BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: The use of sexual reproduction is more justified than the use of asexual reproduction.

I accept this challenge. I shall be justifying that sexual reproduction is superior to asexual reproduction. Self-sacrifice: "The self-sacrifice of asexual reproduction proves its superiority." Sexual reproduction requires self sacrifice as well, to some extent. The Mantis (an insect) male sacrifices his life, just for reproduction. http://www.thecambodiaherald.com... This is just one example, there are many creatures who suffer to sexually reproduce. Whether it is fighting to get a mating partner, going through pregnancy risking death (though this is just mammals) or in the extreme case something like the Mantis. Hence my opponent's argument is invalid, as sexual reproduction can be Altruistic. Efficiency: " Asexual reproduction is faster and more efficient..." Agreed here, asexual reproduction is faster, but the number of offspring who survive is much lower in asexual creatures than in sexual. My argument below shall prove this point Genetic Variation: A huge advantage of Sexual reproduction is genetic variation, in other words the genes of off springs are the combination of both their parents' genes which means that every offspring that the two parents make will have a variety of genetic codes (a random combination of genes from both the mother and the father). The off springs with genes that better equip them for survival will survive and will reproduce while those with genes that hinder their survival will die off and will not reproduce(natural selection). Creatures who sexually reproduce are far quicker to adapt to a change of environment (change of climate, or a new disease) due to their genetic variety and natural selection. This is why sexual reproduction is so predominant in this world. My opponent stated that "Genetic codes can help produce several inherited disabilities". There are flaws with this statement since asexually reproducing creatures have genetic codes as well, its just that they lack variety. A sexually reproducing species is well able to get rid of those disabilities. The individuals with those disabilities will be on a lower footing when it comes to survival. They will almost certainly be killed off by mother nature before they reproduce. Therefore, inherited disabilities is taken care of, thus making my opponents statement invalid and sexual reproduction is proven to be superior. http://www.edinformatics.com...
Resolved: The use of sexual reproduction is more justified than the use of asexual reproduction.

Value: Life Criterion: Altruism Justification: Life is an intrinsic value. All other values could not exist without life. Definitions: Sexual Reproduction: The production of new living organisms by combining genetic information from two individuals of different types (sexes). Asexual Reproduction: Reproduction without the use of gametes. Justice: Giving each their due. Contention #1: The self-sacrifice of asexual reproduction proves its superiority. It is very clear that processes such as budding and fission result in the death or shrinkage of the original cell. This is clearly an altruistic behavior, and altruism clearly supports the ultimate value of life. This self-sacrifice provides an external precedent that would cause more individuals to sacrifice themselves not just in the name of reproduction but also for the benefit of the entire community, which supports both life and the universal quality of life. Contention #2: Asexual reproduction is faster and more efficient, and thus supports life and altruism Sexual reproduction generally can take a length of time ranging from months to years. Asexual reproduction can occur in milliseconds. Although individuals must sacrifice the aesthetic value of giving birth in order to achieve this efficiency, relinquishing that aesthetic value would benefit the entire community with the faster reproduction, showing that asexual reproduction supports both life and altruism. Contention #3: Genetic coding is not altruistic and harms life. Genetic codes can help produce several inherited disabilities. These disabilities could be mitigated through asexual reproduction, where genetic coding would not be required for reproduction. Although individuals would have to sacrifice the aesthetic value of raising a disabled child, asexual reproduction would therefore benefit both offspring and the community and support life.
Debate Regarding a few listed subjects.

I negate the resolution: "One should not believe tales of miracles that contradict of prior experience. " Definitions: -"should not believe") I interpret this as a rational ought; to believe this proposition would act against rationality -"miracles") "[Things] which are done by divine agency beyond the order commonly observed in nature" (Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles) Argument: 1) If a testimony or tale is reliable, one can be rationally justified in believing it. - If a tale is reliable, it has evidence for its truth. If there is no evidence against it, one could be completely rational in believing the tale, considering the fact that their belief would be based on evidence. 2) Therefore, if a testimony or tale of a miracle is reliable, one can be rationally justified in believing it. -This conclusion simply applies the reasoning from 1 to a testimony or tale of a miracle.
Debate Regarding a few listed subjects.

1. Substance Dualism isn't as crazy as it sounds. 2. One should not believe tales of miracles that contradict of prior experience. 3. Utilitarianism is fundamentally superior to Kantianism. 4. Kantianism is fundamentally superior to Utilitarianism. 5. Pragmatism is a superior life view. 6. Humans are not truly individuals. 7. Causality is not provable. 8. Kierkegaard is wrong, ethics and morality cannot be suspended, even for a higher goal. 9. Assuming that God exists, Abraham was wrong in trying to sacrifice Isaac.
Ali and Cece are A

Thank you, mia11111.Negative Case A1: Inductive LogicMy opponent claims that I was not clear with my explanation. However, my opponent agrees that she said "probably", which implictly concedes the debate. Again, my opponent has to prove, in order to fulfil the resolution, that Ali and Cece are A, NOT that they are likely A. Hence, my contention here still stands.A2: Bare assertionsThis point was completely dropped. My opponent gives no evidence to show that any of what she said was true. For this reason alone, my opponent fails to meet her burden of proof, and therefore fails to affirm the resolution, leaving it negated (which wins me the debate).Rebuttals"I'd also like to point out, you did not give a reason stating that Ali and Cece are not A."My opponent commits a negative proof fallacy by assuming that Con is the one that has to provide evidence [1]. It would be like saying that because you cannot disprove that God exists (cannot give a reason stating that Ali and Cece are not A), therefore God exists (therefore, Ali and Cece are A). Rather, what the actual result is that God is neither proven nor disproven, hence you cannot say that He exists. Similarly, you cannot say that Ali and Cece are either A or not A, hence you cannot say that they are A.C: Summary of the debateBoth my contentions stand, the first esepcially so since my opponent agreed with me, and the latter because my opponent never addressed it. The resolution is negated.Reference[1] http://rationalwiki.org...
Ali and Cece are A

Your definition of inductive is correct, although your reason being had no applicability to what the word 'inductive'. You were not clear on what you were attempting to say. I said probably, but in my defense, 'probably' was the only word applicable in that matter. I'd also like to point out, you did not give a reason stating that Ali and Cece are not A. What you said was not a counter argument or a debate, it was merely a comment made for the comment section.
Ali and Cece are A

Thank you, mia11111 for instigating this debate.Negative CaseA1: Inductive LogicThe problem with my opponent's arguments is that some of them are formed using inductive logic. Inductive logic only holds a degree in probability, rather than an obsolute certainty [1]. This renders my opponent's arguments confirming that Ali and Cece are A as *likely*, yet this does not fulfil the burden of proof to confirm that Ali and Cece are A (which is the resolution).For example:"If you look closely during the episode of Mona's death, you can see that in one shot of A, A has blonde hair that is slightly shorter and is curled only in the front (Ali's hair style) and in another shot of A, A has long hair that is completely curled (Cece)."A's blonde hair does not necessarily mean that because Ali has a similar hairstyle, it has to be Ali. It is *likely* that it is Ali, yet this is not confirmed with this proof.A2: Bare assertionsThe other problem with my opponent's arguments it that they are bare assertions. For example:"I strongly believe that Cece and Ali are A because Mona finds proof of Ali being A before she dies."What is this proof? Where is this proof? How do we know that you are not making this up? Until proof is given, statements like these are bare assertions.C: ConclusionDue to my opponent's arguments being either inductive in their logic and/or bare assertions, my opponent's argument do not meet the standard of evidence required to affirm the resolution. Therefore, the resolution is negated.Reference[1] http://plato.stanford.edu...
Ali and Cece are A

1.I strongly believe that Cece and Ali are A because Mona finds proof of Ali being A before she dies. 2. If you look closely during the episode of Mona's death, you can see that in one shot of A, A has blonde hair that is slightly shorter and is curled only in the front (Ali's hair style) and in another shot of A, A has long hair that is completely curled (Cece). 3.At the end of the episode, when it is announced that Mona was murdered, the camera goes straight to Ali hiding in the background. 4. In the next episode (the Christmas episode), we see that Ali is probably hooking up with Detective Holbrook which would make it easy for her to sneak Cece out of the country 5.Cece shows up at the charity ball about a month after Monas death, suggesting that she was there during the murder. 6.At the end of the episode, right after Ali watches the girls eating, Ali decides that she doesn't want them to be happy so she sends them the A message. 7.In the next episode, Mrs. Vanderwal accuses Ali of killing Mona. 8.Near the end of the episode, there's an A message. The message could not be from Ali because she's in jail so it must have been from Cece. 9. At the end of the episode, when Ali is in her jail cell, there is commotion somewhere in the hallway and there are footsteps that get closer and closer to her. It's probably Cece trying to get Ali out of jail. 10. Ali is caught only once Holbrook is away, suggesting that he had been protecting her.
The probablity of Jonah dying from a great fish is greater than survivng.

Thanks for continuing the debate. There is two subjects we are disputing first, elements not within the story and second Abiogenesis. "You are introducing elements into the story that are not mentioned, and for which you have no evidence. That is usually fatal in a debate." donkeyFirst, you are using the same tactic, introducing elements into the story that are not mentioned. You claim God intervened on Jonah's behalf before Jonah prayed, yet there is no evidence within the story of that happening. Second, the topic is Assuming Jonah existed, the probability of Jonah dying from a great fish is greater than surviving three days and three nights in the belly of a great fish. I am arguing that it is more probable. I don't need to prove Jonah was attacked by a great white shark, only prove it was more probable than him surviving for 3 days and 3 nights inside the great fish.AbiogenesisAbiogenesis is a scientific theory which hypothesizes that the first lifeforms, single celled organisms, was created from inorganic matter.Warrant: [1]Impact: Abiogenesis is a scientific explanation for the origin of the first lifeforms thus countering my opponent's claim that God is the only answer for first lifeforms. Thanks for the debate.1. http://science.howstuffworks.com...
The probablity of Jonah dying from a great fish is greater than survivng.

There is no mention of God intervening between sending the great fish to swallow Jonah and Jonah praying.<< Irrelevant. God started the process and He finished it. In Jonah 1:17 God sends the great fish to swallow Jonah. In the very next verse, 2:1, Johan prays to the Lord. >> I think its safe to assume God didn't intervene. Also, I think it is far more likely that a great white shark killed Jonah and his identical twin brother replaced him, then for God to exist to perform the miracle in the first place.<< In a debate I KNOW it is unsafe to use things not in the text to try and make your point. First, great white sharks are not big enough to swallow a full grown man. If Jonah had a twin brother with him, the text would have mentioned it, >>There is no scientific proof of God.<< Sure there is. Science knows for sure that it is impossible for lifeless elements to produce life. So logically speaking the existence of life must have not only an omnipotent God, He must also be an Intelligent Designer. >>Considering the number of fields of science, this covers a lot of territory. From psychology, biology, astronomy, physics, and many more. << None of those disciplines and any others you care to name can only operate in the physical world and they can't prove God does not exist. What you believe you accept the exact same way I accept what I believe---Faith alone. However I have logic on my side, Matter cannot produce itself out of nothing, >>Then, there is the problem of who created God? << There is a bigger problem of did matter and life come into existence. IMO, logic is still on my side. >>If you answer a creator of some sort, then that leads to infinite regressions. The common answer seems to be God existed before time, yet how does that work? God existing before time does not make any sense. This then begs the question, how did God begin existing in the first place?,, Since we have life and matter and a perfectly ordered universe it is impossible for them not have been creatged. There ae 2 options: life and matter are eternal or the is an eternal Creator. Again my logic wins. >>It is far more likely that Jonah was killed by a great white shark and replaced by an identical twin, then for God to have saved Jonah via a miracle. Thanks for debating.<< You are introducing elements into the story that are not mentioned, and for which you have no evidence. That is usually fatal in a debate. You are welcome and I also thank you for debating the subject.
The probablity of Jonah dying from a great fish is greater than survivng.

R2 rebuttalsOpponent's arguments in bold and italics. "To bad you have no evidence for your tail." donkeyGreat white sharks and identical twins exist this is common knowledge. "You are leaving God out of the story. For one who can speak the universe and life into being, keeping Jonah alive would be piece of cake." donkey There is no mention of God intervening between sending the great fish to swallow Jonah and Jonah praying. I think its safe to assume God didn't intervene. Also, I think it is far more likely that a great white shark killed Jonah and his identical twin brother replaced him, then for God to exist to perform the miracle in the first place. There is no scientific proof of God. Considering the number of fields of science, this covers a lot of territory. From psychology, biology, astronomy, physics, and many more. Then, there is the problem of who created God? If you answer a creator of some sort, then that leads to infinite regressions. The common answer seems to be God existed before time, yet how does that work? God existing before time does not make any sense. This then begs the question, how did God begin existing in the first place? It is far more likely that Jonah was killed by a great white shark and replaced by an identical twin, then for God to have saved Jonah via a miracle. Thanks for debating.
The probablity of Jonah dying from a great fish is greater than survivng.

Full topic: Assuming Jonah existed, the probability of Jonah dying from a great fish is greater than surviving three days and three nights in the belly of a great fish.<< There is an actual account that the same thing happened years ago. I will try to find it and post it in my next response. Jonah is the character in the Bible that was swallowed by a great fish. [0] >>I propose that instead Jonah was attacked by a great white shark which ripped him to pieces killing him, ate him, and digested him. Jonah was never seen again, but Jonah had an identical twin brother that went on to carry in his stead.<< To bad you have no evidence for your tail. >>I fail to see the logic of Jonah surviving the teeth, jaw strength, digestion, and lack of oxygen for such a length of time.<< You are leaving God out of the story. For one who can speak the universe and life into being, keeping Jonah alive would be piece of cake.
The probablity of Jonah dying from a great fish is greater than survivng.

Full topic: Assuming Jonah existed, the probability of Jonah dying from a great fish is greater than surviving three days and three nights in the belly of a great fish. Jonah is the character in the Bible that was swallowed by a great fish. [0] I propose that instead Jonah was attacked by a great white shark which ripped him to pieces killing him, ate him, and digested him. Jonah was never seen again, but Jonah had an identical twin brother that went on to carry in his stead. I fail to see the logic of Jonah surviving the teeth, jaw strength, digestion, and lack of oxygen for such a length of time. 0. https://www.biblegateway.com...
More guns less crime

"I think I'm supposed to post something here supporting my own argument or something, but it looks like my opponent already did so for me. My opponent shows a piece of evidence showing that gun control actually reduced the crime rates of a region, where it went down by 89%." 1. where is it 2. that was when a law made everyone own a gun, not gun control 3. My graphs proved more guns less crime. 4. fail of a rebuttal
More guns less crime

I think I'm supposed to post something here supporting my own argument or something, but it looks like my opponent already did so for me. My opponent shows a piece of evidence showing that gun control actually reduced the crime rates of a region, where it went down by 89%. If the judges don't believe me, they should try out looking back at my opponent's evidence and read it for themselves. At this point, it shows that gun control for the motive of deterring criminality can work at some level.
More guns less crime

My computer is having a fritz, So I will use graphs, but in link form. http://t3.gstatic.com... this graph proves more guns less crime http://gunsandbullets.files.wordpress.com... same deal Now lets look at Kennesaw Georgia Ga - Several Kennesaw officials attribute a drop in crime in the city over the past two decades to a law that requires residents to have a gun in the house. In 1982, the Kennesaw City Council unanimously passed a law requiring heads of households to own at least one firearm with ammunition. The ordinance states the gun law is needed to "protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants." Then-councilman J.O. Stephenson said after the ordinance was passed, everyone "went crazy." "People all over the country said there would be shootings in the street and violence in homes," he said. "Of course, that wasn't the case." In fact, according to Stephenson, it caused the crime rate in the city to plunge. Kennesaw Historical Society president Robert Jones said following the law's passage, the crime rate dropped 89 percent in the city, compared to the modest 10 percent drop statewide. [1] WHY IS IT BROWN?!?!?! So after the passing of the gun law crime dropped. http://www.rense.com... [1] I am sorry for the short argument, I am fighting a dumb computer, so bear with me, my next round argument WILL be longer.
Sex is the Meaning of Life

"Obtaining energy is a survival function and therefore is not factored into the "meaning" the meaning should be beyond what is necessary to survive. Sex goes beyond that, and although it is not necessary to live it is still very present in human society. " Why should the meaning of life be beyond what is needed to survive. It is merely a baseless assummption. And while sex is not necessary for surival you say that it is very present in human society so it is the meaning of life. I can think of a number of things that are very present in human society and that people may find great joy and meaning in. Religion is the biggest example. I'd say the existence of nuns, priests, pastors, monks and other people who devote their entire lives to their religion(while most abstain from sex) gives better evidence that religion is the meaning of life. Other things that are very present in human society are natural disasters(tornadoes, earthquakes) or war. Just because something is present in society and people may find joy in it does not make it the meaning of life. "The reason the meaning of life would be to have fun is that, outside of fun we are basically just surviving. Surviving is not enough, and therefore we seek fun, this again is found in sex which, as said before, is the most widely available source of pleasure. " Here you are arguing against yourself. While sex and fun may not be completely mutually exclusive, fun may entail dozens of activities depending on what one's preferences are. If the meaning of life is fun then certainly sex would be part of that but other thing's can be fun(carnivals, football). You are unclear on whether sex is the sole meaning of life or if fun is the meaning of life and sex is just a large part of that. "Also, based on recent studies, the average man tinks of sex every 7 seconds [1]. This is a significant portion of ones life to be thinking of a non-vital function. Therefore I belive sex is the meaning of life. " If one thinks about something alot that makes it the meaning of life. Well I spend a decent amount of time pondering different philosophical concepts. Does that make philosophy my life's purpose? And what did the study say about women? Do they think about sex as much or is the meaning of life different for them? To conclude, my opponent has brought forth no real arguments that would point to sex being the meaning of life. First he argues that because sex makes up a large part of society it should be the meaning of life. However he fails to recognize other activities that may play an even larger part in people's lives like religion. Next he starts to argue something completely different by claiming that fun is the meaning of life. I guess my opponent concedes that sex is not the meaning of life then. Last he argues that we thinnk about sex alot and so it is the meaning of life. He however only posted a statistic for men and we can assume men weren't the only people he was talking about when he claims sex to be the meaning of life.
Sex is the Meaning of Life

"It is also a built in instinct for every organism to feed and to obtain energy in some way. Would you say that eating is the meaning of life?" Obtaining energy is a survival function and therefore is not factored into the "meaning" the meaning should be beyond what is necessary to survive. Sex goes beyond that, and although it is not necessary to live it is still very present in human society. "It is up to you to show why the meaning of life is to have fun." The reason the meaning of life would be to have fun is that, outside of fun we are basically just surviving. Surviving is not enough, and therefore we seek fun, this again is found in sex which, as said before, is the most widely available source of pleasure. Also, based on recent studies, the average man tinks of sex every 7 seconds [1]. This is a significant portion of ones life to be thinking of a non-vital function. Therefore I belive sex is the meaning of life. http://facts.randomhistory.com... [1]