BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Literal Creation vs Theistic Evolution

Sorry for not posting a round four. I don't do this to win, I do this to have fun :). Not all mutations do anything. In the DNA three straight base molecules is called a Codon, which codes for a certain amino acid. There's about 64 possible codons that can be found in DNA. It has to be in the perfect order to code for an amino acid. If it's not, it doesn't code for anything. Most of the time in mutations that happens. I know tigers are carnivores, but you didn't interpret my example correctly. I'm saying that bears look like they would only eat meat but their diet consists of mostly plant things. So I'm saying that if bears with sharp teeth and claws eat plants, then why couldn't tigers or lions do the same in the Garden? The Bible clearly says that God didn't mean for man to sin, so that means he never intended death since man brought death into the world. http://abcnews.go.com... Here is a report by abc news on a girl who doesn't feel any pain Yet obviously she can move. Just because people in the Garden couldn't feel pain doesn't mean they can't move. Again you use fossils. How do you know that those species of animals are related to one another? This change would have even more mutations than your projected Chimp to Human model. How do i know that full skeletons have been found? You show me the model of how scientists think it happened. How do i know this isn't fake without being shown real bones? You might say "Textbooks don't lie" but i'm pretty sure most biology textbooks teach Embryology. If you don't know what that is it's basically an evidence for us all having a common ancestor based on similar embryos. But it was fake. http://cavern.uark.edu... That's an example of how textbooks can lie. About my creation websites I bet you didn't even click the link because they SITED their sources at the bottom of both articles. Bet you missed that one didn't you? My link says wood takes a short amount of time to petrify. Yours says the opposite. I guess we will never know who's right. Proving the Garden of Eden scientifically would mean i need physical proof that it existed. Obviously i don't have that because of Noah's flood which destroyed it along with everything on the earth. God isn't affected by human perception of time, so it is impossible to say that a million years to us is a second to him. CHALLENGES: Use the Bible to support your evolution standpoint. Also, explain to me why the book of Genesis was written? It was written to explain our origins, or I'm guessing the people who wrote it (People who lived close to the time) weren't aware of Modern sciences. Why would they lie? Obviously it would be bad for the Church if the Bible lied. People would certainly fall away from the church! Wanna debate again? This was fun! -Dan
Literal Creation vs Theistic Evolution

Rebuttal 1:First, I didn't literally mean that they bred like bunnies. What I meant to say was like, they would have sex and get pregnant very often. Even mutations that have no effect tweaks our DNA just a little, which makes us a little more complex. Even if you don't see the effect there, it effected you. Your link didn't say exactly what type of mutation it had to be correct? :)Rebuttal 2: You say all animals are vegetarians in the garden of Eden. I guess the tiger wasn't part of the garden then. Tigers are pure carnivores. (1) Then you simply imply because of religious text that God never intended that we die. That is literally hilarious. You say God never intended suffering, which includes pain. Yet, that would mean our nervous system couldn't exist. But, without the nervous system, we can't move! You see, your brain sends information through electrical charges that run through your nerves, and the brain sends messages back telling your muscles what to do. Nerve endings are put through some places in the body. One place is male balls. If getting kicked in the balls didn't hurt back then, then you wouldn't move. You would die from thirst since you couldn't get up to get water. This is one of your biggest flaws in your arguments.Rebuttal 3: Here is the full whale evolution. Here you simply imply that we wouldn't know what the organisms would look like, but science has developed a lot. Then you continue to not read my links! CAN SOMEBODY PLEASE READ!Rebuttal 4:That is macro evolution. In theistic evolution, you believe God created multiple ancestors for a certain group of animals.Rebuttal 5:It is true. But biblical websites have a hela-load more of bias. As for the bone, do you think scientist have no discovered a fossil like that? Rebuttal 6:LOL. Literally, you have no idea how many dog breeds there are. You can't get them all by breeding one breed with another! Then you have certain species of horses too, like mustang, ETC. Whoops about the Egyptians, I meant passed the time of Noah. Rebuttal 7:I warned you. Don't use these links. These are very bias. All I see is creation websites. Get a website that has no official stance on the religion and then we'll talk. If not, then don't even try those arguments. Then you give an example of part of the wiki, and say wood doesn't take that long to petrify. Actually, it takes millions of years. (2)Rebuttal 8:A day to God, could means millions of years to us.Overall, I don't think you have made one effort to prove Adam and Eve scientifically one bit. The BOP is equal, so start trying to prove it, or you'll see convincing arguments slip away.1. http://www.ask.com...2. http://www.livescience.com...
Literal Creation vs Theistic Evolution

DEFINITION:Evolution Definitions:a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better Case 1: Proving EvolutionFirst, I would like to prove how evolution is real. In a shocking discovery, we share 98.6% of our DNA with an ape. (1) if you click into link, you can barely tell the ape and human chromosome apart! Yet, when you compare it to a mouse's chromosomes, you can clearly see the difference. This proves that the ape and humans are greatly related. This proves evolution. Still not satisfied? Well, we should prove evolution using man's best friend. It is proven we share 5% of our genome sequence with dogs and mouse. (2) this again proves evolution. Even dogs and mice have a scientific similarity! Here you can see the images of the human, mouse, and ape chromosomes. As you can see, this points towards evolution, as you can barely see the difference between the human and ape chromosome, but you can clearly see the difference between the mouse and the human. Here you can see the similarities of our brain. However, you will see our brain is considerably larger. This gives us the power to communicate and give us a sense of right and wrong. Here you may see how the skulls start out with a little similarities, but then has a bigger and bigger resemblance Here you can see the beginnings and current human skulls. When you look at the first one, you see it is very different. It then gradually evolves into the human skull we know today.Case 2: Adam And EveThe Bible self-destructs with everything science has taught us. The science of forensics disproves Adam and Eve 100 times over. If we are from Adam and Eve, We would practically be cousins with everyone in the world! No. This is scientifically impossible. Instead, forensics states that we are not all related. Adam and Eve also don't explain race. If we are all descendants from Adam and Eve, we would all be one race. Adam and Eve states they have two sons, Kain and Abel, but, WHERE THE HELL ARE THE GIRLS?!???!? They must have had something to repopulate with. It is also said Adam and eve knew how to speak, but even cavemen had no idea of the simplest languages! Wouldn't Adam and Eve have taught their children to speak their language? They also say that Adam and Eve eat from the tree of knowledge, yet, man has never found a tree that give knowledge of everything in the universe! The tree had a fruit, which means it probably had seeds, which would have made other trees similar to it, giving infinite knowledge of everything. They also say that the snake spoke at one time, yet, the snake has no vocal cords! (5) There is also evidence that the Earth is older than 4,000 years. Human footprints believed to be 40,000 years old have actually been older! It is 51,000 years old. (3) Even a tree shows the Earth is older than 4,000 years! (4) That is all Adam and Eve should be taken as. A story.1. http://www.amnh.org...2. http://news.nationalgeographic.com...3. http://www.berkeley.edu...4. http://www.dailymail.co.uk...5. http://www.infoplease.com...
Abortion

Abortion is not murder. This was already addressed above. Not letting someone use your body is NOT murder. Is it murder to not give someone dying of thirst your water? No. Is it murder to not give someone who needs a kidney your kidney? No. Same logic applies. Their lives are being "taken away," yet it's completely acceptable and not murder. Example debunked. As for the baby needing parental guidance, sure, that may be true. However, it does NOT need a specific person's body to survive; in other words, it can survive with the help of ANY adult. Furthermore, anyone logical would agree that once the mother has the baby, she already had her chance to abort. No one, including myself, would ever argue it's okay for a mother to kill her baby. The two are completely unrelated; introducing a strawman such as this hurts your argument. Example debunked. Furthermore, there are plenty of negative externalities of forcing mothers to have kids they don't want. In the USA alone, there are 100k orphans waiting to be adopted. https://showhope.org... This is WITH free and legal abortions. Imagine how many orphans we would have if EVERYONE was forced to give birth. Think of how damaging these many unwanted babies would be to society. Who is going to pay for them all? Take care of them all? Wouldn't that drain resources from the other babies, negatively affecting their lives? The list goes on, and this is only ONE of the many consequences. What about the emotional damage you inflict on the mother for forcing her to have a pregnancy she doesn't want or isn't ready for? What about the emotional damage inflicted on the CHILD, to know he's unwanted and was a mistake? etc. It is clear when one looks at both sides of the argument the reasons to be prochoice vastly outweigh the reasons to be antiabortion.
Abortion

I have persistantly fought myself over this subject. I have switched sides on abortion more times than I could care to count. I attempt to solidify my perspective on Abortion would be deemed futile by many. Hopefully, this debate will bolster anyone's ability to make a thorough decision on a topic that impacts the people that seldom participate in debate.org activities. C1-Abortion=Murder Adressing the facts would confer clarity in this debate not only to me, but to Pro. If I were aborted, than I would prove unable to have this captivating debate with Pro. It is undisputable that if any of our mothers decided to get an abortion, than we simply would not exist. Such a thought of being aborted should be as daunting as being murdered. Being murdered is essentially having the oppurtunity of life taken away. What is abortion? All those fetuses' have the oppurtunity of life, yet that oppurtunity is taken away. C2: Fetus dependency Many people who are pro-choice claim that it is the fetus's dependency that diffrentiates the fetus from the baby. Adhering to this logic would allow termination of life deemed acceptable and legal if the life is dependent upon another human. Adherence to this logic would allow killing a baby after it is born to be deemed plausible. Babies are extremely dependent on adults for food, water, shelter, and social connections. 75 year olds who are extremely dependent on others to carry out basic actions should die, because they are dependent on those humans for survival. Adherence to this logic justifies murder of dependent people.
Abortion

I accept that clause. The fetus needs the body of the mother to survive. If human A needs a part of human B to survive, e.g. a kidney transplant, it is entirely up to human B whether or not he wants to give human A a kidney. Even if human B is dying and his kidneys will rot with him, he decides what to do with his own body. Even if human A's life is at stake and human B's life is already over, with rotting kidney's, it's still human B's right to choose what to do with his dead body. If the fetus can survive on its own, then abortion is more of an up in the air debate. However, if the fetus needs the mother's body (which it does), abortion comes down to the simple principal of a woman has the right to choose what she wants to do with her body. By letting the fetus control a woman's body, you are granting a fetus rights to someone else's body. No one has rights to anyone's body but that person. Period A fetus needs a mother's body to survive. If the mother does not want to let the fetus use her body, it doesn't have to. The fetus is a part of a parasitic relationship; although its body is affected, it's using the body of the mother to survive.
Favoritism is shown in most fast food places and is a good thing to have in them.

First of all, by a "good thing to have in them", i mean for the fast food place, not necessarily the customers/others. For this debate, I will use this definition of favoritism from dictionary.com. 1. the favoring of one person or group over others with equal claims Definition of claim (also from dictionary.com)-The sum of money demanded -------------------------------------------------------------- The "Employee of The Month" award commonly used in fast food restaurants is an example of this favoritism. What it is basically saying is this: "I, the manager believe this person (The EOM) to have worked slightly (or drastically) harder than the other employees that work for the same pay, so I like him/her better." It could also be saying "This person has a good attitude and I like him/her, so he/she is the Employee of The Month." Now you might ask how is it that this type of favoritism should be shown in this restaurant. For the employees who actually keep track of the EOM, it gives them a desire to have their face on that wall or just to be recognized. To earn this, they must work harder, enhancing the quality of the food sold at this particular place and the customer service, stock, etc. This, in turn, gives the restaurant a good reputation, adding more customers, and therefore increasing the restaurant's profit which is in fact a good thing (for them). -------------------------------------------------------------- This makes favoritism a good thing in these restaurants, thus proving my point that is shown in the topic of this debate. Because I have proved that the EOM award is good, thus making favoritism good in fast food places, since the EOM award is an example of favoritism, I have proved my point (for now). Back to whoever chooses to accept this debate. I will now make it look like i wrote more than I actually did =ï¿½ ~~~ V O T E ~~~ P R O ~~~ P L E A S E ~~~ O R ~~~ E L S E ~~~ S O M E T H I N G ~~~ W I L L ~~~ H A P P E N ~~~ T O ~~~ Y O U R ~~~ C E R E A L ~~~ B O X ~~~ ..... Y O ~~~
Spiderman would beat Batman in a fight

First, all the hypothetical instances you insinuated are inaccurate. ("Batman would stab Spider-man . . ."/"Batman would slice his head off . . .") Batman would NEVER do that because everyone knows that Batman never kills! His gadgetry is designed to incapacitate enemies, and therefore aren't lethal. Second, the Spider-sense WOULD work, because it alerts Spidey of threats, and if they were fighting, Batman would be a threat. Spider-man may not have as many fancy gadgets as Batman, but he has many customized suits, (electro-proof, spider armor) and Tony Stark even made him an Iron Spider armor, which possessed all the capabilities of a suit of Iron-man armor. Granted, he wouldn't have all these suits on him at once, but this brings me back to one of my earlier arguments: if hypothetically, these two were fighting, they would probably know about each other (e.g.: Spider-man hears about the dark vigilante Batman and must stop him. Or, Batman hears about Spider-man, and thinks of him as an enemy.) If this were the case, both WOULD have time to prepare, contradicting one of your earlier arguments. Batman may plan for many situations, but it's much more than an overnight process: to defeat Superman and the rest of the Justice League, he had to research each of their specific weaknesses. Spider-man on the other hand has no clearly exploitable physical weaknesses, so assuming they fought each other for the first time, Batman would lose, and (assuming he would survive) he would then try to form a strategy to defeat Spidey, but it would be a long, difficult process, and Spider-an would plan as well. So again, your arguments have been contradicted and Spider-man would win with his super power, intellect, Spider-sense and webbing!
Spiderman would beat Batman in a fight

Spidey can bench-press ten tonnes (able to lift the Bat-mobile), run 200 mph, can stick to walls, has an omniscient Spider-sense (which, by the way, would counter Batman's stealth and/or surprise tactics) and possess foreign chemical resistance and a healing factor. Those stats ALONE would be enough to beat the Bat in an alley fight, but don't forget that Spider-man is also a genius: he's a straight A student in science and chemistry, and even designed his own equipment, while in recent years, Batman's equipment has been shown to be created by Lucius Fox. And as for Batman's vast array of gadgetry, well, Spidey's webs at full capacity have been shown to restrain the Hulk, so mere shurikens (throwing stars) and smoke bombs couldn't penetrate them. I am iffy about the philosophy that Batman can defeat anyone with enough time for strategy, because his opponent can just plan a strategy as well. For example, Bats designs a device to blur out the Spider-sense (which, again, can counter Batman's stealth), so Spider-man would create goggles o spot out Batman in the darkness. Batman may invent a spray to disintegrate Spidey's webs, so he'd just make ice-webbing. In conclusion, Spider-man would win because of his superior physical stats, equal intellect, Spider-sense and webbing!
Spiderman would beat Batman in a fight

Rebuttals"I think Spider-man would beat Batman in a duel! Why? Cause he has powers! 'Nuff said!" Power is "The ability or capacity to do something or act in a particular way." [1]Spiderman can shoot webs, but Batman has powers to. For example, he has the power of intelligence as well, as you can see in his invention the Bat mobile, and all of his other gear. Now for my arguments. First of all, Batman's main outfit is black. In most cases, as you can see, superheroes fight supervillians during the night. This is because it is easier to rob, and where evil follows, justice does as well. Since Batman and Spiderman are both important roles in their cities, they wouldn't want to show themselves fighting within the public. Because of such, they would fight in a dark area at night, where they can hide themselves. Anyway, Spiderman is mainly red. Red is a very strong color. "Red is a bright, warm color that evokes strong emotions." [2] So since it is so strong, and so bright, it is very easy to see in the dark. So are his eye holes, because they are a white that reflects light. Even his webs reflect light, revealing them easily. Batman on the other hand is mainly black. Since it is dark at night, black obviously blends in. Since he is darker, he has the advantage of the shadows, and darkness, giving him many possible surprise attacks. This is one main reason he has the advantage, and would win in a fight, with his genius ideas, and even his uniform. So that first reason is the darkness, and that Batman could use it to his advantage.Here is the second.Batman has many many weapons that could easily cut spiderman's webs. We all know that spiderman constantly shoots webs in order to move from building to building, kind of like Tarzan with vines. But what happens if the web supporting him breaks? Batman has various weapons like his throwing stars. With these, he could easily counter Spiderman, and cut down his webs, possibly making spiderman crash onto the floor in panic. So I have already proved that batman would win in a fight, with his superior intellect, various weapons, and advantage in the dark where they would most likely have a battle.Sources:1.http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...2.http://psychology.about.com...
Homosexual lifestyle

Round 3 wrap up time summary - why society needs to discourage homosexual behavior - because society always tries to make things right, reduce harm, put things back to status quo from their perturbance. status quo being proper use of functions (bodily or otherwise). - it's what keeps order in society and keeps everything functioning (homosexuality isn't an end of the world thing that'll throw the whole world in chaos, but, it is one aspect among many in society that's out of order, and it's a the cumulitive effect of all things out of order that leads to a breakdown of society and chaos, every bit adds up). homosexuality is a breakdown of a balance in a family with a father and mother (this can be another debate). when a child yells "dad!" who answers? - homosexual behavior is out of order, as argued by the mis-use of the function of reproductive organs, it is not normal behavior because it mis-uses body parts. further to it being out of order, the biology is against it as homosexual couples can't reproduce and continue their way of life, there must be a disadvantage biologically from same sex reproduction. it is also out of order within the frameset of what's set-up in nature. - homosexual behavior is a condtion because people have come out of it (if people have come out of it, that means it can be fixed) - it is a choice to act on homosexual feelings as it is to act upon feelings of anger and rage (can't blame people for having feelings, but you can blame them for acting on them) - it should be discouraged because it's statistical fact that two male gay partners's probability of contracting and spreading STD's are many-fold higher than the norm, this is a case of where there is spillage of harm to the rest of society, it increases the spread of such STD's and does affect the rest of us. and when there is spill-over effects, society has a right to protect itself by discouraging such behavior