BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Species Are Evidence for Intelligent Design Science, Not for evo THEORY

Pro argues that cells do in fact not derive from chemicals, but this is quite easily disputed. A few different scientific outlets have addressed the cell-origin question, and they all state things like this: 'What is certain is that, at some point in evolution, larger organic molecules " such as nucleic acids and amino acids " began to form, aided by the volatile climate of the time. Scientists can only speculate on how many different combinations of molecules were rejected by natural selection before molecules that had the qualities needed to persist evolved.' [2.] https://bigpictureeducation.com... The fourth edition of Molecular Biology and the Cell had this to say: 'Matter is made of combinations of elements--substances such as hydrogen or carbon that cannot be broken down or converted into other substances by chemical means. The smallest particle of an element that still retains its distinctive chemical properties is an atom. However, the characteristics of substances other than pure elements--including the materials from which living cells are made--depend on the way their atoms are linked together in groups to form molecules. In order to understand how living organisms are built from inanimate matter, therefore, it is crucial to know how all of the chemical bonds that hold atoms together in molecules are formed.' And: 'There are 92 naturally occurring elements, each differing from the others in the number of protons and electrons in its atoms. Living organisms, however, are made of only a small selection of these elements, four of which"carbon (C), hydrogen (H), nitrogen (N), and oxygen (O)"make up 96.5% of an organism's weight. This composition differs markedly from that of the nonliving inorganic environment (Figure 2-3) and is evidence of a distinctive type of chemistry. The most common elements in living organisms are listed in Table 2-1 with some of their atomic characteristics.' [3.] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... To reiterate again--Pro has one final round to support his resolution (with evidence, further elaboration, etc.) and properly negate my case.
Species Are Evidence for Intelligent Design Science, Not for evo THEORY

Someone wrote: "I'd first note that as the instigator of this debate, it's on Pro to demonstrate further evidence in support of his resolution and show it to be correct." In actual debate, burden of proof is equally on both sides. You're probably not used to actual debate, though, so I'll forgive your ignorance. "...and all cells originate from pre-existing chemical processes...." No they don't, but you offered no evidence for your above-stated personal belief anyway, so again, I forgive your ignorance. No evidence for your side = good news for my side. Your position on this subject is 100% your own personal faith-based religion, but is not observable science. You provided exactly zero evidence for your side, so you lost the debate: Thanks for your time! =)
It's time to stop depraved madmen from breeding two-headed human freaks at the taxpayers' expense

Evil, calculating Mike Pedance, an unemployed nuisance caller, has persuaded his partner Lisa Chamberlain, also unemployed, to give birth to a hideously deformed human monstrosity and he wants the taxpayer to foot the bill. This benefit-scrounging former telesales agent is deliberately planning to bring a baby with two heads into the world, even though the doctors at the wicked couple's government-funded hospital advised them to terminate the pregnancy. They told sinister-looking Pedance and grossly overweight Chamberlain that if the pregnancy were allowed to reach full term, the mutant baby would have only 20% chance of survival. http://www.thesun.co.uk... Nevertheless, these depraved potential parents are refusing to sanction an abortion and are insisting that the taxpayer funds the hospital treatment necessary during Chamberlain's pregnancy and beyond. As you can imagine, given the extent of the foetus' disabilities, if the infant does survive, the long term cost to the taxpayer will be enormous. Even though he is not married to Chamberlain and has, therefore, engaged in pre-marital sex, Pedance claims to be a devout Catholic and says the foetus is a "gift from God". "No it jolly well isn't, you frothing nutjob, if anything it's a gift from decent hardworking taxpayers like me." That's what I would say if I met him. So, what do you think? Is it right that hard-pressed taxpayers should fund a religious madman who wants to inflict pain and suffering on his future child by allowing it to be born with horrific abnormalities? I think not. If you agree, please vote Pro. Thank you.
Veganism is better than eating animal products

It's true that we need to eat a balanced diet and that's exactly what a vegan diet is. Vegans get their protien from: beans, tofu, tempeh, seitan, lentils, buckwheat, quoina, rice, soy beans, peanut butter, and spinach(just about all foods have protien). I myself am vegan and I'm perfectly healthy and very rarely get sick nor have I never been anemic. I get my protien, iron, and calcium without trying hard at all. As for you're argument that humans have always eaten animal products, humans are not designed to eat meat. Our intestines are much longer than a carnivore's and that is why when we eat meat, it takes a long time processing and begins to rot(causes colon cancer). You said, " The only reason that vegans are healthier is because many foods in the food industry that contain too much fat or salt/sugar are often animal products." that's exactly my point so... Vegans are just overall healthier in general. Obesity in America is a health epidemic. 1 in 3 people are obese in America. In studies, countries with the higher obesity, cancer, and type 2 diabetes rates consumed more SAD(standard American diet) food like meat and animal products than other countries did such as plant based islands. Cholesterol rates are extremely low compared to SAD eaters. When you"re on a plant based diet you get a minimum of cholesterol because plants and fruits don"t have any! Heart disease and cancer are at a bare minimum because plant based foods don"t alter hormones in your cells or clog your arteries because they don"t naturally contain high levels of fats accept for avocados and such that have the healthy fats. Another point that you made was, if people eat the "proper amount of food" they will be healthier. If by this you mean eating less, I eat at least 8 bananas for breakfast and I'm healthier than a large majority of population. Transferring to a vegan lifestyle is not hard. Meat can be substituted for veggie burgers like Boca burgers, milk can be substituted for soy or almond milk, butter for Earth Balance butter, cheese for soy cheese like Daiya, even mayonnaise can be made vegan. Veganism makes you feel good too, not just because you're healthier but because you know that your food doesn't have a mom. The vegan lifestyle is cruelty-free and that should be reason enough. For starters, milk is a product of rape. Cows are impregnated by the farmer injecting them with bull semen. Just a few hours after giving birth, calves are torn away from their mothers and if they're female they become property of the dairy industry or if they're male they are sent to a veal farm and kept in cages to keep their meat tender. Does this sound right? Eating meat is consuming rotting, decaying flesh from a sweet, harmless animal. So if you want to be healthy and if you have any ethics at all, veganism is the way to go.
Veganism is better than eating animal products

Indeed, veganism is becoming more widespread in the world today. As much as we've all heard this so many times during our education, we really do need a balanced diet, and there is a reason why we are told that repeatedly. As the human species, we have always lived to eat different kinds of food- including animal products. This has always been the case since millions of years ago where the first human ate animal flesh, and the first fish. Of course we can also adapt to live in a vegan lifestyle, but that does not mean that it is better. The only reason that vegans are healthier is because many foods in the food industry that contain too much fat or salt/sugar are often animal products. If people actually got onto eating the proper amount of food, it will most probably mean that they will have better health than vegans.
Veganism is better than eating animal products

There was a time when veganism was only known to a select few but now it is becoming a more widespread way of living vs. the SAD ( Standard American Diet) which consists of meats, fish, crustaceans, and animal products such as eggs and milk. People should be vegan because animal flesh and products causes many health problems, modern farms are tearing down the environment, animal flesh and products contain unhealthy properties, the government manipulates people and tricks them, vegans are healthier in general, and veganism reverses diseases as well as preventing them.
A nuclear war is survivable

i will also finish off by making my points clear . Radation is a great danger , and does not decrease significantly like you said , any place that is the vicitim of a nuclear attack , will not be able to built on without great risks , for decades. Survivors will starve , there would be very little food left, no aid because the country has been knocked back to the start of time , and any animals capable of producing food , will not produce enough till crops grow as , crops take to long and will not grow under these conditions , the main one being radation and the fact most survivors will be in a city were nothing grows anyway. The attackers , will realise that the only way to destroy secret miltary bases are by inside sabotage. These bases will have beenbuilt to be protect from these attacks , you cannot denyit as i have seen one in england my sister worked in , it was pretty much impossible to destroy, unless you do it from inside , therefore they would use nuclear bombs to attack the citys and destroythe country as much as possible and killing as many as they can so there would be no future war.
A nuclear war is survivable

Okay. Let me summarize my points. - Radiation from fallout decays fast, after two weeks the amount of radiation is only 1/100 of what it was initially. - It is very easy to build a shelter that would "filter" most of the radiation. If there is a plate 1 meter thick between you and the radiation, you only receive 1/5 of the radiation you would uncovered. Two meters = 1/10 and so on. - After radiation has decreased to a level where it's safe to go outside, it is possible to grown rice, corn, wheat, fruits, carrots, potatoes and so on. The problem of food supply solved. - An unsurvivable nuclear winter will not follow a nuclear war. This is a myth, here are the facts: Unsurvivable "nuclear winter" is a discredited theory that, since its conception in 1982, has been used to frighten additional millions into believing that trying to survive a nuclear war is a waste of effort and resources, and that only by ridding the world of almost all nuclear weapons do we have a chance of surviving. Non-propagandizing scientists recently have calculated that the climatic and other environmental effects of even an all-out nuclear war would be much less severe than the catastrophic effects repeatedly publicized by popular astronomer Carl Sagan and his fellow activist scientists, and by all the involved Soviet scientists. Conclusions reached from these recent, realistic calculations are summarized in an article, "Nuclear Winter Reappraised", featured in the 1986 summer issue of Foreign Affairs, the prestigious quarterly of the Council on Foreign Relations. The authors, Starley L. Thompson and Stephen H. Schneider, are atmospheric scientists with the National Center for Atmospheric Research. They showed " that on scientific grounds the global apocalyptic conclusions of the initial nuclear winter hypothesis can now be relegated to a vanishing low level of probability." - Even if every single nuke would be launched, it would be impossible to kill every human being (by explosions). That's the most important thing. Remember, should a nuclear war arise, survive it. Okay?
A nuclear war is survivable

There have been mothers giving birth all the way in Sweden , to mutated baby's , who were concevied after Chernobyl , may I remind you that , these mothers were thousands of miles away from the town of Chernobyl itself and may I remind you these babies where conceived years after the blast ? . http://www.llrc.org... Why do you think the town of Chernobyl has never again been built on ? because they cant , because its to dangerous , no matter how much radiation is on this ground it is . Radiation , I believe does not disappear significantly for decades and may remain for 100's of years. Now back to the food problem , say I have a family of 4 . Do you think 2 chickens will be enough ? what do you expect the chickens to eat as well. There will be very few animals alive from a blast , but never mind the blast were in a city not a small town with farms. Crops may grow but will most likely be contaminated and would also take a long time for everybody to grow crops , they would be long dead before a month. Now away from food , you say the Russian targets are American military bases , ok but like I said you don't think the usa have thought of nukes attacking there secret bases ? They are most likely underground or well protected against a nuclear attack. The only way to destroy these bases is through sabotage , or the worlds biggest ever yet to be seen bomb , they do care if they kill civilians because the more they kill the harder it is for America to rebuild . Also think about new York , or other big cities do you think America could ever rebuild those After an attack ? I agree its human nature to survive and god , I have seen things that are unbelievable , with my eyes and on to . But sure humans will try to survive , out of every 1million people in the city attacked by the blast , you would be lucky if 10,000 survive past a month and even if 5000 could make it a year , then after that they will continue to die away without help.
A nuclear war is survivable

however i have to disagree with him on several statements , yes i agree a nuclear attack is survivable , however a nuclear war is not , sure you might survive even months after its all done , think about it you come out your shelter , the place is gone , nobody to look after you no means of growing food or drinking the water as whe you claim radiation disappears it doesn't , radiation has been proved to lie in the earth for years on end . Infact in cherlnoble , radiation still lies in the ground. That's why it has never been inhabited after that. You also claim , the Russians , presuming they are the ones who launched these bombs have better targets than cities. Think about it on many different levels , they are not aware of every secret America military base , and if they were would use other methods and bombs of destroying them , it would actually be a waste attempting to destroy these with atom bombs , as a large majority will be underground presumably , as the American government will have prepared for nuclear war. My sister once worked in a secret base , or not so secret underground one in England . Her job along with 100 other workers was to launch nuclear attacks against the enemy once the country had been destroyed , her base was pretty much indestructible unless you got inside it and blew it up. The Russian government would much rather destroy whole cities with the bombs they have , rather than waste them on small bases. But think logically also , what the hell are you going to do after these blasts ? you come out your shelter you have ran out of food , nobody is around , the country destroyed , government collapsed , economny literally blown up. Nobodies coming to your aid , as it is to risky and they don't expect much survivors. Where do you get food ? how do you leave the area with no means of transport and are unable to even travel by foot ? Nuclear wars are survivable , its the aftermath that is not . However the aftermath can still be considered part of the war , as normally its the aftermath that kills most the people.
Gay Marriage should be legal

i presented both procreation AND the inherent differences between homosexuality and herterosexuality. con merely acknowledges that i made the arguments, but doesn't engage in the arguments. con also fails to respond to my counter attacks on his arguments. even homosexual activity in animals doesn't lend itself to procreation. marriage should be limtied to folks who can have children, either naturally, or as a matter of what's inherently possible if they are infertile, or through adoption. even if they choose not to have kids, they have that capacity. also, homosexual activity in animals is surely more about the animals just getting off. it doesn't indicate that that is the natural structure of things. it's a deviation from the prescribed way of things, written in our genes and reflecting our body's designs etc, both in animals and in humans. here is this again. "also, as far as procreation goes... we're simply recognizing that procreation would ever only occur with a male and a female... even if they are infertile, we're recognizing the inherent value that only a male and a female can procreate. we could look atgranting marriage to an infertile couple as simply a nice gesture that recnogizes their born potential, even if it's no longer effectively there. this is a separate debate, but touches on it. we should only allow males and females to have offspring.it's the natural order, and to allow otherwise would be to pervert how things ought to be for the child. (a gay couple for children who can't get adopted cause no one wants em, maybe an exception i dont know)"
Gay Marriage should be legal

i'm not sure what is really established by stating that there's a rights campaign that says same sex couples want to be married, to honor their relationship in the greatest way our society offers etc. that is self evident in this debate. also, pointing out that a majority of americans support gay marriage doesn't prove or disprove that it is that it is something that we should do. if we allow civil unions, there would not be the limitations described by pro, such as lack of hospital visits. also, much of the things they are denied can be replicated by legal transactions, such as wills instead of natural intestate property transfers. our system of hetero marriage may not be evolutionariarly traditioal, but it is traditional in our culture. and that's all that matters. and it is better established and more natural than gay marriage.
Gay Marriage should be legal

I will adhere to the rules and reserve my rebuttal against Con’s argument for Round 3. I wish my opponent luck and look forward to a good debate. Same-sex couples should be allowed to publicly celebrate their commitment in the same way as heterosexual couples. [1] The Human Rights Campaign Foundation states that many same-sex couples "want the right to legally marry [and] honor their relationship in the greatest way our society has to offer. .. " Same-sex couples should have access to the same benefits enjoyed by heterosexual married couples. Many benefits are only available to married couples, such as hospital visitation during an illness, taxation and inheritance rights, access to family health coverage, and protection in the event of the relationship ending. [2] An Oct. 2, 2009 analysis by theNew York Times estimates that a same-sex couple denied marriage benefits will incur an additional $41,196 to $467,562 in expenses over their lifetime compared to a married heterosexual couple. [3] The concept of "traditional marriage" being defined as one man and one woman is historically inaccurate. Given the prevalence of modern and ancient examples of family arrangements based on polygamy, communal child-rearing, the use of concubines and mistresses and the commonality of prostitution, heterosexual monogamy can be considered "unnatural” in evolutionary terms. [4] Marriage is redefined as society's attitudes evolve, and the majority of Americans now support gay marriage. Interracial marriage was illegal in many US states until a 1967 Supreme Court decision. Coverture, where a woman's legal rights and economic identity were subsumed by her husband upon marriage, was commonplace in 19th century America. No-fault divorce has changed the institution of marriage since its introduction in California on Jan. 1, 1970. With a May 2013 Gallup poll showing 53% of Americans supporting gay marriage, it is time for the definition of marriage to evolve once again. [5] SOURCES: [1] "Answers to Questions About Marriage Equality" (357 KB) , www. hrc. org, [2] Freedom to Marry, "Marriage 101," www. freedomtomarry. org [3] Tara Siegel Bernard and Ron Lieber, "The High Price of Being a Gay Couple [4] Ross Douthat, "The Marriage Ideal," www. nytimes. com [5] Jeffrey M. Jones, "Same-Sex Marriage Support Solidifies Above 50% in U. S. ," Gallup. com,
Gay Marriage should be legal

we should recognize that the natural world creates natural distinctions between male and female, and their cohabitation etc is what produces offspring. they are a natural unit for the purposes of kids, and a natural unit for the purposes of simply recognizing nature. we can have civil unions or something to respect others, perhaps, but that doesn't mean we have to give the same value to something that is fundamentally different, by calling it marriage. also, as far as procreation goes... we're simply recognizing that procreation would ever only occur with a male and a female... even if they are infertile, we're recognizing the inherent value that only a male and a female can procreate. we could look atgranting marriage to an infertile couple as simply a nice gesture that recnogizes their born potential, even if it's no longer effectively there. this is a separate debate, but touches on it. we should only allow males and females to have offspring.it's the natural order, and to allow otherwise would be to pervert how things ought to be for the child. (a gay couple for children who can't get adopted cause no one wants em, maybe an exception i dont know)
should we treat other differently because of there race/skin tone

I accept your challenge and I wish you good luck. But I warn you, I am a very good at debating. I am very good at all sorts of lawyerings and talking to people. I am the best at it, while you are clearly a subhuman black who doesn't even know when to use "their" and not "there". Your black skin has even prevented you from being able to pick a profile pic. Wow. this will truly be my easiest victory. Black subhumans can never beat me at debating. #whitepower