BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Evolution (Pro) VS. Literal Creationism (Con) (Part III)

Hello! Thank you for accepting. I will not be holding back now. Good luck!Fossil Record:The fossil record is one of many things proving evolution. The fossils prove a slow, gradual change (1). As quoted from the article:"Organisms have changed significantly over time. In rocks more than 1 billion years old, only fossils of single-celled organisms are found. Moving to rocks that are about 550 million years old, fossils of simple, multicellular animals can be found. At 500 million years ago, ancient fish without jawbones surface; and at 400 million years ago, fish with jaws are found. Gradually, new animals appear: amphibians at 350 million years ago, reptiles at 300 million years ago, mammals at 230 million years ago, and birds at 150 million years ago.1 As the rocks become more and more recent, the fossils look increasingly like the animals we observe today."In 2004, scientist found fossils of what's the missing link between amphibians and fish. (2) Four different transitional species were found. This is a huge find, as now we confirm that fish turned into amphibian. "Fossils provide solid evidence that organisms from the past are not the same as those found today; they show a progression of evolution. Scientists calculate the age of fossils and categorize them to determine when the organisms lived relative to each other. The resulting fossil record tells the story of the past and shows the evolution of form over millions of years. For example, scientists have recovered highly-detailed records showing the evolution of humans and horses . The whale flipper shares a similarmorphology to appendages of birds and mammals, indicating that these species share a common ancestor . Over time, evolution led to changes in the shapes and sizes of these bones in different species, but they have maintained the same overall layout. Scientists call these synonymous parts homologous structures"End quote (3).Whale Evolution:We have the full whale evolution timeline. As shown here: As you can see, the whale's ancestors were land animals, but eventually lost their legs and went to the sea. The is undeniable proof of evolution.I would like to have another part of my arguments in the next round. I have a friend coming, and barely got to this debate in time. Thanks!1. http://biologos.org...2. http://www.pbs.org...3. https://www.boundless.com...
Most people on antidepressants are being duped

I have the burden of proof in regards to proving that there is a single, rational, benefit to taking them.My opponent has to anti BOP meaning that she has to counter ALL my points so that even if there is a SINGLE benefit she has not disproved by round 5, I will win.The reasoning behind this dynamic is her definition of being duped means that people taking antidepressants (for the obvious purpose of being less depressed) would be no worse off if they weren't taking them, and probably would be better off.I would like us to stick to people who stick to prescribed doses and not people who overdose or under-dose since they are not qualifying as test subjects as they have not obeyed rules of the test.I accept.
Most people on antidepressants are being duped

Around here, I've noticed that being on antidepressants is almost as common as not being on them. People are on them and long term. I have SO MANY issues with this. Technically, it's none of my business. But so what? By "being duped" I mean that they would be no worse off if they weren't taking them, and probably would be better off. antidepressants: SSRIs, SNRIs. Of course, if you want, you can try to include other drugs, but they have to be proper antidepressants meaning drugs that doctors would be likely to prescribe for depression. Rounds1.
The Big Bang theory is true

Rebuttals:"There is dark matter which slows down the growth. It wasn't there last time. And mass cannot be created. "Yes, dark matter slows down the growth. And yes, indeed, dark matter came into existence. However, not in the way you think it did. Let us say that matter was converted somehow into dark matter. Conclusion: 1) Pro should lose spelling/grammar because he forgets that "doesn't" is a contraction of "does not" and he is supposed to put an apostrophe between the "doesn" and "t". 2) Pro should lose arguments because while my rebuttals remain uncontested, I always did so to his.
The Big Bang theory is true

Rebuttals: "If all the matter in the universe was compressed into a small dot, what caused this to happen? Where did gravity come from that held it together?" The Universe was extremely dense. Not even the size of a molecule. That is what held it together. "The Big Bang theory also ignores the First law of Thermodynamics, which says: "matter cannot be created or destroyed"" No, it does not. How? 1) Like said: "Alright. While solid objects are dense (Mass compacted together as having no space to go around), liquid and gas is not; the mass has space to go around in which it does. Same goes for our Universe." 2) You can fit as much energy and mass in the Universe.
The Big Bang theory is true

Introduction: My name is Jacob. I am 14 yrs. old. I live in New York. Please bear with me. I registered the day this debate was added. Rebuttals: 1. Indeed. According to the laws of thermodynamics (Conservation of energy[1], in particular), energy can neither be created, nor destroyed. 2. True. Energy is finite. 3. Yes. The Sun does. 4. Mass and energy does not fill up those spaces. Alright. While solid objects are dense (Mass compacted together as having no space to go around), liquid and gas is not; the mass has space to go around in which it does. Same goes for our Universe. Source: [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
The Big Bang theory is true

Pro will argue in favor of the resolution that the Universe's hypothesized "Big Bang theory" is in fact true. Theory: According to the Big Bang theory, matter and energy was compacted together. The universe was extremely dense. At one point, there was a cataclysmic explosion. The mass and energy filled up those spaces. Contentions: 1. According to the laws of thermodynamics (Conservation of energy[1], in particular), energy can neither be created, nor can be destroyed. 2. If statement #1 is true, then energy must be finite. 3. The Sun needs energy. 4. If statement #3 is true, and the mass and energy is filling up those spaces, how does the Sun have energy? Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org......;
Gun Control

While what you stated is true, certain guns are banned and restricted from certain areas. In NYC a gun must be concealable and have proper registration. While i do oppose drug dealers strolling down broadway with a rifle in hand, i must state that this is once again going back to the concept of taking away rights. A person might keep a shotgun in their house in the rural backcountry but in the city, having a shotgun ready for annintruder in the umbrella rack is a crime
Gun Control

look at the purpose of the gun first, like i stated before, its a thing to defend yourself and attack the other, bus, plane,cliffs, and smoke doesnt have same purpose. it ridiculous if you compare gun with that. Gun control isn't banning the right to have a gun, its only for safety check like background check like I stated before. Gun is easy to use, ease make people didn't think carefully, especially gun, just pull the trigger and you won .now I give you some fact "A 1992 report in the New England Journal of Medicine shows an association between household firearm ownership and gun suicide rates, finding that individuals in a firearm owning home are close to five times more likely to commit suicide than those individuals who do not own firearm" and gun-involved homicides is the biggest factor, it proof that there's many people who shouldn't have a gun but somehow they have a gun . The purpose of gun control is to reduce the gun violence, with the background check and etc and it will be more difficult for people who have criminal mental to have a gun. and when it happen, it must be reducing the gun violence Many people believe such a system exists today; it does not. Along with such a system, we need to improve the databases used in connection with such checks.
Gun Control

It isnt significant??!! He is slowly removing one of our key rights that sets our country apart from others. Yes the gun is lethal but planes and buses are as well, so are we going to remove those from our lives too? No way!!! Cliffs can kill people, so does that mean Obama will call for people to remove cliffs? Not a chance!! Just because something is lethal does not make it right to enforce a ban on it. It takes 32 Advil" Tablets to kill a human being, and they are still legal. Smoking is lethal, but that too takes away rights given to us by our founders. I do agree that killing is wrong but people are not just killed with firearms but also with knives, and other common household products, but our country will never place a ban on a simple knife. Even if our country removes firearms, there are always people who can get their hands on some black powder, steel, iron, and wood, and if that person has any woodwork/mettalurgic knowledge then they can create a firearm to kill a person. I do agree killing is a horrible act to commit, but just because guns are removed, does not mean that killing will just come to a halt. Plus most people who own firearms are either protective citizens who need to defend themselves against criminals or they are shooters who go to firing ranges on their spare time.
Gun Control

first of all, lets see how lethal gun is. We know that gun is the most effective way to defend yourself and attack the other, its easy to carry, easy to use, and etc. Obama clearly knowing the capability of the gun is, if it falls into the wrong hands, it will be a disaster. some of the point of gun control is require background checks for all gun sale strengthen the background check system for gun sales, yes, maybe it slightly harming our privacy, but it isnt significant, if you see the purpose of the gun control is.
The USA and Canada should merge to become one country

However, my opponent did express some reservations which I would like to address as follows: There may be some cultural differences between Canadians and Americans but they are so insignificant that they are difficult to define. Indeed, I would suggest there are bigger cultural differences between the people of Seattle and the people of Dallas than there are between the people of Seattle and the people of Vancouver. In any case, the United States and Canada share similar histories of immigration and their respective populations are melting pots of cultures from around the world: this multiculturism is one of the reasons why the US and Canada prospered while monocultural Mexico didn't. With regards to the political system, both countries are democracies with slightly different systems of governance, which would need tweaking, but there would be no need for any fundamental political upheaval. Finally, to address my opponent's concern about other countries merging to create a "bigger stronger emerging power"; I cannot think of any countries that might do so but, anyway, they have that option already: if it was beneficial they would do it now. Thank you.
The USA and Canada should merge to become one country

While this is a good idea, I do not believe America and Canada should merge as one nation. I disagree with this notion because of debatable "fact" that the "cultural orientation" of each country is indeed noticeable, America has totally different ideals than Canada, therefore could not smoothly merge. First lets address the fallacy that the merge would be seamless , the countries have different ideologies and a merge would step on the toes of each political system, Secondly, the issues addressed by merging countries are irrelevant. Lastly, I believe we should not merge because other countries might merge together as well possibly making a bigger stronger emerging power than us
The USA and Canada should merge to become one country

With the United States of America's economic supremacy on the wane with emerging powers such as China, India, Brazil and Russia becoming increasing influential, it is essential that America reasserts itself on the global stage without any further delay. The most effective way to do this would be to unify the US with Canada. This would create a truly formidable nation in terms of population, land area, natural resources and thus, by extension, economic influence. It would also make the maps look a bit neater because Alaska would no longer be stuck out on its own. This transition would be relatively seamless because the two countries share the same dominant language, religion, architecture, cultural orientation and cuisine: when you drive over the border from one country to another you would be hard pressed to notice any fundamental differences. This merger of nations does raise some practical issues, of course, first and foremost of which is what it should be called. I propose the following: Since this is a unification of two states, that should be reflected in the name, as should elements of the existing names. Thus, the two states are to be united so they are "The United States". Then the first part of ‘America': "ameri"; and the first part of ‘Canada': "ca" could be combined to make "America", forming the full name: "The United States of America". Next follows the question of what to name the capital city. It would make sense, once again, to combine elements of the existing capitals names. Thus, the last part of ‘Ottawa': "wa"; and the last part of ‘Washington': "shington" could be combined to make "Washington". Although it may seem reasonable to locate the new capital in the geographical centre of the two countries: Rugby, ND (1); this would prove to be a logistical nightmare so it would make sense to leave the government operations where they are. The last major question revolves around the new country's sovereignty and constitution. Because, in terms of land area, Canada is the larger of the two countries, former Canadians might expect former Americans to become members of the British Commonwealth, like they are, and adopt the Queen as their head of state as they have. However, this could never be possible. That's because the Queen is not only the head of the Commonwealth, she is also the head of the Church of England, and as a practicing Christian she will believe in "punishing the children for the sins of the fathers" (Exodus 20:5) and would never allow the decedents of Britain's renegade colonists to return to the fold. Therefore, it would make sense to retain the existing Constitution of the United States and extend it into what used to be Canada. In conclusion, having identified the advantages of the unification of the USA and Canada and having outlined how this merger could be easily be achieved, I see no reason why my proposal should not be adopted forthwith, and I duly urge you to vote pro in support of the motion. Thank you. (1) http://www.waymarking.com...
presidential elections- mcCain is going to win

im just a lazy catholic comunist and my opponenr may think obama will win and even other politicians and the press are saying this but like i said before if obama becomes president he wont stick to his plans and he is still very young and doesnt know everything he needs to. so i think that when McCain wins i would be fine with seeing obama as vice president that way he learns the ropes and will be a fine and maybe even one of the best presidents in the future.
presidential elections- mcCain is going to win

I can hardly believe I'm supporting the same presidential candidate as a catholic communist... :P I wish mccain were going to win (precisely because he won't do the things "god" told you to believe in), but frankly it's not likely. Obama's been sweeping primaries like crazy. He will have essentially all the democratic vote, and probably some of the republican vote., as well as drawing in independents. The average of polls indicates Obama winning against Mccain 47 to 43%: http://www.realclearpolitics.com... Clinton's machine is falling apart, she has low odds of nomination. Obama's currently ahead by 98 delegates, and would be by more if the primaries mattered. The democratic party knows it can't afford to appear undemocratic, and the people definitely favor Obama. And he's getting stronger every day.
presidential elections- mcCain is going to win

John McCain is going to win this election because the best person for the job has already dropped out of the race.(Mitt Romney) I think tho that John McCain is the second best choice becaus he is experienced and knows how to win. He believes in the right things that God has taught us to believe in and he's a fighter and will definitely push for good causes. You see Hillary Clinton is just like her husband she gives us a story and says she'll make a promise but she will just go break that promise and spring some other idea on us that she hadn't already told us about. Also, I believe that Barrak Obama is a good canidate to but he's just not fighting for the right causes and he is still really young and has a lot to learn before I believe he could become a president and keep the nation intact.
The DDO presidency should be abolished

Stealing this format because I like it. Props to the original owner which I think is bsh. Resolved - The DDO presidency should be abolished Team Debate Pro Mikal Bluesteel Con Blade runner Airmax Rules: 1. Forfeiting results in a loss of conduct or possibly the debate 2. Any citations or sources must be used within the character limit of the debate 3. No new arguments in the final round 4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere 5. No trolling or semantics 6. No K's of the topic 7. My opponent accepts all of the following definitions and waives his/her right to challenge these definitions 8. The BOP is shared 9. First round is acceptance only. This debate has been set to be impossible to accept, so if you wish to do so, say so in the comments. 10. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a loss of a conduct point and due to the severity of the breach may merit an entire FF of the debate.
It is reasonable to Believe in A Personal God

I accept, and will take the pro position.I'd like to thank xvyz for the opportunity to debate this resolution.We have conversed about the definition of reasonable and will accept his definition for the purpose of this debate. My opponent's definition of reasonable is contingent on a definition of reality, a term he failed to define, so I will provide a definition of the term, reality. Reality- the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or might be imagined.[1] In a wider definition, reality includes everything that is and has been, whether or not it is observable or comprehensible. A still broader definition includes everything that has existed, exists, or will exist. https://en.wikipedia.org... My opponent commented in his "preliminary matters," that most god concepts throughout history have been of a personal nature. I agree with him and would add the collective contributions of humans holding these beliefs have caused the realities of daily life to be vastly improved for many of the inhabitants of the earth. I ask that anyone who judges this debate take this question into consideration: If believing in a personal God is unreasonable, in that the proposition and entailment's of the proposition do not comport with reality, than why have there been so many discoveries and inventions of believers in a personal God, that have improved the reality of living conditions for human lives?I look forward to a challenging and rigorous debate. Good luck!
It is reasonable to Believe in A Personal God

Greetings, I have decided to rejoin the debate community, and find it suitable to discuss a topic that entails rational discourse and subjective feelings.There have been a veritable plethora of god concepts advanced throughout human history, and for the most part they have been personal, aside from certain deistic entities. In our current state, the prevailing belief of god is overtly personal, as displayed by the three major monotheistic religions, however it is necessary to ask, is this reasonable. As a preliminary, I would like to define some terms as to avoid confusion. If my definitions appear esoteric, or unfair, please notify me so that I may modifiy them in such a way, as to produce a maximally beneficial and productive debate. However, if you do not notify me prior to accepting, I will take it that you are implicitly agreeing to the terms. Reasonable- If a proposition is said to be reasonable, it is such that the proposition and entailments of the proposition appear to comport with reality.Personal- A God is personal, if this God intervenes in human affairs, or at the very least, communicates with humans through some form of communication.God- An entity that is at the very least transcendent, and sufficiently powerful to create our universe.BOP: As I am implicitly asserting a claim, albeit negative, I will attempt to provide rational argumentation for substantiating my claim. However, the pro side will have to provide argumentation on his or her side. I am advocating"Not X", and the negation of "Not X" is X, therefor the pro side is holding a positive position and must submit positive argumentation, as opposed to merely negating my claims.Structure:1) Con- Debate terms/preliminary matters Pro- Acceptance 2) Arguments3) Refutations4) Further discussion(no new arguments)5 ) Closing StatementsI would like to thank pro ahead of time for his, or her participation in what I am sure to be an engaging and enjoyable debate. Good luck!
Time is a verb.

Even if you're in a coma, The earth is still spinning on it's axis, Isn't it? It's still going around the sun. The sun is still moving around the galaxy. So, You can't move, But you're still moving. That's involuntary motion. Now, Our universe exists in two dimensions. A spatial dimension and a temporal dimension. These 2 dimensions make up temp-space. Distances in the spatial dimension are measured in metrrm, Kilometres, Etc. Distances in the temporal dimension are measured in minutes, Hours, Etc. We are constantly in motion in the temporal dimension. So, We move through the spatial dimension and we time through the temporal dimension. We're involuntary time travellers.
Should children be learnng more survival skills than mthas and english

One I mean survival skills I mean like how to survive in the wild. so if you were going to be dropped out of a helicopter you would be able to survive for at least a week. Also I agree with "the professor" that English and maths will get you far but in real world you really don't know what will come about. one minute you will be in a nice luxury house and the next you could be on the street trying to stay a live.
Should children be learnng more survival skills than mthas and english

Evidently *someone* hasn't had much experience in learning English. First off, I would suggest you better define "survival skills", because one could say that math and English were skills needed to survive in the professional world. Schools teach these subjects so that students may grow up and secure a job, make a living, and thus eliminate the need for these survival skills. In addition, other organizations (ex. Boy Scouts, martial arts centers, etc.) provide children with self-defense and survival skills should they want to learn these "life-long" skills, which may not necessarily be too life-long. I have a friend who was once a black belt in tae kwon do but no longer practices and has basically lost all of his knowledge of martial arts. -The Professor