BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Evolution is the Superior Theory to Creationism

Ok, I understand that monkeys or apes share similarities, however did you know Pigs are a log closer related to humans that apes are? http://www.abc.net.au... Pigs share 98% of our DNA. Does that mean we look were pigs at one point? So just because something is similar doesn't actually provide proof. Yes, I understand the existence of evolution over time can change a how a species survives but can you provide definitive proof that shows that a cow has become a dog and the steps between or are you just using faith as in believing in something not seen but you believe to be true? So again, you are saying "theoretically yes" they could. but there is no actual proof. So what I am saying, just because there is evidence of evolution and that evolution does exist does not disprove the existence of a god or creator. Further more even if we came from apes, that doesn't mean God didn't create "Adam and Eve" and then later on down the line. As far as the finch evolving. Do we have evidence that that finch will be some completely different species because they lived on a different side of the island, and also how do we know that that finch was a species all on it's own and was created that way? do you have proof other than a "hunch" that god didn't create a Pin-tailed Nonpareil/Parrot Finch from the get go and then decided to create a Blue-faced Parrot Finch? Or are you using "faith" that over time one became the other? As far as adapting to disease, that is what people do, and that is how the immune system works. But just because Native Americans adapted to disease does not mean eventually we will cross species and becomes something other than human. I am not discounting the existence of evolution, As I completely agree and believe that evolution exists. I'm discounting the existence of one species becoming a completely different species. How long has the Human Population been around? and given that amount of time, what new species has evolved from homo sapiens? The idea that we derived from an ameba would deny the existence of ameba today. As evolution is continuous, does that mean the animal that we came from is extinct? Where is the animal that shares 99% of human DNA? Where is the animal that is directly in between Apes and Human? Lets provide a time line. Ameba are asexual and can reproduce without a partner... so those keep reproducing and slowing become (over millions and billions of years) something other than ameba. While this change is occurring, the original ameba is still reproducing meaning the ameba never went away and still exists today.. So now we fast forward and have all these different species but the problem with this theory is the holes in the prior species that are supposed to exist today. If we derived from an ameba to human there should be a time line from 1% to 100% human and we do not have this. as I stated earlier. What species exists to day that is 99% human? To take it a step further why does the existence of evolution mean that there isn't a master creator in existence?
Evolution is the Superior Theory to Creationism

First, Just because something is accepted and supported by the general public doesn't mean it is actually correct, else we forget about Galileo saying that the earth revolved around the sun and put to death because the general public supported the theory that the sun revolved around the earth. Second, Just because the evidence of evolution exists does not disprove the existence of a creator or a god. While both are theories, both also have some element of "Faith" required to fill in the blanks of what neither can prove. Unless you have definitive proof of that we derived from monkeys/apes. You just believe that we did and you have faith that there is a "missing link" that exists out there we just haven't found it. My definition of evolution is adapting to the environment around a given species. But a cow doesn't become a dog no matter how many years pass. There is no evidence of one species becoming another species. A finch was still a finch which proves the finch evolved depending on its environment, but a finch was not in transition of becoming a cat. All in all. Just like creationists have faith in the "missing elements" of what they believe you do not have a species that is "in between" species.
Evolution is the Superior Theory to Creationism

I will be arguing that Evolution is correct over Creationism. Evolution is a well-supported scientific theory stating, in essence, that the strong survive and the weak die out. Over long periods of time (thousands to millions of years) organisms inside of a population that are more adapted to their environment and are more capable of surviving and reproducing will do so more than their less-adapted counterpart. Over time this produces a change in a population, and in some cases the production of a new species or subspecies. The classic example of this is Darwin's finches. Darwin visited the Galapagos islands while travelling around the world, and found several types of finches on nearby islands. Each island had slightly different ecological conditions, which in turn caused the finches on that island to differ from those on nearby islands.
Evolution is the Superior Theory to Creationism

I just wanted to say that it was a pleasure bouncing ideas off of you and having a very nice debate about a subject I hold dear to my heart. You are very logical in your answers and as I do not claim to have all the answers myself, I do not discount the idea of evolution being a possibility of how we have some species. At the same time though, With events in my life that I cannot explain. I also believe we have a supreme creator at the head of this "big explosion". As for the Hardcore creationists that believe the Earth is only 6000 years old (well lets be generous and say 10K) they obviously believe in magic too because they likely believe something can be created from nothing (which is impossible.. literally)... Molecules are always involved in creating... then there are atoms and so forth... So when I think of Creationism.. I think of a God that follows the same rules as a Scientist would, organizing something that already exists to make something new (like a baker making a Cake for example... there is no "poof", here's a cake... There were ingredients involved). All in all. As I posted in the comments and since I feel it's relevant to the debate. Let's say we came from an ameba. Where did that ameba come from? Logically if it was created by an explosion (sorry big bang is the only theory I am familiar with.) We should technically scientifically create a living thing from non living elements, but we cannot. You can blow something up a billion times and still not make a living organism. Not going to happen. No matter the ignition source.. being from the cosmos or from a match. The likely hood that something blew up and "accidentally" landed in the galaxy formation we have today is extremely unlikely. But then people would rather believe in a big bang (one extremely unlikely event) over the possibility of a God that masterminded this whole operation. (another extremely unlikely event). There isn't even evidence that supports the Big Bang as it hasn't even been reproduced to even call it a theory.. at best it is a hypothesis. So, whether you put your eggs into the basket of "Explosion created life and went from there" to "God created evolution" to "God is Magic" or anything in between. I hope we can leave this debate a little bit edified and maybe we both learned something new about each other's perspective.
Evolution is the Superior Theory to Creationism

I skimmed through your response I only have a little time. It seems the main argument of your response is that I am unable to provide a series of animals that when placed chronologically show the evolution from one species to another. According to you "Who is to say God didn't create those animals? " It looks like we answered that issue. About the 1% to 100% thing. I hope you understand that humans are not completely knowledgeable. in 2002 (2002 or 2001) we managed to decode the entire human genome. That project went on for 10 years. For a single species. The entire genetics-related world worked for 10 years to decode the genome of a single species. Do you understand how long it would take to decode the genomes of enough species to provide a line from 1% to 100%. Many domesticated animals have had their genomes decoded, yes, but we do not come from domesticated animals. Domesticated animals are also significantly different from their wild counterparts. Again, even if I DO provide 1% to 100% you will just say " Who is to say God didn't create those animals? " which is why these debates are ultimately fruitless, as the creationist side will always respond with something along the lines of "Ok evolution exists but only because God made it." Which brings me to the second part, which you ask multiple times; how evolution disproves the existence of a God/creator. Answer: It doesn't. I think a lot of hardcore creationists believe the Earth in 6,000 years old (something backed up by the Creationist museum). I don't think you're one of those people so I won't go into that. Evolution is an idea, an algorithm of sorts that determines how species change over time. It does not go into how the Universe started, that is the domain of theories such as the Big Bang. I suppose it boils down to this. I have faith that humans will continue to learn and will determine the beginning of the universe eventually, whether it be the Big Bang or not, while you have faith in an all-powerful being that supposedly created everything.
Switching to a popular vote based Presidential Election system

I am not sure if my opponent is aware that his time to post has run out; however, there are so few rounds left in this debate that it is hardly worthwhile to continue. Apparently we were both beset by unexpected time restraints, and I respect my opponent's forthrightness in informing me of same; my request of the voters is to treat this debate as a single round, rather than counting my opponent's forfeits against him. That said, extend all arguments.
Switching to a popular vote based Presidential Election system

First, my thanks again to my opponent for initiating this debate. Second, I must post this round now, as I will be unable to access the internet this weekend until late Sunday at best. My apologies to my opponent. .. This respite gives me the opportunity to expound on my proposal to replace the Electoral College. I understand that to be the purpose of this debate, and owe my opponent a more concrete concept to oppose. I propose: a) that the Electoral College be abolished, for reasons given in the first round; b) that in the presidential elections, voting be direct; the state one is from will make no difference in how your vote is counted. One would be voting directly for the candidate of his choice, not for an elector who can withhold or change his vote against what you chose. c) that the victory be by vote totals, not by majority. A candidate could win under this system even if he does not have a 50%+ majority of the votes; all that matters is that he got the most votes. This avoids the complications inherent in the systems that insist on a majority. I hope that this helps clarify my position; I look forward to reading my opponent's arguments when I return on Sunday from my trip.
Switching to a popular vote based Presidential Election system

Hello. I would like to thank whoever accepts this debate. Let's start with the resolution... === Resolution === I, PRO, believe that the United States should retain the Electoral College system in regards to electing a President, as opposed to accepting a policy in which all that matter is the popular vote. === Arguments === 1) Last time I checked, America was a confederation of STATES. The Electoral College system provides for the protection of the rights of all 50 states, because it forces candidates to appeal to the voters in all parts of America. A nationwide vote tally could provide an incentive for a candidate to focus only on the most populous areas of the country, such as California, New York, or Texas, and ignore other areas such as Alaska, Rhode Island, or Maine. If that was to happen, the interests of a particular region would trample the rights of the nation has a whole. 2) If we did switch to a popular vote system, there is a possibility that the majority of voters wouldn't be satisfied. Take for example, the 2000 presidential election. George Bush---50,456,002 votes nationwide 47.87% of total vote Al Gore---50,999,897 votes nationwide 48.38% of total vote Others---3,949,201 votes nationwide 3.75% of total vote **If you really want to blame somebody for Gore's 2000 lost, blame Ralph Nadar*** It is obvious that Gore won the nationwide popular vote. However, 52.13% of the population cast a vote for a candidate OTHER THAN Al Gore, so, most Americans didn't want Al Gore to become president. Now, I do understand that George Bush also has more people vote against him, but he won the electoral college. The electoral college mandates that a candidate win a majority of electoral votes, 270. So, at the end of the day, George Bush had more NATIONAL appeal because he won a majority of the electoral votes, which represent the electorate (the voter) I thank whoever accepts
Restricted movement in anemonefish causes protandry so the species has better chances of surviving

So my arguments, as I stated in Round 1 will be for territorial dominance and Symbiosis, not the survivial of the Species.Pro brings up Finding Nemo. In the movie the mother dies, but in the movie what should have happend was that the father would become the female (since there are no other clown fish around) and Nemo would then mate with his father. This is to become the dominate species as Pro has also brought up. ( http://thefisheriesblog.com...) Another part of the female dominance is the one's that produce more eggs generally are the most dominate in the region. It has also been found that switching genders increases a fish's social dominance and helps them move up the social food chain sort-to-speak. ("Queue Selection and Switching by False Clown Anemonefish, Amphiprion Ocellaris." Animal Behavior 69 (2005) by Jeremy Mitchell) I agree for the most part with my opponent concerning the heirarchy except the argument actually works for me concidering that the Heirarchy is more of a dominance argument than a survivial argument. The Clownfish cannot due this for survivial as it has been found that Clownfish that aren't the King and Queen do not reproduce. Thus survival is immidiately driven down due to the aggression of the Queen. When the King or Queen dies another fish steps up to take it's place in the heirarchy providing and proving it's dominance over other clownfish. The fact that only the King and Queen reproduce proves that it cannot be souly just for survivial. My opponent has also said that they live alone, but that too is false as many times juvinile social groups will live together in the anemone. (Fricke, H., S. Fricke. 1977. Monogamy and sex change by aggressive dominance in coral reef fish. Nature, 266: 830-832.) Another Study that was conducted they place three groups of Clown Fish in a fish tank and found over a month's period that they created their own heirarchy and the King and Queen's body mass as well as steroid levels skyrocketed compared to that of the lower ranking clown fish. (Iwata, Eri, Yukiko Nagai, Mai Hyoudou, and Hideaki Sasaki. "Social Environment and Sex Differentiation in the False Clown Anemonefish, Amphiprion ocellaris." Zoological Science 25.2 (2008): 123-28.) The Clownfish is very clever. It uses it's bright colors to attract preditors to it's anemone. The sting then kill the preditor and the clownfish has a meal. The Clownfish also uses it's abilities to fend of preditors of the anemone to protect it. creating a mutal relationship between the two. (http://www.animalfacts.lv2lvu.com...)
Restricted movement in anemonefish causes protandry so the species has better chances of surviving

This (hopefully) will be my first debate. This debate will be about 'Why are anemonefish protandrous hermaphrodites?' My position is that they are protandrous due to a natural selection in order to increase their odds of overall survival of the species. If you have a different opinion on why they are as they are, accept it as "con". Protandrous: "(of a hermaphrodite flower or animal) having the male reproductive organs come to maturity before the female."
Restricted movement in anemonefish causes protandry so the species has better chances of surviving

I'd like to disprove my opponent here. He states that the female can reproduce. This is true, but in a system of clown fish there is a male and a female. The rest of the fish are neither (immature). They become male when the King dies and that way the Clown fish's reproductive organs will be ready for the Queen and Vise Versa. This is so the Queen and King can only reproduce in a system of Clown fish giving the true meaning of the hierarchy. This was also found in the experiment that I have brought up in my last round. (Iwata, Eri, Yukiko Nagai, Mai Hyoudou, and Hideaki Sasaki. "Social Environment and Sex Differentiation in the False Clown Anemone fish, Amphiprion ocellaris. " Zoological Science 25.2 (2008): 123-28. ) The Clown fish lives in various sizes of ecosystem meaning that they are not isolated. Meaning that they live around a small group of Clown fish proving the Hierarchy. I'd like to make a quote from my opponent's third source, "Clown fish inhabit a single sea anemone in groups that include the breeding male and female and a number of younger male clownfish. " (. http://a-z-animals.com...) Pro's own source proves my point that only the Queen and the King reproduce. No other Clown fish in the hierarchy does. In conclusion, we see if it were for survival then all would reproduce not just the King and Queen. The fact remains that the fish in the hierarchy change their sex to become the dominate species. My opponent has also dropped my sea anemone argument that proves my symbiosis argument in this debate.
Restricted movement in anemonefish causes protandry so the species has better chances of surviving

It is very true that clownfish are dominant species living in a heirarchy like most social animals do, however it is not result of the transgender trait. Dominance is and hierarchy is a common theme within species that cannot change their sexes, not just pontarous species. Con has stated "My opponent has also said that they live alone, but that too is false as many times juvinile social groups will live together in the anemone" but this is untrue that I have said that. My words were, "They do not always live in massive schools like other fish; they vary in many sizes." is not saying or implying isolation or solitary, but saying that they do not always live in large schools and that they may vary in many sizes from ten to dozens or even hundreds. Con has also stated that "The Clownfish cannot due this for survivial as it has been found that Clownfish that aren't the King and Queen do not reproduce" which is also untrue that it disqulaifies it as ineligable as survival technique since females can lay up to hundreds and even thousands of eggs at once depending on type of species of clownfish. It is true that only the dominate male (or King) will mate with the female though. It [domninance and symboisis] not a result of the ability for the fish to change their sex but a result of being a social creatures just like humans, lions, dolphins that are born as a specific sex. 1.) http://www.telegraph.co.uk...2.) http://www.todayifoundout.com...3.) http://a-z-animals.com...;
Children should not have homework.

Since my opponent has mostly dropped their position, and it's with a logical position: for some students, homework is good and others it is not. There is good logic in that. My opponent did ask about how students view homework, and this is what I found through a quick search: 65% of students view homework as a waste of time, 50% view homework as being overly challenging or simply too difficult, and 29% of the students believed homework was interesting[5]Now, this may not be able to tell us too much, because this is based on how homework currently is. These numbers would likely change if homework was made in such a way where the students got to have a say over what was involved in the homework. I think teachers should just have a overall guideline on what students need to know, and then the students could then create their own homework that teaches them this topic. This would likely increase the amount of students who would find homework interesting(as it's low) since they would get to have a say in what the assignment is. Thus, to reiterate some things, homework shouldn't be completely elliminated, but it should have input from the students so that the students get to do what they believe is most beneficial for them. We don't all learn things the same way, and that would be most beneficial in my opinion, Maybe some students would choose to go without homework, and I think that is fine.Sources:[5]http://ro.ecu.edu.au...
Children should not have homework.

Since the resolution is that children should not have homework, I can have any position ranging from: homework should be lessened, homework remaining the same, to homework increasing.I'm not going to state what my position is, simply that I oppose pro's position. I believe every single one of pro's argument they offered in round 1 can have the solution of making sure that not too much homework is assigned. Children can still have free time to go outside if, for example, they have just 1-2 hours of homework each night. Suppose school is 5 hours long in a day, I believe that's typical. Then homework is 1-2 hours a day. That leaves, subtracting 8 hours for sleep, 10-11 hours of free time. Maybe another total hour would be spent eating the other two meals a day that don't take place at school. That leaves 9-10 hours of free time to explore their individuality, to be outside, etc.I think it's more typical, however, to have a little homework than that nowadays, maybe 3-4 hours of homework a day is what children are getting. Even if that's the case, that leaves 6-7 hours of free time, which I think is plenty. Not to mention, there would be weekends in which they have no school, so they would, in reality on those days, have 11-12 hours of free time, assuming that they also have 3-4 hours of homework they need to do each day on the weekend. In order for there to be no free time that Children have, close to 12 hours of homework a night would need to be assigned, and I don't know of any school that assigns that much homework, or even close to it. I believe I've offered logic pointing out that getting rid of homework completely, as my opponent is arguing for, is unnecessary. Now, here are reasons why they should be given homework:-It helps them learn important concepts in school that they will use in everyday life or potentially in their future careers. -It helps them get into a routine of things and learn time management skills. These are important skills to learn especially if you plan on having a family one day and working. You need to be able to fit in time to spend with the family around your work schedule.-Homework helps children perform better in school, all scientific studies performed on the matter have a consensus regarding this[1], granted there is less correlation for homework helping elementary school students.sources:[1] http://upload-community.kipa.co.il...