BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Evolution is true

Jokes are about cavemen going "ugga ugga FIRE ug," but a better quote from the Paleolithic would probably be "Good morning! Let's go fishing; I just traded some pots my wife made to the guys across the river for some bone fishooks. Now I better bring back some big fish or she's going to be mad." (In caveman language, of course.) They were people, living people's lives. Obviously not all of their cultural values were in common with modern Americans, but we're talking like foreign-country different, not like chimpanzee different. (And while I'm at it: even chimpanzee different is not irrational or pointlessly brutal. Chimps have structured societies and they only express agression under certain circumstances and there are tons of examples of them putting social cohesion over physical urges. Even animals aren't "animalistic.") You might not always have agreed with them, but you would have understood them. And not like "the male is providing for his mate to prove his genetic quality" understood. Like "yeah, I can see why he kinda owes his wife after selling her stuff" understood. Here are some things we know Paleolithic people did: Care for the sick. Bury the dead. Make art. Wear jewelry. Keep dogs. Travel in boats. Trade with each other. Follow calendars. Play musical instruments. So humans were basically, well, ALWAYS humans. That makes evolution--the concept that we came from apes--completely fall flat on its face. Humans can't come from nothing, y'know. And if matter and energy couldn't come from nothing, then clearly there was an eternal force timelessly extending beyond the universe--a.k.a. GOD. And if God exists, that means God created all His creatures. Which logically disproves evolution! I have successfully proven my case. (Yay! Fingers no longer swollen!)
Evolution is true

1) Answers in Genesis has handily rebutted evolutionism.Answers in Genesis is one of the least reliable sources. If you take a look at any article you can immediately see the big glaring errors(if you know anything about science that is.)2) Well, humans didn't have any help from an outside force with the moon landing. They just decided, "Hey let's go to the mon." It's not as if some other species/force influenced them.Yes they did; the rocket. Those E. Coli on the other hand had no help by any machines. Anywys remember that human analogy? Well no technology is going to help them drink that poison without dying.3) Exactly! If humans scientists, so intelligent and "evolved," could not create life but can separate hydrogen atoms to make pure hydroogen and thjey can chemically combine thigns (yes thoise realy happened), how could mother nature create life so perfectly? By accident, no less?Because mother nature had 1.3 billion years to make life and humans have had 50 years. Also biochemistry is not accidents.4) Um, hello, you have the burden of proof here.Yes I have to prove evolution happened but you made the claim natural selection can't explain it so YOU have the burden of proof to prove that natural selection can't explain life.5) But evolutoin/plate titonics can't explain the beauty and perfection.Beauty is in the eye of the beholder; it's subjective. Again survival of the fittest; we expect life to be "perfectly" adapted to its environment.7) How could energy and matter form if they can't be eternal and can't come from nothing?This is irrelevant to a debate on evolution.8) It's entirely possible and even likely that the similarites are due to a common Designer, not a common ancestor.Your making the claim that its likely that similartes are due to a designer so YOU have the burden of proof to show why it's likely it is due to a common designer.9) Proof of Christ's Resurrection and Divinity are Proof of God. Proof of God is Proof of Creationism. Proof of evoliuton can't coexist with an all-0loving Gpd.Sorry but even if this wasn't a non-sequitur there is still no evidence for Christ's resurrection or his divinity other than a supposed anecdote which isn't considered reliable evidence.CONCLUSIONCon has used three logical fallacies, two subjective arguments which don't prove his case, two red herring arguments, and concede on one point. Therefore my arguments have gone unrefuted; therefore I have fulfilled my burden of proof.
Evolution is true

1) Answers in Genesis has handily rebutted evolutionism. 2) Well, humans didn't have any help from an outside force with the moon landing. They just decided, "Hey let's go to the mon." It's not as if some other species/force influenced them. 3) Exactly! If humans scientists, so intelligent and "evolved," could not create life but can separate hydrogen atoms to make pure hydroogen and thjey can chemically combine thigns (yes thoise realy happened), how could mother nature create life so perfectly? By accident, no less? 4) Um, hello, you have the burden of proof here. 5) But evolutoin/plate titonics can't explain the beauty and perfection. 6) Huh? 7) How could energy and matter form if they can't be eternal and can't come from nothing? 8) It's entirely possible and even likely that the similarites are due to a common Designer, not a common ancestor. 9) Proof of Christ's Resurrection and Divinity are Proof of God. Proof of God is Proof of Creationism. Proof of evoliuton can't coexist with an all-0loving Gpd. 10) Soirry if IU have a lot of typoes, my fingers are somwehat swollen today.
Evolution is true

In no way does your point prove that humans came from apes or any other animal. Concerning your point of E. coli being able to conusme citric acid, that doesn't prove bullpucky. Humans used to not eat pigs; now we do. Furthermore, people weren't able to fly to the moon until recently. But genetically we haven't changed much. Change in behavior is NOT necessarily due to a shitf in genes. Evolution can't explain the complexity of each cell--not even humans, the allegedly most evolved and intelligent, could create such complex life. Creation is glaringly evident; each species is so wonderfully adapted beyond what natural selection could explain. It doesn't account for the beauty in every sunrise or the wonder of the mountains. It doesn't account for how the universe could have possibly formed natrally--after all where'd the original energy come from? Either energy and matter ore eternal, or there is an eternal God. The first one doesn't make sense, so clearly there is a Creating God. As for the genetic similarities between us and monkys, again, that'sd not proving bullpucky. It's entirely possible and even likely that the similarites are due to a common Designer, not a common ancestor. And the Christological argument makes it painstakingly obvious. Jesus' existence, resurrection, and divinity have been proven by historians, even the Godless ones. This proves that there is a creating God, and that new life results not from natural processes but from divine choices. I await your rebuttals.
Evolution is true

Evolution is true.The proof: E. Coli Long Term ExperimentOver a period of 26 years and 50,000 generations a strain of E. Coli that that can only consume citric acid in an anaerobic environment evolved to be able to consume citric acid in an aerobic environment. None of the bacteria before generation 20,000 could consume citrate in an aerobic environment. This proves evolution.http://en.wikipedia.org...
Pc gaming is better than console gaming

First of all, I would like to point out that we are taling about gaming and gaming only, which does not involve homeowork or browsing the web. Here are my reasons of why: 1) When you play PC, you are hunched over a laptop computer. If you are a console gamer, you are playing in the nice big living room on a comfy sofa. 2) Yes, PC's are upgradable. But so are consoles. The main point here is instead of a million tiny upgrades, consoles have less upgrades. When a new one comes out, sell the old one and buy another. 3) If you want a good PC that you don't want to build, then it would cost about 750 dollars. And if you want any other quality games, it would cost about 1000. For that kind of money, you could buy 2 consoles AND the top games on the market. To wrap it all up, consoles with quality games are cheaper and more time-efficient concerning upgrades. I look forward to hearing your thoughts :)
Pc gaming is better than console gaming

Why is a gaming on a Pc better thangaming on a console? Pc gaming can use ANY type of controller(Xbox 360,Xbox One,Ps3,Ps4,even a mouse+keyboard),while consoles are limited to one. Pc's have more exclusives than all consoles COMBINED. Pc has free online multiplayer,while console players have to pay 50-60$ a month. Pc's can be hooked up to multiple monitors or tv's using hdmi/wireless hdmi or steam link and multitask,consoles can only use one tv Pc's can play up to 4k(2160p) and 60+FPS(Frames Per Second,while consoles can only hit 30FPS at around 720-900p Pc games are most of the time cheaper with steam sales,ans other websites selling them. On Pc's there is no need for backwards compatibility,in which consoles fail at,bringing only a few games back to next gen,whilst on Pc's you can play games from back when the original Xbox was out Pc's are upgradable and customizable,as you can install new LED lights and hardware into them Pc gaming has mods,console gaming doesn't Pc's has better vr(virtual reality) gameplay,even Oculus,the industry's leading vr company said consoles are far too limited on what they are planning Pc's can do even more than gaming,such as browsing the web,doing homework,and such
Pc gaming is better than console gaming

Because you did not make any arguments but proved mine wrong, I will make a few more. 1) Patches and updates in games. While console games are finished when you buy them, PC games are patched and updated often. It's nice to buy a finished game at the store. 2) Interaction with other people in first person. When you play a PC, even if it is multiplayer, the odds are slim you actually talk to someone. You may type in the chat box, but that is not real human interaction, while on a console game you can play games where you can talk to your family or friends. Thank you for offering an extension, but unfortunately I do not have time to continue this. Good luck!
universal healthcare

My opponent only has qualms with one of my contentions, contention 3. The rest remain standing, completely unscathed. I will now defend contention 3. My opponent claims that it is not selfishness to only look after your own needs. However, this is the very definition of selfishness. The poor do not have the ABILITY to look after anyone else's needs; they're the one's who NEED the help. Since his only problem with contention 3 was the fact that I equated only looking after your own needs with selfishness, I have now defended that point. Next, he notes that I said that a government is responsible for taking care of its citizens. He offers no criticism of this, and simply notes that most people agree with me ("what can my country do for me"). My case still stands.
universal healthcare

Selfish? Is it selfish for the rich to look after only their own needs? Well what about the poor? The poor dont care about anyone elses needs? Is it selfish to spend the money that you have earned, that you are entitled to, in the way that you want? Is that what is considered selfish? Also my oppenent says that it is the governments resposibility to take care of citezens. I think that the general consenses of Americans today is not what can I do for my country, but rather what can my country do for me. Universal healthcare will be the ultimate proof of this.
The World Would Be Much Better Without Religion

I want to end this debate by mentioning I don"t want to get RID of religion- that Stalin like attitude would not work- you can"t destroy or remove an idea. I would argue that, as you said, religion is not needed for a lot of things- it"s not needed for a lower crime rate or anything else really. I don"t really have anything to add beside rephrasing what I already said, so here are some links posted in the comments. https://en.wikipedia.org... links religion and schizophrenia, as some "religious episodes" are similar to schizophrenic ones. http://www.academia.edu... tells us how psychopaths can use religion as an excuse for behavior. http://www.academia.edu... shows that the Bible has a lot of propaganda, used to promote the religions growth in the past. I plotted data from https://en.wikipedia.org... and https://en.wikipedia.org... into a correlation coefficient calculator. Countries were Ireland, Tanzania, Burkina Faso, Estonia, Venezuela, Luxembourg, Sri Lanka, Iraq, and Australia. The correlation of positive religion views to homicide is .2506 (admittedly not much, but probably higher if I included more countries). The CC of negative views to homicide is -.244 (less correlated than positive, but this would probably be *de*creased with more countries). So, conclusively, I think religion has caused major setbacks, harm, and problems which it did not make up for in terms of good results. Thank you to my fellow debater and any voters.
The World Would Be Much Better Without Religion

You make an excellent point about the non-major religions of the world. What damage {and/or good things} did they do especially in earlier history when they were the mainstream religions is a good question. I do think the second part can be countered. As you point out, correlations are not everything. I do think it shows that religion is not needed to have a lower crime and more peaceful place. I would argue though it is not the case that the issues in America are linked mostly to religion. There are many reasons why the US has higher rates of crime and health issues than say Norway. Poverty, sub-par health care system, etc. Therefore, I think the data can't argue that it is religion that causes those problems. And it should be noted that the crime rate in much of America is actually lower than it has been. It is also worth pointing out that people like Professor Steve Pinker note that the world in general is becoming a better place. Less people dying in wars, etc. The point I am hopefully making is that we don't need to get rid of religion to reduce crime and war because it is happening now. I don't think there is strong evidence to suggest that the main reason kids in foster care are more likely to end up in trouble with the law is because of religion. No evidence that a person who commits crime because of drug or alcohol issues is doing so because of religion {although there may be some cases where their use is linked to religion issues. For example, being told by the church that there is something wrong with you because you are gay, etc}. Poverty which is linked to things like high rates of teen pregnancies and some crimes is not caused mostly by religion. I would argue over the last few centuries at least, religion has not been the cause of most of the problems in the world. Therefore, getting rid of it is not going to make the world a better place. Looking at the earlier religions and its impact on the world back then might be different.
The World Would Be Much Better Without Religion

Religion has unleashed the terms holy war and blasphemy into the world. I feel like this debate has mostly been focusing on the major 5 world religions, so let me elaborate by expanding that. Some 'pagan' religions (which also count) cause(d) people to worship people as if they were gods, and not letting anything get in the way of that. Islam does generally discourage drinking, but the ideas in older mythologies led to the rise and fall of empires. Treating it as though the world would be better focuses on the good whilst not realizing the following: According to https://www.godisimaginary.com... (I could not find the primary source), higher belief rates correlate with lower iqs, higher STD rates, and homicide rates. The first image on https://www.pinterest.com... (combined with other sources like the World Peace Index) states that on average, the less religious your country, the more peaceful. Of course, these correlations aren't everything. I argue that religion does some good, especially in the past. But now, I feel as though it is quite the opposite.
The World Would Be Much Better Without Religion

I might not have to prove that religion would be mostly good for the world. I think I might just have to prove that the world would not be significantly better without it. Correct me if I am wrong. I would argue that the evidence would show that most of the problems in the world would exist with or without religion. Poverty, disease, accidents, most wars, some terrorism, violent street crime, drug and alcohol issues, etc. The top ten leading causes of death is not religion for example. There are some studies that say that some high risk people are less likely to do bad things with religion in their lives {although religion can contribute to bad as well and the studies might not be 100% convincing}. I would also say that religions that discourage people from drinking are probably reducing alcohol related crimes. {Maybe}. There are also many charities started and supported by religious people {although there are non religious ones}. So, I would say that given most of the problems in the world would exist without religion and religion does at least some good that might suggest that the world would not be much better off without religion. Hope that made sense.
The World Would Be Much Better Without Religion

I would just like to point out that you simply made rebuttals (they were good, however) to my claims without actually really pointing out how religion would be mostly good for the world. While religion certainly helped inspire science, it also set it back. Just look at Galileo: https://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov.... Sure the church may not be really anti science now, but they certainly were back in his time. Let's look at pagan religions. They let people (like Vikings) do great but also bad things. And even older religions such as the Egyptian gods have really contributed to an Authoritarian society, where the pharaoh was considered a god. So, again, until you provide lots of evidence religion would be good, I stick with my position that the pros of no religion outweigh the cons.
The World Would Be Much Better Without Religion

Thanks so much for taking the debate. I agree with you that there has been wars because of religion but most wars are not caused by religion. At least according to the "Encyclopedia of Wars, " http://www.huffingtonpost.com... You raise a good point about LGBTQ equality. The below article does say religion can fuel anti-gay beliefs but it says it depends on specific things. It depends on what type of a religious person you are etc. Plus, other factors can also make people hold anti-gay views http://www.patheos.com.... I found it interesting that there have been societies that have been anti-gay and they have not been Christian or Islamic etc. And non-religious reasons have been given for the anti-gay position, culture for example. http://www.politicalforum.com.... I think the science argument can be countered a bit more strongly. Yes there are Christians out there that believe the world is only thousands of years old, etc but the church is not as anti-science as some people believe. The Catholic Jesuits played a big role in developing science. Islamic people played a big role in medical science breakthroughs, I think critical-thinking is not something that exists only on the atheistic side. I think you would also find some atheists that do not use critical thinking. When people say there is no evidence that religion makes people do good things or that religion has not done any good. {I am referring to Richard Dawkins here} That is not an objective view because if he had looked at it objectively he would see that there is evidence and there are some good things.
The World Would Be Much Better Without Religion

Religions can be taken to an extreme. To be fair, so can any belief set. But religion is an outlier. There have been several wars caused by religion (https://en.wikipedia.org...), and this often leads to a bias, especially in media and politics. Without the Bible condemning the stoning of gays, LGBTQ equality could've happened centuries ago. While I admit that religion has inspired many things such as famous paintings, I think it would be better for the critical thinking skills of the world, and also the imagination of the artists (otherwise they are overrated). Religion causes people to think without acting, although sometimes there are benefits, such as with Buddhism. Most religions seek power, and though there would obviously be some consequences as a result of no religion, the pros of no religion outweigh the cons in my mind.
The World Would Be Much Better Without Religion

I am generally interested in the answer. I have decided to choose Con because I think the world would not be much different than now. I would argue that many of the common reasons cited against religion may not be accurate. I do think there is often strong views held on both sides that do not move the debate forward. I am not arguing that religion never does wrong but that the negative impact on the world may be overly exaggerated and some of the good downplayed or ignored. If you can cite actual evidence for your position that would be great.
Racism is responsible for world's anarchy.

With regards to Pro's summation of a, he still hasn't proven that the world is in anarchy. In fact, all he says on that is that the world is on fire. Whilst it is true that in some of the more arid countries wildfires are common, I don't believe that using these arid zones as representative of the entire world would i) prove that the world is on fire (some arid zones don't have wildfires) or ii) that the world is in anarchy. So, his claim is still meaningless, because he hasn't proven that the thing that racism is supposed to be causing is actually happening. On b, Pro is entirely correct that humans are social animals. They operate in groups, and evolution favoured an ingroup-outgroup bias - that is, natural selection favoured those who discriminated between people inside and outside the group. However, this is evolutionary support for shared human xenophobia, not shared human racism. If Pro were to say that xenophobia is one of the main causes of conflict in the world, I would be inclined to agree. But to focus narrowly on one form of xenophobia and blame it for all world conflict is an exaggeration. I concede the point that a concerted approach is needed to tackle xenophobia. On c, how will removing racism make evil more controllable? Also, I mentioned evolution before and I'm going to do it again now because evolution gives the human race an ingroup-outgroup bias. If you remove racism, people will find another way to discriminate between themselves - people are wired to define categories and make distinctions, and if you take away racism, they'll find another. There's a perfectly simple way of solving this - get rid of xenophobia. That is a motion I could support. But to take away just one form of xenophobia and expect 'far lesser and more controllable evils' is a hope that is doomed to failure. You cannot just scratch the surface, you must take out the root. I look forward to the next round, INTJPhilosopher