BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Survival of the fittest isn't as important to evolution as cooperation is

Evolution is a principle, and a very accurate one at that, held up by pillars of emerging truths in science, survival of the fittest is one of these pillars of evidence. You can't suggest one part is more important or necessary for evolution as they all refine each other. Survival of the fittest or better known as natural selection is one of many selective processes that is just a term given to more healthy or even lucky / fit animals surviving over some riddled with disease and other disabilities or just those who get taken by predators. If I have a backyard with trees and grass and have 50 green / brown beetles and 50 yellow / red beetles, if the fauna is mostly green and brown, the red and yellow beetles will be easy targets, limiting their existence. If we have 5 above average sized giraffes and 20 stunt sized giraffes, the food supply will go out much quicker at the lower levels and possibly invoke starvation. where as the above average sized giraffes will live on and reproduce, promoting taller genes. When we talk about symbiotic relationships or pack mentality relationships, we are essentially avoiding the fight for your self and promoting a fight for everyone, we are establishing many different styles of strengths which will result in a lack of death. However, with this we will have a higher rate of survival, this includes the weak and the sick. If this happens the gene pool is now weaker and will 'evolve' (change) quicker, but perhaps not for the better. Like I said before, evolution sits on pillars of emerging truth, each pillar refines the other. Cooperation is a very impressive and useful tool for survival, but the extent of it can and will lead to a bad gene pool due to animals prone to disease or injury, or those who would normally get taken out because they're slow. This is why we see dogs a lot of dogs with an under bite, or jaw problems, hip problems. In the wild, they would die off fairly quickly if alone, but due to the pack mentality they are now living on, giving these genes to the next generation which will hinder it. Long story short. The extent of natural selection is equal to or more useful than the extent of cooperation within the premise of evolution.
Survival of the fittest isn't as important to evolution as cooperation is

In "the origin of species" Darwin wrote survival of the fittest twice and love ninety five times. Mamals ( as far as I know ) can't reproduce asexually so being the fastest, strongest, etc. means nothing if you can't spread those traits to your children. We make the mistake of assuming human nature involves a natural kill or be killed mentality, but being able to kill is great short term long term? Not so much, quoting "A Song Of Ice and Fire " Dosent seem like a very reliable way to prove a point but "in the winter a lone wolf dies, the pack survives" Rome wasn't built in a day...or by one person
America is a Country of Instant Gratification

Ok, me sorry for using big words and commas. Anyway... Your right, I dodged that argument. I will concede that Japan has a longer martial arts system than America. Tousche! You don't answer any of my arguments and concede many of them. My point is that success in this country is accomplished by long term discipline and foresight. You agree with me here! Being prepared and responsible is much more beneficial than looking at the short term. To the contrary, successful people commonly make choices that are detrimental in the short term to accomplish long term gains. This proves that our country rewards people with foresight, making instant gratification not gratifying. Yes, people do give into the short term tempations, but that doesn't mean we reward them as a country. People turn out fat if they give in to instant gratification of fast food, or poor if they give in and overspend on immediacies. Sure, we have conveniences like microwaves and the internet. I don't get any reason why this is bad. I think getting things faster and easier is a good thing. Thats not instant gratification, just convenience. Would you have me drag my laundry to the local swimmin hole and wash it with a metal washboard? In sum, instant gratification is not gratifying. Sure, we have conveniences in this country, but those aren't synonymous with gratification. People who desire short term gains get punished for it, while people with discipline and foresight are rewarded. This shows that instant gratification isn't gratifying at all.
America is a Country of Instant Gratification

Hello again, wingnut, and as before your argument is not worded as simply as desired. Nevertheless, we will move on. You said: "While instant gratification can be problematic as a mindset or paradigm, you don't answer my argument. Instant gratification is just that. It lacks long-term vision, which is necessary in this country. Talk to any self-made millionaire, with the exception of celebrities. They all faced trials and tribulations, yet remained disciplined to accomplish their goals in the long run. Conversely, each giant failure is a result of burning out to quickly or focusing on the here and now." Yes, famous people and millionares have taken the long and hard road, but they earned it and each trial and tribulations they searched for that instant gratification as they climbed the ladder to success. You, my good friend, did not refute my argument about the changing of the belt system in martial arts, so I assume you gave that argument to me. The people you mention did have a hard time, but the massive satisfaction at the end of the road was well worth it. The point I was trying to make with the convenience was that we need to have instant gratification, so conveniences help with that. Thank you and I await your rebuttal.
America is a Country of Instant Gratification

Your argument is more of one for conveniences. That isn't a matter of instant gratification, but ease. What is the problem with cooking faster or getting our information more quickly? While instant gratification can be problematic as a mindset or paradigm, you don't answer my argument. Instant gratification is just that. It lacks long-term vision, which is necessary in this country. Talk to any self-made millionaire, with the exception of celebrities. They all faced trials and tribulations, yet remained disciplined to accomplish their goals in the long run. Conversely, each giant failure is a result of burning out to quickly or focusing on the here and now. Sure, we get things faster and more conviently than ever, but that isn't a problem, thats a good thing. The only problem is short-sightedness, which our country definately doesn't reward. Next time, don't copy and paste an article as your argument please. I don't want to debate Jules Lobel from the Christian Science Monitor.
America is a Country of Instant Gratification

Temptation? Availablity? yes. But there is also much much more. Take into consideration the belt system for most martial arts studios in the country. They have about 10-12 belts, am I right? In Japan, more specifically Okinawa, you remain a white belt for a few years before then moving to brown to continue tyour instruction. Take fast food: People cant wait for their meals so they cam up with the Drive Through. And possibly the biggest "shortcut" out there is the Microwave. bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Ding! You meal is done, all you have to do is EAT IT ON THE GO. Instant Gratification is not just easy and acceptable, we have lives built around it. Your respsonse was worded quite confusingly, but I managed to decipher it. I leave you with a quoted passage from an article about Instant Gratification in America. Link will follow: "Perhaps Ralph Waldo Emerson said it best 150 years ago when he excoriated "this shallow Americanism, with its passion for sudden success." And Americans' appetite for immediate gratification has only accelerated since then, to the point where today they gorge on fast food, sound bites, and one-liners. They breathe, move, think, and take in everything amid a culture of fast and faster. Americans must move beyond immediate gratification and the search for instant victory or defeat. The US military victory over Iraq will not be a success if, as Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak predicted, "it spawns a hundred more bin Ladens." The US might do well to heed the advice a Viennese newspaper gave more than 125 years ago to the Prussians, who'd just as easily triumphed over France: "Victory is a poor adviser, and nations tend to slip on the blood they have shed."" Thank you. http://www.csmonitor.com...
America is a Country of Instant Gratification

While I must admit that most people's focus is short-sighted, that doesn't mean that gratification is sincere. That is to say, this country pays the individual who plans for the future and doesn't give in to the temptation of instant gratification. We see this in instances like planning for retirement and others. There is a temptation and availability to instant gratification in this country, but I would argue that it isn't truely gratifying.
Superman is an under-appreciated character nowadays

I will be arguing in favour of Superman being an under-appreciated character. I hold the position that Superman is a heavily philosophical and meaningful character, as well as an idol for others, and that the character's decline in popularity and criticism is built on a blind misunderstanding of the character. There should be a few things established: 1. This is the DC comic version of the character we are talking about. Not the character's representation in movies/video games etc. 2. This applies to both the main canon version of the character and alternate versions of the character (eg. his appearance in All-Star Superman). 3. Due to the huge amount of stories/versions of the character I am mostly talking about to the character's peak portrayals and not ones that have little popularity or acclaim. Alright, let's go
Social Security tax cap should be eliminated

I wanted to post the parts of evidence that state the actual tagline but didnt want people to read too much if anyone wants me to do this then comment please....thank you now moving on to my points...i put the links to my points.... The reasons why i want my plan to pass (will present it later in this text) are: 1. Social security predicted to collapse by 2036 here's the link http://www.smartmoney.com... 2. Now why is this so bad...because social security is the primary source of income for seniors (http://www.epi.org...) here are the problems with our current system: 1. It only charges social security tax on the first $106,000 that a person earns, people that earn more than that gets the rest of their income tax free. (http://www.smartmoney.com...) 2. Now whats so bad about this? : This leads to much of the middle class actually being taxed at a higher rate than the wealthy! (http://epi.3cdn.net...) now heres my plan: Mandates: 1. "Congress will pass legislation removing the social security tax ceiling. For the next 75 years" Any necessary Funding will come from existing budgets of existing agencies from general federal revenues. Federal courts will strike down any rules not in compliance with the plan. This plan will take effect immediately at the beginning of the next fiscal year. the advantages of my plans: 1. Removing the tax ceiling will virtually eliminate Social Security shortfalls: (http://www.epi.org...) 2. Not only does it solve, but it won't hurt those that get taxed more (http://epi.3cdn.net...) 3. americans agree with my plan (http://www.epi.org...) thank you for your time.
Social Security tax cap should be eliminated

I completely disagree with this. I beleive that we should have a system that allows social security to be used in a decent manner, such as better applications. Without this tax, the entire system would collapse, leaving many disabled without a source of income. Even though most people pay this tax, these same people pay for the roads we drive on, the education we, and our family, received. In addition to this, many people who have paid the tax will be unruly against the government due to the unfairness of inequality in taxation between generations.
The Bible is not God's Word

The Bible is most certainly not God's word because of... 1) The manner in which it was composed: - the Old Testament is a collection of ancient Hebrew folklore, written by almost 40 different, unrelated authors, passed down orally for hundreds of years, and finally compiled into a single book decades before Jesus was even born. -the New Testament is a collection of stories written decades after Jesus died by 4 authors: Luke, Mark, Matthew, and John. These guys were writing solely for the purpose of spreading Christianity and obviously stretched the truth in hopes of appealing to a wider audience of potential converts. A bunch of ancient story tellers and a couple of Jesus's disciples doesn't exactly make up the most divine group of writers in the world... 2) The sheer amount of contradictions in it: -In response to my argument about how "un-divine" the writers of the Bible seem, most Christian fundamentalists will argue that all of them could have been inspired by God to do their writings, so the Bible is still pretty much God's Word. -However, this argument is easily countered by how many CONTRADICTIONS are in the Bible. How could God's word contradict itself so many times? God is perfect, and his holy book wouldn't be so IMperfect. -If you would like examples of such contradictions, please watch the videos I have posted here, and feel free to try and prove how each and every one of them is a "misunderstanding". Video 1 points out specific contradictions in the Bible, and Video 2 shows what God would be like according to a literal interpretation of the Bible The only way for the Bible to be God's word would be if it was all written directly by Jesus, or if it really was totally consistent and non-contradictory throughout it. Sources: (1) http://www.huffingtonpost.com... (2) http://www.skeptically.org... (3) http://agnosticreview.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com...
Rock-n-Roll Music Is A Worst Influence Then HipHop

No All Music isnt bad, its only bad when the message in it is degrading or has a demonic meaning to it. MOST Rock music infuences fans to eat animals (ozzy Osbourne) Cut dem selves scream till there heads hurt wear all black (Gothic) ignore god (as i see u do) do drugs tattoo themselves until no more skin is showing the lists goes on and on On the other hand there are Positive Music out there Gospel Jazz Blues SOME HipHop Classical (Beethevon) Etc. You didnt even try and prove your point Guess you couldnt ;)
The Holocaust was a hoax

I disagree. I think that since the Holocaust was key for the creation of Israel it is important to mention it. Now onto your other argument that you made in regards to the victims going through the same events. Many Holocaust survivors do make similar claims but there are many details that are different from person to person and as a result create many discrepancies. Often times rumors of gassings and ovens for mass burning of bodies are created either due to fear or certain propaganda goals. For example the ovens used in Auschwitz take roughly one day to burn a human body. In order to meet the estimated number of burned inside they would need to cremate an estimated 3,000 a day with only several hundred ovens. Additionally, none of the gassing chambers have the proper infrastructure to quickly remove Zyklon B in a timely fashion. In fact witht the Typhus pandemic the "gassing chambers" could have been used to properly sanitize clothes. I do not argue that Jews were not discriminated and abused ,as was the case with Anne Frank, but rather that the events peraining to the Holocaust were largely falsified.
The Holocaust was a hoax

Stop bringing up Israel and you make a good argument but still the fact that there were many eye witnesses and survivors that all described the same type of camps and all went through the same thing, i doubt all of them were 'brainwashed' into thinking that. Why would anybody want to even make something that tragic up!? Do you think Anne Frank was just a big liar then or...? There are people with family that they know died in the holocaust.
The Holocaust was a hoax

During the time that the events of the Holocaust were allegedly unraveling a huge Typhus pandemic began to spread. Accompanied with increased destruction of supply lines leading towards the camps the Germans had no choice but to pull out. In fact, It is quite likely that the only difference between camps for Japanese Americans and Jewish Germans was the fact that the German camps were in a war torn country and thus couldn't be properly supplied. In regards to the exaggeration of numbers of dead Jews it is interesting to note that estimated value of 6,000,000 dead showed up in previous documents prior to the Holocaust. Either with 6,000,000 Jews being homeless or 6,000,000 being discriminated. In fact the value of 6,000,000 is key to a Talmudic prophecy that claims that the state of Israel can only be formed after 6,000,000 Jews disappear.
Embryo screening is wrong

“Heartless?” Heartless is a Roman Catholic couple from Great Britain who carried a pregnancy to term despite having discovered the fetus carried the GD Potter’s syndrome, an overwhelmingly lethal and painful disease where the kidneys do not develop in utero. The infant lived for less than an hour, spending her entire, short life in agony. Never mind that terminating an embryo would mean no pain or fear, unlike what that poor child experienced. Gene therapy cannot grow kidneys or correct malformed limbs.http://www.youtube.com...Genetic engineering remains so far off from our technological capabilities and cultural ethos it’s almost laughable that you would suggest a eugenics nightmare lies on the horizon. Of course, you never addressed the fact that the law can prevent this, and the two are clearly different as selfishness motivates engineering and mercy motivates the other. You still never addressed the embryo screening in itself; it’s not inherently wrong.
Embryo screening is wrong

Sorry, are you struggling to argue? Are you struggling to expand on your petty reasons in 1000 characters? I"m sorry but if you can deny that destroying embryos is immoral then you are a heartless individual. Furthermore, with genetic defects who is it for you to say they will have a poor quality of life? Who is it for you to say that gene therapy or other treatment may become available during that person"s lifetime? The reason I mentioned genetic engineering is because before this happens embryo screening occurs. I hope everyone can see that embryo screening is immoral and unnatural. It encourages destruction of embryos and abortions. You can"t deny that it won"t cause a worldwide eugenics programme because as you can read in online news articles that is already beginning to happen. Wow so many characters remaining, how should I fill this space?, I am struggling to fill it because there is no debate here, there's only one moral side and that's my side of this debate.
Embryo screening is wrong

The parents have the right to decide, especially if a GD means they are unwilling or unable to care for that child well into his adult life or if they believe that pain experienced will lead to poor quality of life. Also, killing an embryo is not the same as killing a human being, as the latter can experience a whole range of complicated emotions, feelings, and desires that embryos cannot. An embryo also does not experience pain.You clearly haven’t established a coherent argument for slippery slope, probably in part because you’ve limited speeches to a superficial 1,000 characters. You can’t just blankly assert another medical slippery slope and then say the two are the same if you clearly haven’t fleshed out all the details. The law could establish a clear moral brightline between eliminating an embryo because of GD and destroying it for phenotype. Also, genetic engineering is clearly different from embryo elimination, and you haven’t yet broached why the screening itself is wrong.
Embryo screening is wrong

At the current time, using embryo screening we could see if a child was going to have cerebral palsy. But who is it for you to decide that the child doesn't deserve a right to live? Who is it for you to say that a child with a genetic defect is going to be depressed? An embryo is a life and if you choose not to implant the embryo because the genetic disease is there, then you are essentially killing someone. Against your second point: Of course it will develop a eugenics crisis, embryo screening will become more accessible and I pretty sure it will develop into been able to choose your traits. It happened with plastic surgery which was initially meant for repairing injuries, now there is plastic surgery clinics have opened up so people can "look more attractive". In February 2009, a fertility clinic in Los Angeles tried to offer selection of hair and eye color but retracted the offering in the face of public backlash. Embryo screening is WRONG.
Embryo screening is wrong

#1 Genetic diseases are destructive, painful, and debilitatingChildren born with cerebral palsy or muscular dystrophy can end up suffering for prolong periods of time or dying young. Even if a genetic condition remains inherently treatable, this by no means guarantees that such a condition could be curable. Not only can physical injuries produce tangible pain, but they can also produce psychological suffering. Genetic diseases or defects often lead to long cycles of depression. #2 The slippery slope is not so slipperyBelieving that screening for genetic disease triggers a eugenics crisis ignores the fundamental difference between eugenics programs and modern screening procedures --namely, that eugenics have always been racially motivated and very arbitrary. Science can now dictate what genes constitute as harmful in a non-biased, objective way. Since embryologists know how to screen for 170 different genetic diseases, the chance of eliminating a beneficial mutation looks very slim.
Embryo screening is wrong

Thank you for challenging me. My reasons are as follows; Some genetic mutations that may appear to be a genetic disorder could be evolutionary changes to our race, therefore aborting could hold back progression of evolution. Screening is expensive and decisions have to be made about who has priority when financial resources are scarce. Embryo screening would lead to privacy issues, results would have to be kept top secret but with more and more organisations "sharing" personal information would someone be refused insurance/employment due to been screened for a genetic defect? Furthermore screening puts pressure on parents to abort children, if the child has a defect parents may feel they are not capable of coping with a child which has this defect. Furthermore if embryo screening is seen as correct and expands in popularity is it moral that people could choose the sex of their baby or parent"s designing their baby"s genetics. Thanks to those who have taken the time to read my reasons
Should illegal drugs be legal.

Drugs are so good that they give kids mlg nuclear diarrhea and give kids violent cancer and they are responsible for Jacob Sartorious and he is a living legend with Trump. For a second I thought they were mating but then i realized Jacob is cancer. Kids should use rulers to measure their poop in length and width and the circumference side ways, this act is inspired by weed. I am John Cena, Marijuana adict and I approve this message.
Vigilantism

I apologize to my opponent, but I am unable to finish this debate. My computer has been giving me trouble for several weeks now, and though I can still use it, it sometimes turns off on me and it takes ten minutes or so to turn it back on and get back on the internet. This is what happened the last time I started on my debate arguments for this debate. I tried to post Round 1 last night prior to going to bed, but the computer was not available at that time. And I now have four hours to post, but I can't stay on long enough to post a valid argument. Therefore, I concede victory to Con.