BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Creation is more probable then Evolution

Evolution is a Markov ProcessOrganisms' traits are encoded in DNA which consists of long strings of four different nucleotides (adenine, cytosine, guanine, and thyamine), and the sequence of these nucleotides determines the traits an organism exhibits. [1]When an organism reproduces its DNA is replicated and passed to its offspring (there are some differences between sexual and asexual reproduction, but these aren't particularly relevant). However, the process of DNA replication is not always exact; random mutations occur changing the sequence of nucleobases, and these changes are inherited by offspring independent of previous ancestor's DNA. Evolution, then, can be modelled mathematically as a Markov process. [2]Bayesian Inference of PhylogenyBayes' theorem states that Pr(T|D) = Pr(D|T) x Pr(T) / Pr(D)The probability of each individual tree is a priori considered to be equal. Using Markov processes to determine the probability of the data given a tree allows the posterior probabilities of different trees (ie, the probability that a tree is correct given the empirical data) to be determined. By calculating the p-value, performing bootstraping and jackknifing tests, finding the consistency index, and comparing the congruency of independently created trees, a correct tree can be determined with statistical certainty. [3][4]Evolution is more probable than CreationismComparing the likelihoods of different hypotheses, the probability of universal common ancestry can be compared to other hypotheses. As Douglas Theobald shows in "A formal test of the theory of universal common ancestry", evolution from a universal common ancestor is at least 102860 more likely than the closest competing hypothesis. Thus, Evolution is more probable than Creationism.[1] http://www.genome.gov...;[2] http://pandasthumb.org...[3] http://www.sciencemag.org...;[4] http://evolution-textbook.org...;[5] http://www.nature.com...;
older cannot understand the youngers

As my peer has not given any definitions i suppose ill supply them. Older- A person of age 18+ Cannot- an auxiliary verb expressing incapacity, inability, withholding permission, etc.; can not Understand- Perceive the intended meaning of (actions, words, a language, or speaker): "he could usually make himself understood". Youngers- of an early, tender, or desirable age for use as food or drink(as in lamb, cow, etc.) The only point I really see that needs to be made here is this. That of course a person of age 18+ can't understand youngers. Youngers can't speak, because its just a food/drink. So there is nothing to understand. On a side note my peer appears to have had a seizure. I sincerely hope he is ok... anyways, unlike my peer, instead of a "wall-o-text" I will provide you with a video of a man dancing to Queen's "Don't Stop me Now." http://www.youtube.com...
Video Game Violence Makes Real Violence Happen

"You basically disproved yourself here. It is NOT the fault of the pencil sharpener, as it's not the fault of the video game."No dingleberry you completely missed the point: Video games directly cause people to act violent all the time but pencil sharpener penis decapitation barely happens at all. If both of them were merely objects then why does one lead to an absolute sh*t ton of rage among users while the other has no effect at all? The only answer is that video games do cause violence to happen, if it was just people then every object ever would cause violence, except they dont. "You seem to be full of yourself to automatically assume that you're winning."Well you havent given a single reasonable counter argument to any of my points so its pretty clear to see that im winning. The only thing youre actually doing is try to twist the resolution of the debate to an absurd degree just to get yourself more leeway...."That was also the topic of the debate in the first place, actual violence occuring from video games. Deaths, wounds, murder, mass shootings. You've changed the topic to over all stress from video games, and feeling bad because you've lost."Tell me then pencil-d*ck, where in the first or second round did you say that the resolution applied only to deaths, wounds, murders, and mass shootings? The answer is that you didnt. Youre cutting off 90% of the meaning of violence to include only really, really violent stuff while completely ignoring the fact that uncontrollable cursing, chucking the controller, etc also qualifies as 'violence' "Seeing violence in video games is just like seeing violence in movie. But movie violence is much worse. "Im sorry, how many movies have you seen that have caused you to start cursing uncontrollably or to throw objects violently across the room? Movies cause far less violence then video games, thats just simple observation. "It turns out that it didn't happen! Why you ask? Because those 7.5 million people are mentally stable. "First off, nobody who plays Black Ops II is mentally stable. All of them are 12 year old boys hitting puberty like a wall, they are most certainly not stable. Secondly, you just admitted that people overreact to all kinds of stuff such as sports yet you continue to deny that video games can be a trigger for causing people to act violent. Hypocrite much?"I believe we cuss under our breath and get frustrated at numerous things throughout life. Stepping in gum, losing a job, not assembling a product correctly, etc..."I dont know about your mental stability, but ive never stepped in bubble gum and then as a response yelled out "F*CKING SH*T THESE F*CKING HACKERS CAN SUCK MY HAIRY D*CK. SUCH BULLSH*T" like thousands of teenagers are yelling right now after they just died in Black Ops II.....Stepping in gum is not the equivalent of dying in a video game since the reaction to both varies immensly. ===========================================================================Point is, video games do cause violence in the from of rants of cursing, chucking the game controller or remote against the TV or wall, etc etc.
Video Game Violence Makes Real Violence Happen

"Oh so when video games is directly responsibe for causing violence then suddenly everyone has a mental illness and the video game wasnt at any fault? Thats like saying that sticking your d*ck in a pencil sharpener is the fault of the pencil sharpener for looking too much like a vagina when im hammered drunk at 3 AM. "You basically disproved yourself here. It is NOT the fault of the pencil sharpener, as it's not the fault of the video game. "Changing the meaning of the resolution just because youre losing is very poor conduct con. You seem to be behaving violently for something that isnt happening in real life, much like how gamers react negatively when they are losing video games. "You seem to be full of yourself to automatically assume that you're winning. I'd fix my grammar and realize that I disproved myself before I would jump in to say I'm winning. That was also the topic of the debate in the first place, actual violence occuring from video games. Deaths, wounds, murder, mass shootings. You've changed the topic to over all stress from video games, and feeling bad because you've lost. You could go out and start to bash any activity you'd like, and state that it was the cause for violence. This is like the matter of gun violence. The gun itself does not go and kill people. The gun must be used by a mentally ill person who can't control themselves. Seeing violence in video games is just like seeing violence in movie. But movie violence is much worse. People seem to overreact for most activities, ESPECIALLY sports. (See the Brazilian soccer incident that happened recently. I'm sure they played some Gears of War before beheading and quartering the coach, don't you think?) Playing video games is a fun way to pass time, competitively. Seeing a person get shot in Call of Duty: Black Ops II is no means whatsoever to kill anybody. If this were true, 7.5 million+ gamers would be going on killing rampages. However, this isn't the case. It turns out that it didn't happen! Why you ask? Because those 7.5 million people are mentally stable. Also, since you're talking about less violent "violence" (throwing the controller, cussing, etc...), I believe we cuss under our breath and get frustrated at numerous things throughout life. Stepping in gum, losing a job, not assembling a product correctly, etc...
Video Game Violence Makes Real Violence Happen

"The things you have listed are simple, causal things that the first time/not very good gamer would do."And how many first time/not very good gamers do you think are out there? There are MILLIONS of them. "Yes, lag gets annoying, but to throw your controller, for any reason during a game, means that the player themselves have complete aggression and anger issues that should be checked out."Oh so when video games is directly responsibe for causing violence then suddenly everyone has a mental illness and the video game wasnt at any fault? Thats like saying that sticking your d*ck in a pencil sharpener is the fault of the pencil sharpener for looking too much like a vagina when im hammered drunk at 3 AM. "And please read the title of the debate"I did, it clearly states that 'Video game violence makes real violence happen"...."I meant that seeing people get shot in video games caused terrible events such as school shootings and other events."Changing the meaning of the resolution just because youre losing is very poor conduct con. You seem to be behaving violently for something that isnt happening in real life, much like how gamers react negatively when they are losing video games.
Video Game Violence Makes Real Violence Happen

The things you have listed are simple, causal things that the first time/not very good gamer would do. Once you actually get good at the games, there's no need to rage like that. Gamers (actual gamers) such as myself, play the games for a fun, challenging experience against other gamers. Yes, lag gets annoying, but to throw your controller, for any reason during a game, means that the player themselves have complete aggression and anger issues that should be checked out. And please read the title of the debate, I meant that seeing people get shot in video games caused terrible events such as school shootings and other events.
Video Game Violence Makes Real Violence Happen

Video games causes violence to happen all the time, and to claim that it doesnt is balderdash! When was the last time you ever yelled out five expletives in a row after getting killed in a game? When was the last time you rage quitted from a game cause you were losing? When was the last time you chucked the controller or the remote? When was the last time you ever admitted that you died because the opponent was better and not because of some 'bullsh*t'? When was the last time you ever got ticked off because the game got slow laggy? Video games cause violence all the time! Not murder and actual killings and stuff like that but they still cause violence.
Video Game Violence Makes Real Violence Happen

I am strictly AGAINST the idea that video games influence violence in real life. It just make no sense whatsoever. To say that all violence is caused by video games is a complete and utter outrage. Violence has happened ALL throughout history, from the beginning of time (Cane killing Able). I'm sure John Wilkes Booth had a few rounds of Halo before killing Lincoln! It's just stupid. There's my opinion, now fire away
Homosexual couples should be able to adopt children.

Hello and welcome to my debate. This debate consists of Gay adoption and if they should have the right to adopt. These definitions are all referenced to Merriam Webster's Dictionary. Homosexual- : of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex Couple- two persons married, engaged, or otherwise romantically paired Should- used in auxiliary function to express condition Able- having sufficient power, skill, or resources to accomplish an object Adopting- to take by choice into a relationship; especially : to take voluntarily (a child of other parents) as one's own child Child- a son or daughter of human parents My opponent will say he/she accepts and is ready for the debate in Round 1 then I will begin my arguments in Round 2 and so on. I hope for an interesting debate and an opening to society's eyes.
Chuck Norris is real

You cannot prove that it is cgi. So, this point is invalid. Furthermore, various people have claimed to met Chuck Norris. Even I met him once at an MMA tournament. He is a real person. You failed to meet your BoP. I showed a legit live interview that was inpossible to include CGI. Chuck Norris is a real living person, your argument is invalid. Furthermore, CGI cannot create such a realistic figure as Chuck Norris. Here is more proof of Chuck Norris being a real person. These are all live interviews, where he actually makes physical contact with others there, proving he isn't CGI. In conclusion, Chuck Norris is a proven living person. He has been on various live interviews, and has been seen by many including myself. My opponent makes false accusations accusing it of being cgi, however such is just plain impossible.
Chuck Norris is real

Thats what they want you to think. Can people REALLY go to burger king and get a happy meal? Is it really true that Light wishes it was faster than chuck norris's fists? No it's not. Chuck is a fantasy character. Here is my final argument for Man of Steel: Frozen is the 3rd highest grossing movie of 2013, so of course it surpassed man of steel. It's also the 19th highest grossing movie of all time. And those where three of Disney's most succsesful movies. But, if we are going to be comparing movies due to there grossings, Man of steel is 56th most highest grossing movies of all time in the US. Man of Steel beat the incredibles, Super 8, and the Lego movie, AND the Matrix. Man of Steel was supposed to be dramatic and loud. It's not a comedy. And again, Kryptons have always looked like Humans. It's been that way since Superman was invented. So I'm just assuming you're now attacking every Superman franchise and not just this movie? I wouldn't say the best character was his dad. And he was killed off for a good reason. He was scared for Clark. Again, a touching moment in the movie. Man of steel Was a good movie. Good as in I liked it. And you didn't. It portrayed a different side of Superman. A side we had yet to see. One that showed that we are ALL human. That life is not perfect. It's not always turn back time and fix things so every body lives happily ever after. Because not every thing has a happy ending. Even the end of the movie didn't end well for the Man of Steel. Clark now has to live with the guilt of killing the last of hus own kind! In conclusion, Man of Steel is a movie that may not have made it out of the 50's in highest grossing rankings. It may not have gotton the best reviews, but Man of Steel is a movie that will be remembered for generations and generations to come. I feel Man of Steel is a misunderstood movie. if you take time and think about what it means, Man of Steel has so many metaphors and parallels to real life. It shows NOBODY is invincable. Not even Man of Steel. http://www.imdb.com... http://boxofficemojo.com...
It Is Not Probable That the Genesis Flood Narrative Actually Occurred

You asked to accept this.Full ResolutionIt is not probable that the Genesis flood narrative, as related in the book of Genesis in the Bible, actually occurred.You are defending the biblical story of the great flood. You cannot use revisionist theories. You must accept that the flood happened around 2300-2200 BC.BoP is shared.DefinitionsProbable: "Likely to [have] happen[ed] or to [have] be[en] true."[1]Genesis Flood Narrative: "...makes up chapters 6–9 in the Book of Genesis, in the Bible. The narrative, one of many flood myths found in human cultures, indicates that God intended to return the Earth to its pre-Creation state of watery chaos by flooding the Earth because of humanity's misdeeds and then remake it using the microcosm of Noah's ark."[2]Occurred: "To take place; come about."[3]Myth: "A traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature."[4]Rules1. The first round is for acceptance.2. A forfeit or concession is not allowed.3. No semantics or trolling.4. All arguments must be visible inside this debate. Sources may be posted in the comments sections or in an outside link.5. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed in the middle of the debate. Voters, in the case of the breaking of any of these rules by either debater, all seven points in voting should be given to the other person.Debate StructureRound 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Presenting all arguments (no rebuttals by con)Round 3: Refutation of opponent's arguments (no new arguments)Round 4: Defending your original arguments and conclusion (no new arguments)Sources[1]: http://www.thefreedictionary.com...[2]: http://en.wikipedia.org...[3]: http://www.thefreedictionary.com...[4]: http://dictionary.reference.com...
Legalizing Drugs

"Well, alcohol is legal, and it kills more people than drugs." It's true that it does, but there are still people who don't want alcohol to be legal either. "What do you think about legalizing pot only?" Well If I gave my answer I wouldn't be con. :) I still beleive that drug use should be illegal. I hope in the next debate you can be more specific because I'v asked why the government should control drug use and in your last reply you told me which can cause more deaths. P.S. Yes. That's my puppy. He's four months.
Legalizing Drugs

Well, alcohol is legal, and it kills more people than drugs. Actually, on the killing scale, alcohol is much worse because it is more likely to get innocent people killed (in DUIs). What do you think about legalizing pot only? Many countries in Europe have legalized it, and the death didn't jump, nor has it risen in any signifigant manner because of the legalization. The main advantage to legalization is that drugs are no longer a forbidden fruit, hence making them lose their allure. PS cute profile pict! Is the dog yours?
Legalizing Drugs

You've asked me to clarify my last argument. I merely meant they've stated they do not want the use of drugs in this country. Certain drugs are illegal. Why would they make drugs legal and sell them to make a profit off of something that is against the law? The reason they use so much money is because they've declared that they don't want drug use in this country. If (ONLY if) they legalized drugs they would be the cause of consumption/use of this drug. Hence, they are cause of many deaths. Law states they have to protect life and if they can't do that they are going against law. The laws they have issued for drugs are only for the safety of the human population. Thank you. I am always waiting for your reply. :)
Legalizing Drugs

Please clarify: "laws have gone out issuing that drugs are illegal, meaning they don't want the use or purchase allowed in their country. Why would they create something that they've already not allowed?" I did not mean to say that the government created the black market, just that by refusing to legalize drugs, they are fueling it enormously. Hence, why allow millions of dollars of possible sales tax, and billions of dollars spent hunting and persecuting drug runners/addicts/dealers go to waste when drugs could simply be legalized?
Democrats, Fascists and Socialists go Hand in Hand

Well I am sorry, But it is true. From healthcare to Occupy Wall Street to evicerating the Constitution, To persecuting conservatives shows that the Democrats not only support Fascist tactics and Socialist ideology, But also ecourage it. I also understand what you say aboout the right being Republican and the left being Democrats. I will partly agree with what you said about that by saying that all Democrats and many Republicans are Socialist in their ideology. I will not discuss this with a Canadian because I am talking about American politics. If you want to read some good books try 'The Big Lie' and 'Death of a Nation'.
Democrats, Fascists and Socialists go Hand in Hand

I urge you to read the following carefully: This isn't a "beef" and I am not on your "side" To call this a beef insinuates that I am emotionally inclined to dispute you out of anger, Hatred, Or similar. I am not; I am here to debate. My intention is to dispute something I believe to be technically wrong. That is my only intention of this debate. To say that I'm on your side tells me that (and correct me if I'm wrong) you think of political ideology in strictly binary terms (ie. You're either Left and a Democrat or you're Right and a Republican). However, This is untrue. One can identify in a political party and hold views that are dominant in various other areas on the political spectrum. For example, I support Trumps move to ban Transgender people from joining the military (a common right wing stance), And I often identify myself as right leaning (progressive right) with many centrist values, But at the same time I am in support of having gay marriages legal (a common leftist stance). What I'm trying to say is that I don't decide on all my political stances, Opinions, And views based on the mere fact that I consider myself to be right wing alone; I decide all these things on what I believe to be true, Based on research, Personal experience, Studies in political theory, And etc. And to answer your question, The reason I chose to debate you is this. The one thing I can not stand for is a misrepresentation of my opposition. I may disagree with something, But I do not stand for people who misrepresent those who I disagree with, Even if it supports my views. In my eyes you have here misrepresented Democrats in pitting them with Socialists and Fascists, And although I disagree with most Democrats on most things I do not like seeing them being represented that way. Thank you