BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolution: Evolution is an observed fact

Okay, thanks for accepting. I would like to contend Pro's definition of the word Evolution, her's in too implicit I know she's avoiding the cause factors eg. natural selection but evolution is a how they changed not what changed. Her definition allows her to say here is one organism, here is another organism 3 months later with a similar DNA sequence. Hey presto! It's evolution. Here is an amended form: "Evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations"[1] The addition of 'inherited' confirms that the latter generations must descend from the original base species. I would now like to define theory as: "An explanation of why and how a specific natural phenomenon occurs. A lot of hypotheses are based on theories. In turn, theories may be redefined as new hypotheses are tested. Examples of theories: Newton's Theory of Gravitation, Darwin's Theory of Evolution, Mendel's theory of Inheritance, Einstein's Theory of Relativity"[2] Evolution is a theory, a plausible one at that and one that will be observed in the near future, but at the current time it is no more than a theory. I hold this in regard to my second definition - scientific law. "A logical, mathematical statement describing a consistency that applies to all members of a broad class of phenomena when specific conditions are met. Examples of scientific laws: Faraday's Law of electromagnetic induction, Coulomb's Law of electrostatic attraction, Dalton's Law of partial pressures, Boyle's Gas Law."[2] The transition of a known theory/hypothesis to also be a fact or scientific law is when a they are OBSERVED to be true(note dear reader that one cannot prove anything within science).[3] Evolution has not been observed and is therefore not a fact/law. Scientific studies by Pro i)Escherichia coli I won't repeat much from this as Pro has given you such a good guide. In this study E coli bacteria were left and studied for over 20,000 generations. I do not doubt the studies reliability, however all it shows is that a confirmed Phenotypic trait was found in a new generation. It does not show how that E coli (C+) came into being. In this example the RNA translation must be observed and the new bacterium captured. This stays true to the 'inherited' definition of evolution. ii)Polyploidy The observation of meiosis in domesticated plants resulting in polyploidy is rare, that observation would need millennia to be observed. You can chemically induce micro-organisms to produce polyploid offspring though. iii)Antibiotic resistance. Almost the same as Escherichia coli just concerning the virion mutation instead. //References [1] - Evolution by Douglas J. Futuyama (used by wikipedia) [2] - http://www.ncsu.edu... - North Carolina State University 2004 [3] - http://wilstar.com... Thank you for this debate, I think I'll use this for my biology dissertation.
Resolution: Evolution is an observed fact

Resolution: Evolution is an observed fact. This debate was originally going to be about the below study and whether it proves the above resolution. Belle changed her mind. ""Article: http://www.pnas.org... Full pdf. or 'supplemental' by Zachary D. Blount et al : http://www.pnas.org... The Study, The experiment was - in the most simplest of terms - The culturing of an unnamed strain of E coli in a citrate (base of citric acid) and partially glucose solution, all known strains of E coli cannot 'feed' - within atmospheric conditions at least - in such an environment. The experiment, started in 1988, followed over 30,000 generations of E coli, it is until two years ago that E coli bacteria have seemingly evolved and been able to exploit or 'feed' on the carbon in its citrate environment. The study was carried out by the Department of Microbiology and Molecular Genetics of Michigan State University, East Lansing supported by the National Academy of Sciences of the United State of America; full details are in the links above."" That is all, I leave unto the belle in the next round to prove how this or anything else makes evolution 'an observed fact' Thank you for reading. Ambiguous Definitions - Fact - 5: a piece of information presented as having objective reality - http://www.merriam-webster.com... [definitions 1, 3 and 4 are also applicable] -> On Escherichia coli - http://www.textbookofbacteriology.net... -> On Citrate - http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... -> On Evolution - http://www.pbs.org...
It is morally wrong for humans to eat animals.

"I'm sorry that plants can't help you with your math home work but yes they think. Maybe not as complicated as humans and most animals. Just because they don't have brains doesn't mean they can't think at all. " -Ben How the hell can a plant think if it has no brain? If you're going to claim that plants can think, you need to provide some serious evidence for this. Please link me a peer reviewed scientific paper by a neuroscientist who says that plants can think without a brain.
It is morally wrong for humans to eat animals.

I'm sorry that plants can't help you with your math home work but yes they think. Maybe not as complicated as humans and most animals. Just because they don't have brains doesn't mean they can't think at all. I also stated that they actually don't have a brain for adaptation. "I don't see any way animals destroy the environment, other then taking land (just like crops). Though yes, they produce waste so that destroys the environment. " -Ben You forgot to look at my biofuel argument. I will not read the last two links since they are completely taken from the text word for word. Please get the text that you want; not the entire thing epecially with work that looks like it is from books. I will not argue with anything of this Matthews even though it was made in 2006, it has no editors, and has simply did say livestock is a MAJOR business in Agriculture.
It is morally wrong for humans to eat animals.

I am going to quote my opponent Ben's opening statements to me: "Im sorry I can't link the study, it's in a book made from 1986 and I checked online f it is there yet it isn't. It does hold value since you concluded plants can't talk, defend themselves, or think." - Ben Plants can't think. The very act of thinking requires a brain. Plants may be able to respond to stimuli and react to certain things, but that in no way means that their sentient, have conscious desires, interest or preferences. As I have already mentioned many times in this debate. Quoting my opponent Ben again: "I don't see any way animals destroy the environment, other then taking land (just like crops). Though yes, they produce waste so that destroys the environment. " -Ben Ben has literally just contradicted himself. He says he doesn't see any way animals destroy the environment, but then in his next sentence, he says that animals produce waste that destroys the environment. Ben, which one is it? They either destroy the environment or they don't. Did you even read the environmental reports that I linked in this debate? I guess not. Here, I will link them again: http://www.fao.org... http://www.worldwatch.org... http://pge.uchicago.edu... This debate is going in circles. Ben has raised objections to my arguments that I had already dealt with in the 2nd round of this debate. He has failed to debunk any of my arguments, and is now just blabbering nonsense.
It is morally wrong for humans to eat animals.

Im sorry I can't link the study, it's in a book made from 1986 and I checked online f it is there yet it isn't. It does hold value since you concluded plants can't talk, defend themselves, or think. I will make this link though since I could find it: http://www.bestchapter.com... "The problem with world hunger. . ." The four problems about this is that: 1. Not only are we sending aid to those countries, 2. Since the global population continues to grow in developed countries, 3. poor countries continue to fall in debt so they sell most crops (goes back to two) that should be used to support their local population 4. Really the only country that has a big starving population is North Korea where over 40% of its population starve(1) 28% climat too dry 23% chemical problems 10% climate too wet 6% permafrost 22% soil too shallow 11% suitable for crops(1) I use books to get my information so yes they have real editors on them, and so they are correct. I don't see any way animals destroy the environment, other then taking land (just like crops). Though yes, they produce waste so that destroys the environment. No, have you ever heard of biofuel? There is a factory that makes fuel out of turkey waste and the only by-product is water vapor. Of course many animals are stuck in cages or stuck in miles of waste but of course by meat from local farms that actually care for their animals don't get mass produced meat products. You will support animal rights and support local businesses. Without producing meat, many in growing countries will starve since many of them are herding nomads and that meat can fill you up in smaller quantities. Another article saying some stuff about we weren't ever able to actually eat rice. Though we may adapt. http://healthomg.com... When I brought up 11% of the earth can only grow crops is that if you think about it animals can survive on bad places of land as long as you feed and water them. Like maybe how herders carry their anmals through the desert to oasises. http://www.dailymail.co.uk... For health. (1)Talk Nerdy To Me copyright 2013
It is morally wrong for humans to eat animals.

"The argument states that if it is morally wrong to kill animals, then it is also morally wrong to kill plants. In my view, only beings with conscious desires can be harmed in the morally significant since, so things like bacteria or a plant can't be harmed in the moral since. I don't think plants matter morally because they are not sentient. A plant is not a subject of conscious experiences and other mental states, who has interest, desires and a capacity to feel pleasure and pain like a nonhuman animal. Since plants lack all these characteristics, I fail to see how they can have any moral value. My first argument is this. I am sorry but this is funny: I have a Science supplement book from 1986 that basically overrides this statement. A study from Baldwin, David Rhoades, and Jack Schultz have been studying trees since 1981. Davey Rhoades was the first to discover what these men found: Trees can communicate with eachother. Yet he originally wanted just to find out how trees defended themselves from insect attack. So in Seattle, Washington (spring 1979). He wanted to see what would happen if Willow Trees had infestations of tent caterpillars. So he grouped two trees: one for the experamentation and another for the control (without an infestation). So he grouped them up, set the tent worms and came back 14 days later. So he took the experimental trees leaves and fed them to some caterpilar larvae and found that the larvae grew quite slowly, but what surprised him is that the same was done with the control tree and same effects. So both flooded their leaves with an unsavory chemical that discouraged the insect's growth. So why did the control tree have to arm itself? Davey made sure the roots or branches weren't touching. So did the tree send a chemical through the air to warn the other tree from attack? Yes, trees can communicate with eachother. So yes trees have thoughts and actions though they can't cry or have a brain (though this is pretty much an evolutionary tactic since if a limb is cut off then the tree can live or how you have to rip up an entire weed's root to keep it from regrowing). Trees can make defenses of course (as seen above), so they aren't helpless or passive. And the same goes for the rest of plants. I mean since many bug killers are made from plant chemicals. The problem with only producing crops is that you overlooked something: Only 11% of earth's land is suitable to growing crops 28% climat too dry 23% chemical problems 10% climate too wet 6% permafrost 22% soil too shallow 11% suitable for crops So should we get rid of meat or just get rid of crops? I believe we should keep both. Since both can support us in their special ways. Meat gives us protien and wheat gives us carbs. Talk Nerdy To Me copyright 2013 Growing Up With Science copyright 1986 Ch. "Eavesdropping On Trees" by Jeanne McDermott Biology Section Pg. 84
It is morally wrong for humans to eat animals.

I did state that they can think without brains in my starter. I just stated "They can't help you do your math homework" showing that they can't think as complex as us. 1.) I showed that not having brains is their adaptation by showing they can live even when something happens to some other part of it. http://www.scientificamerican.com... http://youtu.be... http://io9.com... http://www.popsci.com... Do you need more?
imagination is false, and belief is imaginary

I would like to open my argument with one statement ... You are seriously challenged mentally. Clearly you don't think like a normal human. You are saying that your personal experience is more important then mine because I am Indian, that's racist. What about Gandhi. Your statement is incorrect because: 1.Honesty is based on reality The future is real as well as the past. Lord Krishna is proof of this he knows past, present and future . Because the future is real it is also honest. 2. D"j" vu D"j" vu is proof that the past is a thing therefore you are wrong and also retarded. Please do not have children because your jeans do not need to be past on. 3.Matter itself Everything is real. The past was real but still consist of matter. The future will be real and consist of matter. Our life is planned. And hopefully your plan is that you die soon or at least grow a brain or two. On these points I have proved your argument invalid and should win the debate by default because I am superior to you.
Should ISIS be destroyed

ISIL- The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant- to be around thirty to fifty thousand people. The wikipedia entry regarding the Military of ISIL makes a great summary of all of the information we have regarding the presence and operational forces of ISIL. Military of ISIL That's a pretty substantial number of people. Even the low-ball estimate of Forty-one thousand people- that's a lot of terrorists. And they are terrorists. Now, that's a problem. That's a huge problem. It gets really hard to tell who's going to shoot at you when militants, civilians and ISIL sympathizers all look the same. It's not as simple as "Let's just go in and shoot them all." All... who? Everyone who practices Islamic faith? And don't assume they're fighting with sticks and rocks out there- these aren't some quickly-rallied Ewoks fighting the Empire. These are a legitimate rebel force, well-armed with all the discount, second hand and black-market firepower their net-worth can bargain for. Just this week they claimed responsibility for car bombs in Somalia's capital city. You can't check the news these days without seeing the group"s activity in another country on the news. And, to make matters worse, it's happening in another country. How many people, do you think, rolled out of bed in 1941 and thought to themselves "I wonder what those NAZI guys are up to?" How many Americans, even after that war broke out, do you think talked late into the night about what they might be able to do about Hitler? I guarantee you, most young people in the Western Hemisphere don't think about Iraq on a daily basis. Most people my age don't even hear the name Syria anymore, unless they're talking about "that uprising in Syria that happened last year." It's like it just... went away after Jon Stewart and the Daily Show stopped talking about it. Militarily, it might be because it's starting to look like we might have a sizable proxy-war with Russia building in the Ukraine, but our leaders aren't terribly interested in another huge ground operation into foreign soil in today's political climate. The United Nations has always been particularly disinterested in solving issues with military aggression- especially where none of the major nations have been particularly threatened yet. And the people of those nations? They're torn, somewhere between "It's not our problem" and "Last time we went into Iraq, it didn't turn out so well." SO! To summarize. #1: "ISIS," or "ISIL," The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, is not some small group of angry children. They're a lot harder to deal with than you might think. #2: There's a lot more going on in the world than ISIL. Why isn't this question considering the Ukrainian conflict, or Boko Haram? #3: The populace at large, at the moment, is infinitely more interested in the latest slew of celebrity nudes released than another difficult military deployment several countries away. #4: A lot of people don't even know these things are happening, because nobody watches the news anymore. That about sum it up?
Morals are a Byproduct of Theism

In the opinion feature, my opponent questioned what would stop us from killing each other if it weren't for theism intervening and establishing a reward/consequence for moral actions. Since I could not respond to my opponent via posts, I thought I'd challenge him to a debate instead.Definitions: Morals: The concept of right and wrong behavior.Byproduct: A side effect - an indirectly created concept or product.Theism: The belief in the existence of one or more gods.Good luck to my opponent, if he chooses to accept!
A fetus is a human and is therefore entitled to all human rights

You said this: "If a fetus belongs to the human race, it doesn't mean the fetus is a human being, and is entitled to human rights. The fact you are changing the premise of your debate is ridiculous and unfair." I am not changing the premises of this debate at all. The topic of this debate is: "A fetus is a human and is therefore entitled to all human rights." Throughout the entirety of this debate, I have only said that a fetus is a human. I am following the premise of the debate completely. I have called a fetus human. The first part of the resolution is: "A fetus is human...". I am not breaking any rules there. Now, by making this comment you have brought to my attention a very interesting point that automatically allows me to win this debate. In advance, I am by no means conceding that a fetus isn't a human being. This I fully believe. But, I have just come to understand, that is not what we are currently debating about. If it was, the resolution would be as follows: "A fetus is a human BEING and is entitled to all the rights of a human BEING." I know that this sounds trivial, but we are not talking about a human BEING having human BEING rights, but about a HUMAN having HUMAN rights. Although you have made the argument that A fetus is not a human BEING, you have not once made the argument that a fetus is not human. So therefore, I simply have to extend my arguments from the last round. I am speaking of humans, not human beings (Although I do believe that a fetus is a human being, but that is a different debate.) So I ask you once again: if a fetus is not a part of the human species, then what species is he a member of? If you can't answer this question, then you lose the debate.
A fetus is a human and is therefore entitled to all human rights

Ok. I would like to point something out.Pro challenged me to this debate saying that "fetus is a human and is therefore entitled to all human rights." Now he is saying, "If you cannot disprove that a fetus is a member of the human race" There is a huge difference between the two. If a fetus belongs to the human race, it doesn't mean the fetus is a human being, and is entitled to human rights. The fact you are changing the premise of your debate is ridiculous and unfair. According to BBC, they have stated "Unfortunately there's no agreement in medicine, philosophy or theology as to what stage of foetal development should be associated with the right to life."http://www.bbc.co.uk... So, there is no stage where a fetus has the right to live, because there legally isn't any documentation that states it. You of course, can present so legal document of the United States that states that fetuses are entitled to human rights, and in that case you automatically win the debate. So far, you haven't done anything.Say for arguments sake, I say a fetus is part of the human race, it doesn't explain why it should be entitled to human rights, because you haven't presented any arguments that say a fetus is a human. If you are going to give me a pro life source, it better have references to medical documents, or else I won't consider it.
A fetus is a human and is therefore entitled to all human rights

First of all, just to make it clear, my first speech was meant to be a string of logic, in which one argument lead to another.Second, simply for the sake of the debate, assume any time I have written baby that I meant fetus.Before I refute any of your points, I would like to point out that you STILL have not answered my question: If a fetus is not a member of the Human species, then what species is it from? It is important that you answer this question.Also: you claimed that because it is a law that a fetus is not human, I automatically lose the debate. Let me ask, do you have any idea how a debate works? the purpose of one side is to CHANGE the status quo, while the other defends it. In this debate, I am challenging the status quo, while you are defending it. virtually all of the debates on this site challenge SOME law or rule in some way or the other. To say that you win because the status quo is the status quo is ridiculous.You responded to one of my arguments by saying this: "...so bacteria grows and changes, so would that mean it is a human?" No, it definitely would not. Here is why: a bacteria does grow and change, I will give you that. However, bacteria is a member of it's own species, is it not? Is a bacteria not a bacteria? Identically, is a fetus not a member of it's own species? What species is it? You said this: " When it [life] begins is up to the family." WHAT? This makes zero sense. Humans do not have the power of choosing when life begins. Life must begin at one instance in time. Most people should agree on that. Life isn't this thing that we can postpone if we want to. Regardless of who is right or wrong- whether life does indeed begin early in the pregnancy, at conception, or at the end of a pregnancy- It must begin at ONE CERTAIN POINT. It is not "up to the family." That is ridiculous. So I ask yet again: when does life begin? You said, "So far Pro has failed to establish any legality behind saying a fetus is a human. It isn't legally a human, therfore it isn't a human." Dude, this is the purpose of the debate: to prove that it is human. Legality? Take my advice and don't bring that argument up again, please. And I want you and all of the voters to understand: If you cannot disprove that a fetus is a member of the human race, then I automatically win this debate. So please tell me what species a fetus is.