BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Evolution is an undeniable fact!

What an excellent rebuttal! You presented some evidence I was unfamiliar with and have since had to research myself. Nonetheless, I think there are still problems with the idea of speciation driven by purely naturalistic means. You provide an interesting description of artificial selection, though I think it does little to demonstrate the feasibility of macroevolution. Artificial selection can generate many different types of animals, but the two examples you mentioned (dogs and cabbage) represent microevolution, not macroevolution. Dogs and wolves can interbreed (despite their taxonomical categorization as different species), and a cabbage and a cauliflower can generate offspring. A impressive finding would be artificially selecting a breed of dogs into cats, but of course that has never happened. (Now you will say, as you have said, that a human lifetime is not long enough to observe such a transition. But until we observe it (given the limits of theoretical biology and conceptual genetics), how do we know it is possible?) The evidence you offer from molecular genetics is intriguing. However, as a geneticist myself, I can tell you that no single gene is responsible for growing tails or growing teeth. The human gene that you claim codes for a tail may in fact contribute to the formation of the tailbone, or tissue associated with it. It is extremely difficult to dissociate all the genetic interactions that go on in the human body and establish the function of a single gene. Instead of being vestigial, it may once have served to form a more robust tailbone and, through a microevolutionary change, has become inactive. As for the chicken, again the gene may once have contributed to the formation of the chicks mouth and has become inactive due to microevolution. Your additional comments on the fossil record seem to concede that it is very incomplete; I would repeat that no reliable inference regarding broad biological lineages can be made from such minute evidence. Any statistician would conclude that, given the population size, the sample size is inadequate. In conclusion, I don't think your examples demonstrate macroevolution since all can be explained more simply through microevolutionary processes.
Evolution is an undeniable fact!

I apologize for posting my opening statement; I am new to this site and misread the rules. You claim that microevolution and macroevolution are based on the same process, and that macroevolution is just microevolution occurring many, many times. That is a nice conceptual idea, but how do you know? Without having observed macroevolution and studied its genetic repercussions, such a statement is silly. Regarding the species-specific genetic limit, I apologize for not making myself more clear. I did not mean that individual organisms have limited capacity for genetic mutation (if they did, your point about infertility would be an excellent rebuttal). Rather, I meant that the species as a whole cannot vary much from its wild type genetic structure without becoming extinct; that of course includes mutations handed down from parents to offspring. If mutations accumulate too much (typically long before any prospect of speciation), the animal dies. I think this is compelling evidence to illustrate the dubious claims of macroevolution. When I said that "macroevolution has never been observed outside of extremely controlled laboratory environments," that is exactly what I meant. In certain populations of bacteria, speciation is feasible given complex environmental regulation and genetic manipulation. However, nature does not provide such carefully crafted environments, and so these experiments do little to establish that speciation is feasible in the wild. In your rebuttal, you addressed the issue of fossilization and suggested that the improbability of preserving a fossil for millions of years explains why the fossil record is incomplete. That seems reasonable (though I am no expert in paleontology), but that presents a problem. You are claiming that evidence exists, we just don't have access to it. Insofar as fossils do not reflect a smooth zoological lineage, they are not evidence for evolution. That would be like saying that a huge dinosaur exists, but has never been seen because he only roams about at night; that explanation is plausible, but woefully insufficient to establish the existence of such a dinosaur. Thanks for debating!
Evolution is an undeniable fact!

Greetings. To begin with, I would like to make clear that I will not be providing proof for evolution's inadequacy; when speaking on a scientific topic in which empirical evidence is used to sustain assertions, certainty is never possible. However, I believe a powerful case can be made to question evolution's capacity to explain the biological diversity on earth. I will mainly focus on discrediting macroevolution (the evolutionary process of speciation), since microevolution is an observed fact embraced by the most embattled creationists. In asserting that evolution is responsible for the development of life from a common ancestor billions of years ago, scientists must mainly extrapolate limited data to a scale at which most other claims would not be taken seriously. The inference that because, say, a cat is white all cats are therefore white is dismissed as absurd, but a comparable claim regarding genetic mutation and natural selection is routinely made by evolution's proponents. Just because allelic frequencies shift in a population as a result of environmental changes does little to justify the grand themes of macroevolutionary thought, including that a single-celled organism generated, with time, modern humans. In fact, research has revealed that their seems to be a species-specific limit on the number of mutations an organism can sustain; beyond this limit, the creature's genetic infrastructure collapses and the animal dies.The fact that macroevolution has never been observed outside of extremely controlled laboratory environments reveals the process's fragility. Secondly, given the significant and foundational questions left unanswered about our earth's past, it seems dubious to apply familiar environmental conditions to the distant past. Finally, the fossil record -- though frequently used to bolster the evolutionary theory -- is able to provide clear lineages for very few zoological groups (reptile to mammal transition, supposedly, is well documented). However, countless holes remain in the fossil data which should not be expected if truly every single extinct creature who ever lived is lying somewhere in the earth. Thank you for debating and I look forward to your response.
Evolution is an undeniable fact!

As pro,i will try to prove that there are no reasons to doubt that evolution is a fact. I am not trying to disprove the existence of God or anything (God and evolution can coexist),but to show that evolution is an undeniable fact. Con will try to disprove the title of this debate. Round 1: Acceptance Round 2: Opening statements Round 3: Rebuttals Round 4: Rebuttals and closing statements (Own opinions are welcome) Rule no. 1: No bad words ...that's about it. I wish good luck to the con!
Grappling martial arts are more vital towards self-defense than Striking martial arts

Now, onto the issue at hand (I will be addressing each of your arguments in numerical form) 1. In your opening statement, you completely overgeneralized. You cannot categorize striking martial arts as just throwing punches any more than I can categorize grappling martial arts as rolling around with other men/women on the floor. 2. You continuously use boxing as an example of striking martial arts. Now, boxing is a very formidable combat system, there's no doubting that; but you are using one of the most up-close and personal combat styles and letting it symbolize an entire branch of martial arts. I only say this because many styles of kung fu/tae kwon do/karate are centered around keeping a moderate distance from the opponent (in order to minimize chances of being grappled) and maneuvering around them, making sure that you maintain a steady barrage of strikes until the opponent is eventually overwhelmed. 3. This one is entirely personal, but in martial arts, experienced strikers never, ever let "a lucky punch or two," hit them, especially not from a quarter-ton giant. 4. If you are a grappling practitioner, and your opponent (Let's assume them to be a striker) "freezes up and is not able to do any more damage," you are fighting an EXTREMELY inexperienced striker. Many striking martial arts such as Choy Lay Fut, a style of kung fu world-famous for its remarkable defense, now practice the art of escaping from headlocks, strangleholds, and submission grabs, as they have recognized the danger of being in a position they are unfamiliar with. 5. I won't say anything regarding the Gracie family because, as fellow martial artists, I, as well as a small group of my friends, pretty much worship them (Only inside our jiujitsu studio, though. In kung fu or muay thai, we would probably get hit in the face) With all that said, I would like to point out that we are not debating the superiority of striking/grappling martial arts in MMA--we are debating whether or not grappling is more vital to self-defense. In a life or death situation, the risk is too high to be thinking about what hold you will be placing your assailant(s) under. Even if you are hit/kicked/slashed, a few well-timed punches and kicks can save your life.
Grappling martial arts are more vital towards self-defense than Striking martial arts

Striking martial arts require a vast amount of skill however, almost everyone knows how to throw a punch and will instinctively do so if a fight were to arise. Whenever punches are being thrown an experienced boxer will be able to weave through most strikes however the probability of them dodging every punch is very slim. In such case a much larger opponent, or anyone who can get good enough speed behind their hit, will be able to knock out even the most experienced fighters with a lucky punch or two.On the ground it is a different story. Many people will know instinctively when wrestling to try to grab you and put you into a head lock or something of the sort, which an experienced wrestler will turn into a suplex and control from there, or a jiu-jitsu practitioner will be able to move it down to the ground and possibly transition to an arm bar or any other submission they see fit. Once on the ground and in a position that they opponent does not know ( which for anyone without training pretty much ends at headlocks ) they 9 times out of 10 freeze up and will not be able to do any more damage. This can be seen in just about any match for a grappling competition where a more experienced competitor goes up against an amateur competitor. The amateur will always stop moving entirely in positions that they do not know and this makes it easier for the more experienced competitor to finish their opponent without any resistance.Another example of the dominance of grappling sports would be the Gracie family in Mixed Martial Arts (MMA). The Gracie family dominated MMA back whenever it was just starting out. At the time, people would only study one martial art and use that in their matches. The Gracie family took Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu to center stage in these events, usually fighting much larger opponents to show how jiu-jitsu helped smaller people defeat larger opponents. Including Helio Gracie's first fight, where he submitted national boxing champion Antonio Portugal in 30 seconds. Later Helio Gracie went on to win the 1st ever MMA single-elimination tournament facing much larger opponents than him. Nowadays everyone in MMA will study Jiu-Jitsu to make sure that they can stay safe from submission attempts so they are not as common, but still do play a major role in MMA.
Rap battle

You inspect beef? Well, that's a reliefCheck your self quick while I sharpen my teethCuz, you see, I'm a carnivore, and I'm ready to eatSaucy and sweet, beans and rice will make it completeCome take a seat, prepare yourself quite the treatSee how a real emcee releases on a beatFeel the beauty of knowledge granted from defeatLike heavy elements from a quasar releasedDestruction begets creation, like the sensationOf stubbing your little toe while you're cumming in an AsianAnd I'm never raging, always even in my toneSo, even if I'm tipsy, or even completely blownIt'll be like a geeky teen throwing punches at pure stoneThis bacon bit needs to awaken, I'm seriously just waitingFor him to mistake three hundred pounds for intimidatingTalking about sex, when he knows that he's still waiting,And if it ever happens, you know that you'll be payingAnd you versus me, kid, it's really not fairI was something like shocked when you ventured to dareMy glock is now cocked and I'm watching you stareDown the tunnel of eternity, this moment is rareAnd there's sweat on your brow, you can feel erect hairsOn the nape of your neck as you heave more airYou can't breathe when your near me, we'll call it respectPerhaps it's the intellect, or just the dialectJust be graceful when you notice that your match has been metAnd bow to the Ren, and then make you never forget
Rap battle

microphone check 1, 2 check MarquisX check beef like a meat inspector the best of the best not to mention the sex the reason why you and your ex are now exes I hate to brag but killed my patience, hating so now I rub it into your face like acne medication The only one that's real regarding rapping because way before I spit it Somebody done seen it happen So my words is confirmed and they reaffirm the fact that I burn rappers. Quick! Get him an urn! Testing the great many have took they turn I'm like "The school system failed" cause these kids ain't learned It's only one great why would you debate? plus I got your chick covered like Shake N bake She ain't gonna get turned down she gonna get turned out like blunts when I'm done smoking her butt burnt out My minds a menace my pen got powers spit at kids early call it the baby shower You're nothing like me Women really like me pillowcase sex life I get head nightly your threats don't excite me your sh*t is humor And my crotch bulge like my thigh has a tumor Dog, it's not a rumor My d*ck is really like that the reason why she tell you "Baby I'll be right back" I know you want to fight that, but you know better cause I rip rappers up like rejection letters tell me who's more clever and I'll lay my crown down but for now I'll come from everywhere like I flow in surround sound Come, calm down you read it now hush or I'll put your butt on ice like Anheuser-Busch Wheres the copyright fee? He's trying to sound just like me but the flow is beef jerky so tough to bite me
Rap battle

I don't want to talk, kid, I'm ready to spit acid That will burn through your baby bib Like the sun through a glass lid In fact, I fasted so no matter how tragic Your insecure raps is, I can outlast it So, no more warnings, it's time for the Gamma Burst Because, I'm impervious to your failure verse In fact, I won't even curse, just cleanly disperse You tell me if I seem nervous as I snatch your purse In the first out of three -- and it only gets worse And even if you were juggernaut (and, btw you're not) You can just call me Cyclops -- as soon as your spotted, your heart stops, your chest shot So beat me? Clearly, I think not
Rap battle

so you wanna talk words and verses? You wanna duel with profanities and curses? that's like jumping into a working furnace And drinking gasoline while your burning How dare you challenge me to a lyrical skirmish You mirthless clown, you're worthless get back to the circus You nervous? Of course you are; I shine bright as a quasar I got that that viagra flow, My rhymes just stay hard You're Quasimodo ugly @ss retard So no living happily ever after It'll be a disaster Last thing you hear would be my laughter. I'm gonna end it short, consider this a warning shot. You can't harm me Nigga, I'm the fuckin juggernaut!
Politifact is biased

I thank RoyLatham for instigating the challenge. It is an interesting topic of discusssion and I look forward to the debate. As agreed on by PM, I will add two new definitions: prejudiced: Having or showing a dislike or distrust that is derived from prejudice; bigoted. Prejudice: a. An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts. b. A preconceived preference or idea.
Politifact is biased

Politifact is a web site [1. http://www.politifact.com...] that claims to determine the truth of political statements. They are one of several sites including snopes, factcheck, and the Washington Post Factchecker that claim to sort out political truth. Politifact claims to find lies made both by Democrats and Republicans, but the question in this debate is whether they lean towards the Democrats or maintain the fact checking impartiality that they claim. I will affirm that they are biased overall in favor of Democrats. My opponent will argue that they are not biased. "Bias" is a particular tendency or inclination, especially one that prevents unprejudiced consideration of a question; prejudice. [2. http://dictionary.reference.com...]I don't doubt that Politifact believes they unbiased. The question is whether they in fact treat both sides equally.Thanks to my opponent for accepting this debate.In this debate I will number references sequential from the start of the debate. This allows citing a reference in a previous round by just giving the number of the reference without also giving the round number. Con is not obliged to use my numbering system.RulesThis opening round is for definitions and acceptance only. I will give the Pro case at the start of the second round.Standard debate conventions apply. I list them here for the benefit of new debaters and readers. I believe there is nothing tricky or eccentric. Both sides agree to the following rules, and that violating the rules is a conduct violation, with anything contrary to the rules to be ignored by readers judging the debate:DR 1. All arguments must be made in the debate. Evidence may be cited or linked from the debate, but only in support of arguments made in the debate. Arguments made in Comments are to be ignored.DR 2. Source links or references must be included within the 8000 characters per round limit of the debate. No links or sources are permitted in comments.DR 3 Any term not specifically defined before use is to be taken with the ordinary dictionary definition of the term that best fits the context of the debate. DR 4. No new arguments shall be made in Round 4. Pro may rebut previous arguments using new evidence solely for that purpose, but no new arguments are allowed. Con may not present any new evidence in R4.DR 5. DDO site rules always apply. Neither side may add or modify rules for the debate once the challenge is accepted.
Perilla on the Rhye Fence

I believe that the Orilarians were the reason Ghorfan decided to take the harborexal cube to the Kurken of Alibarta. I hear countless times that it had been Lormah's anger towards his success in the Circadior Pandigm during his fourth fall that pushed his hand in breaking the Pact of Ferellia. I know that Perilla was glancing at Perilla during the harborexal myst, but Ghorfan didn't seem phased by her presence. Though his time with the Orilarians was short lived, we know that their leader, Jyk, was ready to cast him out once they found out he'd been lying about the cube and his fourth fall. (Saying he was on his first fall, declaring himself the Harbor of Light) I think that during his time a year later in the Allakan Desert that he was visited at his camp by a few Orilarians that in was in fact Jyk that had ordered the breaking of the pact to vanquish the curse that Lormah had ridden him with. It was Jyk not Lormah that made him break the pact using the harborexal cube on Perilla.
Perilla on the Rhye Fence

I can see where you're coming from with the Orilarians, but I think it's impossible to truly decide on whether or not he was visited by Jyk. While Jyk did have something to gain from breaking the pact, I don't think that his personality would call for an intervention with Ghorfan later on, especially since we could see how angry he was when he was cast out. The Orilarians are a very passionate race full of hate and grudges against the other worlds and I don't think that Jyk had enough time to forgive Jyk, and I don't think his pride would have let him be so candid with Ghorfan in asking for the favor of his fourth fall to be used on breaking the pact.
Jesus Christ loves gays equally as much as straights.

I never said I agree with you, You cant even make a proper debate to have someone respond to. It is true that the Jesus in your bible never made statements about homosexuality. but you said he did. you said he loves gays but Jesus never said anything about the subject positive or negative so it doesn't matter anyway. So in the end you have failed to make any new points. Respond to anything that I said in round two and you essentially have failed to actually debate and make a clear topic on which to take a side on. This entire "debate" you have made, is so completely vague that I couldn't even make sense of what you were trying to debate in the end. If you actually read this far down Stupidape, then I would suggest you take the time to think about your topic and your thesis and opening arguments harder. Thank you.
Jesus Christ loves gays equally as much as straights.

First off, that was my opening statement. Now, one with the debate. Look, it seems you have misunderstood my point. The point was, how am I supposed to debate a topic about what Jesus said or didn't say when he made no statements or parables about homosexuality in the first place, so because of that, I took the argument in a new direction by asking you, isn't Jesus also God? Because A very large number of people in your religion would think so. What I am trying to say is that, since Jesus is also your God and your god the holy spirit and all that trinity stuff, that means that Gods actions and his deeds you believe to be true would matter and be relevant here. Basically, since your basic thesis makes no claims that are technically wrong, we should move the debate to a more relevant topic about homosexuality in the bible. Its really about God loving or hating gays that we should be debating. So I either encourage you to start a better titled debate and we can debate there or write up something now so I can respond to it.
Jesus Christ loves gays equally as much as straights.

Hello there my friend. This is my first debate in a year, so I'm excited to debate this. First off, I would like to state I'm an atheist, so I have a lack of belief in god or gods. Second: Yes sexual orientation is static, your gender (whether your gay or straight or bi) is what your born with. Also, Jesus Christ, whether or not he existed, didn't ever, once, say anything about homosexuality in the bible. However isn't Jesus not only the Son of God, but God himself? I end my opening statements: Good luck!
Jesus Christ loves gays equally as much as straights.

This is strictly from a Christian point of view. I hear slogans otherwise. I want to clarify what I think is correct. Jesus Christ loves gays as much as straight people. Here's why, there is a vast difference between sexual orientation and sinful deeds. Sexual orientation is a static state, like being male, Caucasian, and naturally red hair. You don't really have much control if any over these characteristics. Actions on the other hand you do. Sin, is a breach of God's divine law. Simply by being gay you are not sinning in anyway. A gay person can be a virgin or marry the opposite sex. That being said homosexual actions are considered sin by the Bible. In summary, there is a great chasm between a human's sexual orientation and sinful acts of homosexuality. God hates sin. God loves gays as much as straights. Thanks for reading.