, I suppose we must share the burden of proof. Definitions: Evolution (Theory): The theory that all life on Earth evolved from one or more common ancestors via natural selection and mutation, compounding over millions of years Abiogenesis: The hypothesis that the first life on Earth came from naturally occurring DNA or RNA in Earth's environment. Intelligent Design: The theory that all life on Earth was intelligently designed for its environment. Good luck pro.
Evolution and Irreducible Complexity

My fellow debaters, I come here today to make an argument for intelligent design. I guess you would like to know where I am coming from, and my position. When I began my studies in the early 90s, I fully believed that the theory of evolution was capable of explaining the biological systems that we observe in nature. With that position, I started teaching biology at the University of Oslo. During this time, I read a lot of scientific literature, especially biology. I came across the book that prof. Michael Behe had written, "Darwin's Black Box" - and it made me think for the first time. Finally, after a lot of thinking, I realized: the theory of evolution can not account for the biological systems that M. Behe had written about. I began to doubt my beliefs about the theory of evolution, I asked myself many times: 'why do I believe what I believe?' and couldn't come up with a satisfying answer. At this point the thought hit me: the naturalistic theory of evolution is most likely not the correct theory of the diversity of biological life on this planet. I would like to share this with you, and see what you have to say on the topic. Is there irreducible complexity?
Whites have never solely invented anything

First, my point was that there ARE white inventions that are solely the product of white people, whereas there aren't any contributions SOLELY the product of black people. That was the challenge made in my debate, that there aren't any SIGNIFICANT contributions made solely by the black race. The reason you cant include any inventors or contributions made by AFRICAN AMERICANS is because they have benefited by the resources and education that have been provided to them by white slave holders. So anything that has come as a result of that can be attributed to the white men who brought them to this country. In other words, were it not for blacks being brought to this country, they would not have made any contributions. SO the question was, are there any contributions made BEFORE blacks were brought to the united states? I still think the answer is no. So I'm assuming that the burden of proof that falls on me is to come up with at least ONE invention or contribution that is solely the product of WHITE people(whether they be American, European, French, Icelandic, roman, Greek, etc. ) We are talking here of Caucasians VS. Blacks. Caucasian can include all nationalities, and cultures. The title of your debate is that whites have never solely invented anything, and I am going by that premis. So if you are asserting that whites have never solely invented anything, all I must do is provide an invention or contribution that is SOLELY a product of white skinned people. Alexander Graham Bell: Inventor of the telephone. A solely white invention. There had been some attempts in the past to build communication devices, primarily from a few Italian inventors, but they can be considered Caucasian. There were no Chinese, Mexican, Indian or any mongoloid races that had attempted an electronic communications device. (Source: world patent office) John Napier and Simon Stevin : Inventors of the decimal system now used in mathematics, and Logarithms. The game of golf was solely created by white men. Scottish men to be exact. And they are the epitome of white. Sundials: invented by the greek. The first person to invent a sundial is not really known. Scientist can only hazard a guess by dating them. The oldest sundials are said to be Greek. They date back to 340 BC. well, I could keep on going, but I don't feel that it is necessary. There are thousands of inventions, solely attributed to white people. You would have to show how those inventions, were reliant on the work of other races in order to win this debate. And that posses a problem, considering transportation and communication has always been a bit of a difficulty. Then you'd face the problem that even if the idea came from another race, proving it. I can come up with inventions that go back 3000 years or more, that were attributed to white people, and there would be no way you could prove that it came from somewhere else.
Whites have never solely invented anything

Okay, so MassDebator255 made a comment in this debate http://www.debate.org..., saying "white inventions have been built from other white inventions. thus it is a contribution made by the WHITE RACE. Black inventions have been built off of White inventions. This is not a contribution solely from the black race." So any invention by a white person that is based of a black person is not solely a white invention. Also, solely white inventions can only be based on other solely white inventions, basing them off of inventions that are half and half, or any degree of mix, still counts as a mix, and not a sole invention. For this debate, race will mean heritage, not just skin color or culture.
Whites have never solely invented anything

My opponent states: "This means that anything based on Fire, Wood, Stone, Metal, or Oil cannot be "solely" white. " My opponent asserts that fire, wood, stone, metal and oil are "Inventions". I would like to point out to my opponent that these are not inventions. No one invented fire, or wood, or stone, or metal or oil. These are elements that are native to this planet. These are things to be utilized, not invented. So what is an invention? INVENTION: 1. The act of finding out or inventing; contrivance or construction of that which has not before existed. (KEYPHRASE: "has not before existed". ) 2. The exercise of the imagination in selecting and treating a theme, or more commonly in contriving the arrangement of a piece, or the method of presenting its parts. Even if these were inventions, my opponent asserts that since use of these materials first showed up on the continent of Africa, that white skinned people could not have been the first to utilize them. This assertion is based on two assumptions: 1. That everyone that lives in Africa, since the beginning of time, has been NON WHITE. 2. That because certain tools have been discovered on Africa, and are dated in antiquity, that this must have been the first time in the history of man that these tools have ever been used. This is a false premise because no one is certain of the first "Race" of humans. New science is coming in now that suggests that Africa may in fact NOT be the birthplace of humanity. (. http://news.nationalgeographic.com...) So it is possible, that even though some of these things MAY have arisen first out of Africa, that the first people to utilize these things could have been white skinned people. Second, just because a tool is predated the earliest, does not mean that it is the first time it has been used. It just means it is the earliest DISCOVERY. Many times we have thought to have found the "original" or "origination", but later discoveries trumped that knowledge and forced people to re evaluate their assumptions. NEXT: I would like to note that Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and should not be counted as a credible proof. .anyone can go in and update, or change and edit wikipedia sources. Conclusion: so based on the definition of invention, and the fact that wood, iron, oil, fire and stone are not "inventions" all examples I gave as "white" inventions, are valid.
This house would abolish the death peanlty in the United States

Thank you for this debate. I wish you the best of luck in the voting period. I have very little time left and so I apologize if I do not cover everything. 1. Execution of innocentMy opponent claims that no factual evidence exists that the DP has killed anyone in decades. Con argues that no innocent person has been executed since 1977; however, I have cited two cases which show just that (more on this later). The fact that people are still exonerated after spending years on death row show that mistakes do happen. Indeed, a paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science noted [1]"The vast majority of criminal convictions are not candidates for exoneration because no one makes any effort to reconsider the guilt of the defendants. Approximately 95% of felony convictions in the United States are based on negotiated pleas of guilty (plea bargains) that are entered in routine proceedings at which no evidence is presented. Few are ever subject to any review whatsoever. Most convicted defendants are never represented by an attorney after conviction, and the appeals that do take place are usually perfunctory and unrelated to guilt or innocence. " "We do know that the rate of error among death sentences is far greater than Justice Scalia’s reassuring 0.027%. That much is apparent directly from the number of death row exonerations that have already occurred. Our research adds the disturbing news that most innocent defendants who have been sentenced to death have not been exonerated, and many—including the great majority of those who have been resentenced to life in prison—probably never will be." This paper estimates that the rate of false convictions is about 4.1%. The state is (understandably) reluctant to admit to their mistakes and when someone is convicted, they are even more reluctant to re-open the case at a future date. Now, going back to the two cases that I cited as examples. With Willingham, con argues that I have not provided any proof that the prosecutors hid evidence. However, the article that I cited very clearly shows evidence of wrongdoing on the prosecutors part, as evidenced by the fact that "all of the evidence used against Willingham was invalid, including the forensic analysis, the informant’s testimony, other witness testimony and additional circumstantial evidence." [2] 2. CostSince I have little time left, I'll drop this contention as it is my weakest. However, even if we concede this point, saving money does not justify killing someone. 3. DP does little to deter crime Most of Con's arguments have already been refuted in previous rounds. This chart (3), published by Amnesty International, clearly shows that there is zero correlation between the DP and deterrence. Moreover, I have shown that con's sources are unreliable and heavily flawed. Good luck in the voting period! _______ 1. (http://www.pnas.org...) 2. (http://www.innocenceproject.org...) 3. (http://www.amnestyusa.org...)
This house would abolish the death peanlty in the United States

Thank you to ThinkBig for his refutation, so I will now be refuting his 2nd speech arguments throughout my own speech. First, his Contention 1, in which he states that the DP kills the innocent. The DP killing innocents argument is completely invalid. There is no factual evidence saying that the death penalty has killed an innocent in decades. To support this is Bob McCulloch, St. Louis County prosecutor. When asked if the death penalty kills innocents, he responded with, "No. There are claims out there about that by those who are against it, but in the modern era of the death penalty, which is since about the mid-70s when it was reinstated and approved by the Supreme Court, there has not been." The truth is, the DP has gone through serious change a couple decades ago, and since then, no innocent deaths have occurred. More specifically, looking into there evidence, there is no correlation between the suspect being 100% guilty and the suspect being murdered. With Willingham, there is no proof that the evidence hidden by prosecutors had proven him innocent, and the Pro makes no correlation between the hidden evidence and the innocence of Willingham. With DeLuna, the Pro doesn't even specifically say he was innocent. DeLuna was simply executed with less care than preferred, and the Pro knows this, that's why they won't directly say that he was innocent. Second, his Contention 2, which is about the cost of the DP. The DP is actually much less expensive when it comes to long term cost, which is much more important than short term. "There is no question that the up front costs of the death penalty are significantly higher than for equivalent life without parole cases. There also appears to be no question that, over time, equivalent LWOP cases are much more expensive... than death penalty cases." (Dudley Sharp, Death Penalty Resources Director of Justice For All, a Criminal Justice Reform Organization) LWOP is our only other option for extreme offenses, like murder, and it is actually more expensive in the long term. You can cross apply my 1st Contention to this - I have already proven the deterrence of the DP. The Pro challenges this, but as you can see, I have actual statistics backing up my claim, when all the Pro has is the opinion of some experts, not actually backed by evidence taken from the real world. My sources and evidence outweigh the Pro's, and thus you should support my argument instead of his. I've been enjoying this debate so far. Good luck to the Pro!
This house would abolish the death peanlty in the United States

Seeing that his last debate on this topic was taken by a troll, I hope to provide a decent challenge for him. FULL RESOLUTIONThis house would abolish the death peanlty in the United States. STRUCTURER1. Acceptance onlyR2. Opening argumentsR3. RebuttalsR4. Rebuttals and CrystallizationTERMSDeath Penalty: "a government sanctioned practice whereby a person is put to death by the state as a punishment for a crime. " (. https://en.wikipedia.org...) Abolished: to terminate the legal effect of some provision or doctrine. (. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...). In this case, we will be terminating any future use of the death penalty. RULES1. No forfeits2. Citations should be provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final speeches4. Observe good sportsmanship and act civilly/decorously in the debate5. No trolling6. No "kritiks" of the topic (challenging assumptions in the resolution)7. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add resolutional definitions8. The BOP is evenly shared9. Follow the structure of the debate properly11. Rebuttals of new points raised in an adversary's immediately preceding speech may be permissible at the judges' discretion even in the final round (debaters may debate such rebuttals' appropriateness)12. Violation of any of these rules, or of any of the R1 set-up, merits a lossTime: The time limit between replies is 72 hours. If special circumstances arise, one side may ask the other to wait out his or her remaining time. If one side explicitly concedes or violates any of these terms, then all seven points will be awarded to the other. By accepting this challenge, you agree to these terms.
Indians Should be Banned

Look Indian people are just annoying and ugly. I really hope they will go commit suicide, because they just sit around all day, drinking curry beer and farting. They are polluting the environment. I can't believe Vladmir Putin even created Indians when he created the world. I don't care what you think .Overpopulation and global warming are two urgent problems that must be solved. That is why I want to kill all the South Asians in the world and destroy their culture entirely. Now so far we have done 8 debates. For our 9th debate year, let's do: Black People Should Pay More Taxes
Indians Should be Banned

Indian people are NOT ugly and stinky- because they are the same species as us, Homo Sapiens, and they do not have different anatomy, or more sweat glands than us. They simply have poor sewage disposal systems and lots of disease, both of which should be rectified as soon as possible. The solution is not to kill people, but to educate them and see their viewpoints. You know, I think your arguments help me win. We are not going to kill all of South Asia, that would be insane and it would mean the pointless slaughter of millions. We are not going to do that. Die, you piece of garbage.
Indians Should be Banned

Indian people are ugly and stinky. Why should they even be on the earth? Dark people shouldn't even be on the Earth; the world belongs to superior Russian polar bears, including me. Let us kill all the Indians/South Asians, including the Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Sri Lankans, Maldivians, Nepalese, Afghans, Bhutanese, Burmans, and the Tibetis. Those people are ugly and stupid and have negative IQ's. Also, Indians drink curry beer and burn too much incense, which is bad for the environment, only leading to killing more polar bears. Please, everyone has to do their duty in saving the planet. That is to shoot down every South Asian/Indian they see, as well as anyone I deem to be inferior. You see, Indian people are just weird. Why, oh why, are they so stinky? They are nothing but a negative influence in today's world. All they do is worship their million-armed god and sing weird songs. That is why they should be sent to concentration camps to be killed. Russians, on the other hand, are intelligent and superior in every way to Indians, blacks, Irish, Muslims, Jews, and retarded people. I hope you appreciate my white supremacist attitude and Indophobia.
The bishop is superior to the knight.

My opponent makes a very strong case, I note, though this is by no means a concession. I apologize for hesitating to answer; I have had other concerns that take precedence.Forking PotentialBishops certainly do have the advantage of ability to perform a pin. However, knights can initiate a 'lesser of two evils' scenario, called a 'fork,' similar to a pin, in which a play must choose to protect one piece or another. This is a decisive advantage wielded by knights, that is difficult to produce with bishops.Forking is in many instances easier to perform than pinning, since pinning requires a straight line, and since half the pieces (3/6) are able to move in a straight line, about half of the pins one might perform include the risk of having one's own piece captured (a competent player can avoid this, usually by not taking such a risk without assurances). A knight, on the other hand, is the only piece that moves in the manner that it does, with the ability to jump other pieces and easily move out of danger, and can fork 5/6 pieces without any risk of reciprocal strikes.Space LimitationsBishops are severely limited in that they can access only half the spaces on the board, whereas a knight can access all spaces. While knights do have limited mobility in one form, bishops have it in another: both the restricted spaces, and the constraint of direct attack (bishops can only move indefinitely when unobstructed). Knights face neither of these restrictions, being both the only piece capable of jumping other pieces, and being able to access any space. A knight accordingly is far superior in a crowded board, and is certainly more difficult to trap.The Evaluations of MastersMany experts have written evaluations on the chess piece relative value, and concluded that the knight and bishop are of equal value (some award the knight greater value, some the bishop). 27-year world chess champion Emanuel Lasker valued kingside knight and bishop as equally valuable, and both as more valuable than queenside knight and bishop [1]. Authors David Hooper and Kenneth Whyld note that unless used in a pair, bishops are less valuable than knights [2].ConclusionI will not deny that the bishop is a valuable piece (though seldom ranked higher than fourth-most important), but in most chess games, the bishop is less useful than the knight, especially prior to endgame.Sources[1] Lasker's Chess Primer, Billings[2] Hooper, David; Whyld, Kenneth (1992), "Value of pieces", The Oxford Companion to Chess, Oxford University Press
The bishop is superior to the knight.

Thank you, Torvald, for making this debate possible. Without further delay, the meat of the debate:1. Pinning PotentialIn Chess, a "pin" is a move that threatens to capture a piece, but the threatened piece cannot move without exposing a more valuable piece behind it. For example: This bishop in the situation above is threatening to capture white's knight. However, white cannot move it to safety without exposing the rook. This can be a crippling maneuver as it stops the pinned piece from moving (especially in an absolute pin, when the defended piece is the king).Only pieces that have a straight line of movement can pin the opponent, including the queen, the rook, and the bishop. Therefore, it is impossible for a knight to perform a pin.2. Skewering PotentialA skewer is similar to a pin, but opposite. For example: The bishop in this situation is threatening to capture black's rook, a very valuable piece. Moving it to safety, though, will allow white to capture the knight behind it.Again, skewers can only be performed by the queen, the rook, and the bishop. Knights are incapable of such a technique.3. Checkmating PotentialIf, during the endgame, you find yourself left with only your king and two bishops, then don't worry! You can checkmate your opponent with just these three pieces. [1] However, it is impossible to force a checkmate with just your king and two knights. [2] This alone should persuade you that if your bishop and knight are forked in the opening or midgame, it is better to save the bishop (extenuating circumstances exempt, of course).4. Average MobilityOn an otherwise empty board, the maximum number of moves a knight can make is eight, and the fewest two (depending on where the knight is on the board). The bishop, however, has a far longer range of mobility. On an otherwise empty board, the maximum number of moves a bishop can make is thirteen, and the fewest seven.Certainly, in closed positions, the knight will have the advantage, but on average, the bishop will have more options available to it and therefore prove more useful, both as an offense and defense.Sources:[1] http://www.chess.com...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...