BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Solanum (the zombie virus as defined by max brooks' zombie survival guide.) victims should be killed

"Once a person is infected, little can be done to save him or her." Page 4 ZSG "Cases have been recorded where recently infected subjects, deceased by means other than the virus, will nonetheless reanimate. Such cases usually occur when the subject expires after the fifth hour of infection." Page 5 ZSG These quotes from the Zombie Survival guide tell that infected persons are both doomed and already dead, people who have been infected are going to die, even though allowing the infected to live may help the group for a short time, this may lead the group to allow the infected to leave a zombie, giving another corpse to the undead army. I use Jim as an example of this, Jim was left to become a zombie, another member of the army of the demons known as the undead. There is a serious safety issue to allowing an infected person to walk among you, they have the virus in them, say a man hid he was bitten and he donated blood, infecting anyone who received his blood, he has just killed anyone who received his blood, he hid his infection and killed others with it.
The scientific evidence for Natural Selection is overwhelming.

This is simply a debate regarding The theory of Evolution and its natural biological mechanism which is called Natural Selection. I believe the evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of this theory. Natural Selection is a combination of random mutations on the genetic level which is found in organisms which if even slightly beneficial to the animals survival in its natural habitat, are preserved. This gives the animal a higher probability of survival in its environment and an edge over its opponents. That is a extremely basic but non controversial definition which I will expand on more in my posts which will follow. My opponent will argue there is no valid evidence, and has to attempt to refute my evidence which I will present. My opponent does not need to present an alternative hypothesis, if he/she does I will try to argue that the evidence does not favour his/her hypothesis but the focus must largely remain in the title of the debate. First round acceptance. Second round openings. Third rebuttals. Fourth further rebuttals. Fifth closing. Use sources and proper layouts please, I want this to be an enjoyable debate, but I wouldn't make my opponent shift through nonsense to find my points, so I would appreciate clarity. I will respond to any questions in the comment boxes. Thanks
Best blonde jokes

I don't really believe blondes are dumb either, those that I know are very intelligent people. I'm doing it because there's no other better debates for me, lol. A young brunette goes into the doctor's office and says that her body hurts wherever she touches it. "Impossible," says the doctor. "Show me." She takes her finger and pushes her elbow and screams in agony. She pushes her knee and screams, pushes her ankle and screams and so it goes on, everywhere she touches makes her scream. The doctor says, "You're not really a brunette, are you?" She says, "No, I'm really a blonde." "I thought so," he says. "Your finger is broken."
Best blonde jokes

Hello! I am doing a little fun game that anyone can join! We each switch of saying funny blonde jokes and the person with the funniest jokes wins. (No i do not believe in the saying that blondes are dumb). here ill start, "Once there was a blonde who was crying when she went to work. Her boss asked her "whats wrong?" And she said "my mother died!" and he said "Aww maybe you should take the day off," but she said "no i want to clear my head," so she stayed at work. a few hours later he went back to check on her and she was hysterically crying, "whats wrong now?" he asked. she responded, "I just talked to my sister, her mother died also!"
There is no "God hypothesis".

As this is the last round, I will attempt to restate my position in light of his blackhole/god example. 1. Defining God in relation to other knowledge- Supernatural being should suffice here. We know what natural things are (those objects subject to the laws of physics) and we know what a being is (a creature possessing some degree of agency)- so a supernatural being would be some acting consciousness that is not subject to the laws of physics. In the same way, even though we have never seen a unicorn, we know what a horse is and we know what a horn is. .. so we can imagine a unicorn and attempt to look for one. It doesn't matter that horses don't *really* have horns, just like it doesn't matter (in this context) that we've only observed consciousness in biological creatures. We can consider it as a seperate feature and investigate whether it might be at work in some supernatural fashion. 2. Defining god in the context of other knowledge (what? thats the same as the last one. .. . I am going to assume you meant:) Knowing where to look- Observations that would support such a being's existence include violations of the laws of physics (ie divine intervention/miracles) and observations on the efficacy of prayer (this study has been done and god failed). (. http://www.nytimes.com...). If found, either of these phenomena would be evidence for a consciousness acting outside the laws of nature and warrant further investigation. 3. Field of study- in the case of the prayer example, medical outcomes. In looking for violations of the laws of physics, physics I suppose. Certainly there is an obvious way to discover whether violations of physics are occurring- observe many types of physical phenomena. People are eager to see miracles; the fact that most things so called are debunked is evidence that routine violations are not occurring. If you hypothesized a new species of beetle, you would not look for it with "biology" but by observing the world to see if any species matching your expectation exists. Similarly when looking for a god. My opponent has claimed that because a being is an organism, parts two and three would be hopelessly self contradictory. However, this is not so. As I said in 1, just because all "beings" we have observed to now have been biological, it doesn't follow that all possible beings will be biological. He also has claimed that in order for something to be studied scientifically it must be explainable or understandable in terms of current scientific understanding. This is blatantly false, and to claim it as fact would prevent science from studying things that are not already well known. I hope I have made my case. There is nothing inherently wrong with a "god hypothesis". God can be (and has been! ) at least partially tested through the scientific method. We don't need to know what a thing IS in order to observe and understand its effects. Thanks for reading!
There is no "God hypothesis".

"What god "does", or rather, any testable qualities he may have, is the result of what he is." True, so what is god? "... a "hypothesis" is simply a guess, and that the nature of the thing in question need not be known at the outset." A phenomena is not defined by its nature. Nature being a description. For example: positively charged ion. We have the nature of the phenomena (positively charged) and the phenomena itself (ion). "So does god: supernatural being." I think you'll find that "supernatural being" is not a classification found in any textbook. Furthermore, what scientific field would we utilize to look for "supernatural beings"? The term "supernatural" is used to describe phenomena outside of scientific understanding. "We don't. Because they are hypotheses." Religious texts are not theoretical papers and religious persons are not theorists. Just making a claim is not the same as presenting a testable hypothesis. "Since we made up the word "god" (we as in humanity collectively) we can define it however we please. That definition in hand, we can seek the evidence that such a thing exists. If the evidence is lacking we can change our definition and look again. Ad Nauseam. Not everyone has to agree in order to testing to begin. Only the people doing the tests." There is a difference between a common definition used in everyday life and a scientific definition. A scientific definition of something is made to distinguish the phenomena from others (already known to exist). I can call god whatever I want outside of a lab, but inside I have to identify it specifically. All phenomena fall into sets and subsets (e.g. set: reptile: subset: snakes) and all of these are clearly identifiable from one another. God has many different everyday definitions which are vast in number and contradictory to one another and as a result they make scientific classification impossible. A scientist does not want to have to rummage through every conceivable conception of god in order to begin testing as he neither has the time but more so because such definitions keep appearing. Scientists very rarely deal with competing hypotheses. But if they ever do, they deal with at the very most, a handful of competing theories. Your Ad Nauseam argument is false.
There is no "God hypothesis".

"I am not arguing about what god does, but what god is." What god "does", or rather, any testable qualities he may have, is the result of what he is. "God needs to have a scientific classification in order to distinguish it from other things and to put it into the context of current knowledge i.e. a mutual point of reference. This would be an objective definition. To use your analogy where I have a god and you another, how do we know if what we are referring to is really god and not something completely different?" Thats easy- you choose to define the word god as whatever your hypothesis posits he is. Remember- the meaning of words is not inherent, but must be specified. If you wish to invalidate the god hypothesis because we don't know precisely what god is beforehand then you invalidate all hypotheses. For the very nature of a hypothesis is that of a guess, a suggestion of what one might find if they were to investigate carefully. The reason experiments are done is because scientists don't know exactly what they will find at the outset. A quick google search demonstrates that a "hypothesis" is simply a guess, and that the nature of the thing in question need not be known at the outset: http://www.google.com... "This relates somewhat to my refutation of counterargument 1. In order to study god scientifically, it needs a scientific classification in order to distinguish it from other things. Language has a scientific classification: communication system." So does god: supernatural being. "How do we know religious scriptures or peoples are correct in their definition of god? Most definitions of god are not based on science but rather opinion. New definitions of god are proposed all the time by both individuals and groups." We don't. Because they are hypotheses. Thats the whole point of the hypothesis- to predict what you expect if a being possessing the qualities that you label god exists, and then to seek confirmation or discomfirmation of those predictions. "In order to test the supposed abilities of a god or gods, we must first identify what a god or gods is. As I said, there may be many gods and many different gods at that, but without a mutual point of reference, that is a scientific classification for god, we cannot even begin to test those assumptions." Since we made up the word "god" (we as in humanity collectively) we can define it however we please. That definition in hand, we can seek the evidence that such a thing exists. If the evidence is lacking we can change our definition and look again. Ad Nauseam. Not everyone has to agree in order to testing to begin. Only the people doing the tests.
There is no "God hypothesis".

Hello Belle, thank you for responding and I wish for this to be a good debate for the both of us. You have responded to my argument that there cannot be a god hypothesis by way of attempting refute my points one by one. I will also respond to your counterarguments one by one. "That doesn't mean it (or they rather) can't be dealt with objectively. For example, say my god does abc, and yours does xyz. They would constitute two separate hypotheses that can be tested separately. Just because there is disagreement, that doesn't mean that there is no objective way to investigate it." I am not arguing about what god does, but what god is. In other words, what, scientifically, is a god? God needs to have a scientific classification in order to distinguish it from other things and to put it into the context of current knowledge i.e. a mutual point of reference. This would be an objective definition. To use your analogy where I have a god and you another, how do we know if what we are referring to is really god and not something completely different? There may well be more than one god or different kinds of gods (just as there is more than one flower and different kinds of flowers), but without its own classification as a phenomena, we cannot test that assumption. "So what? Language is 100% arbitrary, but it can be studied scientifically. So is what side of the road we drive on for that matter. So this point is irrelevant." This relates somewhat to my refutation of counterargument 1. In order to study god scientifically, it needs a scientific classification in order to distinguish it from other things. Language has a scientific classification: communication system. "I would also contend that its untrue. Most beliefs about god are affected by holy books and the words of holy teachers, not simply arbitrarily assigned. Unless you can point out to me a god who is a really great accountant and likes Parcheesi…" How do we know religious scriptures or peoples are correct in their definition of god? Most definitions of god are not based on science but rather opinion. New definitions of god are proposed all the time by both individuals and groups. "Something arbitrary can be studied by science, and something subjective can be made objective simply by taking a specific conception as such. There are many god hypotheses, most of which can be tested." I have already attempted to refute this point. "Almost every conception of god held by individuals gives him testable qualities." This is not about the aesthetics of a god or gods, but what constitutes a god or gods. I will reiterate that I am not arguing about what god does but what it is. In order to test the supposed abilities of a god or gods, we must first identify what a god or gods is. As I said, there may be many gods and many different gods at that, but without a mutual point of reference, that is a scientific classification for god, we cannot even begin to test those assumptions.
There is no "God hypothesis".

My argument will be simple- I shall attempt to refute your points one by one "The definition of god is purely subjective." That doesn't mean it (or they rather) can't be dealt with objectively. For example, say my god does abc, and yours does xyz. They would constitute two separate hypotheses that can be tested separately. Just because there is disagreement, that doesn't mean that there is no objective way to investigate it. "As a result of 1, the definition of god is arbitrary." So what? Language is 100% arbitrary, but it can be studied scientifically. So is what side of the road we drive on for that matter. So this point is irrelevant. I would also contend that its untrue. Most beliefs about god are affected by holy books and the words of holy teachers, not simply arbitrarily assigned. Unless you can point out to me a god who is a really great accountant and likes Parcheesi… "A scientific definition must be objective and testable, and as subjective and arbitrary definitions are neither objective nor testable, such definitions cannot be scientific." Something arbitrary can be studied by science, and something subjective can be made objective simply by taking a specific conception as such. There are many god hypotheses, most of which can be tested. "supposing that such definitions were somehow able to be made objective, the sheer volume of them and their variability makes forming a hypothesis patently unworkable." You don't need only one; you can have several. Almost every conception of god held by individuals gives him testable qualities. It makes some predictions about what we would expect to observe if this god really existed. That's all that's necessary for a testable hypothesis. There may not be one that all believers would agree to, but so what. I'm sure there's one that the majority of believers would agree to, and many more besides. So no, there is not a single "god" hypothesis, at least not one that all believers would assent to. There are many, much more than one. As more than one is more than none, consider the resolution negated.
There is no "God hypothesis".

I argue that there exists no god hypothesis on the following grounds: 1: The definition of god is purely subjective. 2: As a result of 1, the definition of god is arbitrary. 3: A scientific definition must be objective and testable, and as subjective and arbitrary definitions are neither objective nor testable, such definitions cannot be scientific. 4: supposing that such definitions were somehow able to be made objective, the sheer volume of them and their variability makes forming a hypothesis patently unworkable.
Rap Battle, Hamster Addition.

They say the most dangerous thing is a Marine with his M-16. You wish you were dangerous when you ran for prom queen, You wish you loved me like Billie Jean, Cause I'm the best thing you've ever seen. My Hamster was a drill instructor, You better call me sir, I'm the 2nd Lt. you better not stir. Hey, TUF just watch me school her. So you just need to bow down to the king, I'm going to string you up to see how well Swing. You on DDO is a joke, Like Porky Pig said, "That's all Folks!"
Rap Battle, Hamster Addition.

He calms he’s gonna win lies worse den his moders grin, I don’t even know how to rap? Boy what’s inside his cap? His hamster left of abuse, Dang its bruises were chartreuse. His hamsters lame So is his game Joy, can’t wait till da end, His hamster got no friend. He hurt his hamster, lawl He an’t got no morals at all. Hard it is to rap. My grammar gonna make me dap. He’ll stay awake at night, Dreaming of dis rapping fight, He’ll cry some tears, He’ll drink more beers. Poor Lannan, He drives a mini van.
Rap Battle, Hamster Addition.

From the Halls of Montezuma, to the shores of Tripoli. I'll school you anywhere from Africa to Hawaii. I'm the best so now you'll see. I'll Take you out Pee Wee. I had a Hampster named Chesty, He used to be my besty. But then he up and left me. So now I have to be the best see? Teffehunden, German for Hell Hound, Watch your world burn down, Loved one's safe and sound, As you all drown. Mad bro? Hampster had to go. Yeah so? I'm worse than a Lobo.
Rap Battle, Hamster Addition.

My hamster died, my dad ate it fried. I started to howl, it taste just like owl. My hamster died, daddy ate it fried. Boy I cry, my daddy no lie. I packed my junk, inside my trunk. My hamster’s dead, boy had I fled. My friend got a gun, gonna have some fun. I shot my dad, now I’m glad I killed him dead, with my bullets of lead. My daddy’s dead, shot in his head. I’m paying time, for my own crime. Moral of da story, I got no glory.
people with Ebola be killed

Impossible The U.N (United Nations) and Geneva Convention would freak out and deem any country that does that inhumane and other countries might find it cruel and it might cause a war plus W.H.O (World Health Organization) and C.D.C (Center of Disease Control) are researching a way to cure Ebola killing besides innocent citizens would cause the people to rise against as they notice that the government does not care about they're well being or care about them in general you have been routed and you now rued the creation of this debate.
The Legality of Abortions

For my last argument of debating with my opponent, I will try and convince my opponent that Abortion is wrong. I will post many reasons in addition I will counter my opponent's arguments. 1.) Fetus, considered a human being? (With this I counter 1, 2, 4 of my opponent's first argument.) My opponent claimed in his first argument in an indirect form, that a fetus has no meaning, and it has many flaws, so its not considered a human being. When the egg is fertilized it is already a human being. It may not have the human parts yet, but its still developing. In my opponent's last argument, he mentioned a question, "Do you consider an Embryo, a human being yet?" The answer to that is yes. It may have many flaws, but it doesn't mean it has no meaning. Like in my past argument, as I said: Abortion = Homicide. Basically, you are killing a human being which is illegal. Regardless if a woman is raped, or by any other accident, it is still no excuse for abortion. 2.) Abortion should be illegal, by religion. (Christianity) Also with this, I regard my earlier statement. I don't have the knowledge of my opponent's religion, but in this case Ill speak about Christianity. Early Christians believed that abortion was an act of sin. They maintained this condemnation, even when some of them did not qualify as homicide the elimination of a fetus, which is not yet within a human soul. The Catholic Church states that "A human life must be protected from the moment of conception." They also state that "The first right of the human person is his life". So with this, religion states that they disapprove the act of abortion and that it should be illegal. Religion has also proved that even if its a Fetus, and it has a life, then it is human. 3.) How much does Abortion affect the world? Since abortion is legalized, which was in 1973, over 56 million unborn children have been killed, which is more than the entire population of Spain. This is 155 babies killed in an hour. Since then 347 women themselves have been killed by legalized abortions. With my final argument, I can say that, abortion causes: Death of Women and Children, and an offense to God Himself. Sources: http://www.tfpstudentaction.org...