BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Correlation/Causation argument does not disprove the theory of Evolution

This issue came up a few weeks ago when I challenged someone to a standard evolution debate (http://www.debate.org...), but my opponent brought up the correlation/causation argument (i.e. since correlation doesn't imply causation, the evidence behind the theory of evolution doesn't actually support it), I had no idea how to tackle the argument, since I had never heard of it before, and as a result I didn't really end up disproving his argument, even though I did end up winning the debate. Since then, I have talked to some people and figured out how to debunk it: --Just because the correlation MIGHT NOT imply causation doesn't mean that it CAN'T imply causation. All that argument does is cast DOUBT upon the theory; not invalidate it. It doesn't actually disprove the theory. --In addition, we have observed Evolution in bacteria (1) as well as some species of insects (2). And since all living creatures have the same type of DNA, it is logical to conclude, in conjunction with all the correlating-but-supposedly-not-causal evidence, that all organisms evolved via the same evolutionary mechanism. --It is not logical to believe in only micro-evolution but not macro-evolution because they both operate via the same mechanism, just that one takes much longer to directly observe than the other. --In conclusion, all that the correlation/causation argument does is give a cause for doubt. The undeniable correlation of evidence to the theory, along with already-observed micro-evolution and very sound logic, turns that doubt into nothing more than the tiny margin of possible error that ALL scientific theories have. --Evolution is FACT I eagerly await my future opponent's argument. SOURCES (1) http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com... (2) http://www.millerandlevine.com...
The Correlation/Causation argument does not disprove the theory of Evolution

ConclusionIf there is no causal evidence for any statement (i.e. unicorns exist), it is just an arbitrary assumption. As a society, thinks are innocent until proven guilty, that is, we do not assume that things exist until they are proven to exist. If the Theory of Evolution is only arbitrary assumptions, then yes, the Correlation/Causation argument dsproves the theory.My opponent continually concluded the non-sequitor fallacy of saying that since we observe mutations and natural selection, then Darwinian Evolution must be true. As already shown, Evolutionary biologists do not account for mutations and natural selection for proof for Darwinian Evolution.Pro: I don't mean to burst Con's bubble, but the only reason I'm responding to his other arguments against Evolution is because I feel like it. It is not really central to the resolution at all. I simply want to show that the likelihood of Evolution being true is very high.My opponent needed to respond to my refutations against Darwinian Evolution. If he has no causal evidence for evolution, then all that is left is arbitrary assumptions, which allows the contention of the Causation argument to refute Evolution.My opponent continued to dislike my video game analogy because he understands that the analogy shows how impossible Darwinian Evolution is. Actually, genomes between organisms is much more different than the coding for video games. A standard NES game can consist of a few Megabytes. DNA of a human body stores 1.5 Gbytes x 100 trillion cells = 150 trillion Gbytes or 150×10^12 x 10^9 bytes = 150 Zettabytes (10^21) (1). So, it's inconceivable to think that one simple NES game could evolve into another. Now, comapre that to the human DNA, which is, as shown, almost infinitely more complex, how could any rational human being think evolution could produce that much more information?Gould was an evolutionary biologist. He realized that mutations and natural selection did not provide the mechanisms for evolution, and was concinved that, in the future, scientists would discover that mechanism. We still have not found it today, (which I contend is because it doesn't exist), so there is still no known mechanism for Evolution. Which makes Evolution an arbitrary assumption.I did not say that scientists don't interpret the fossil record in a Darwinian mindset. I showed that there isn't much evidence to show that the fossil record is Darwinian. My opponent sited sources of people who still believe in Evolution, but that did not refute my argument.My opponent never gave any evidence for abiogenesis, which Evolution needs for proof of causality.My opponent never refuted my transitional fossils argument, which absoultely disproves Evolution, as we know that organisms do not evolve over millions of years, whether the environment changes or not.Evolution is only an arbitrary assumption. I refuted all of the supposed causal evidence. The Causation argument refutes Evolution.(1) http://bitesizebio.com...
Resolved: God exists.

Thank you for accepting and I shall begin. Definitions: Deity- for the purposes of this debate, a deity is the supernatural creator of the universe who oversees the entire universe. Rational- Consistent with or based on reason; logical (1) Logical- Of or according to the rules of logic (2) Logic- Reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity (3) Something logical is rational and something rational is logical. Now for my syllogism and a quick defense/explanation of the points (I cannot fully defend the argument until an attack is made): 1. Existence is only intelligible if it has an explanation. I do not except there to be too much trouble here. You can only know something exists if you can explain it exists. 2. The universes existence is therefore, one of two things: a) unintelligible b) has an explanation 3. A rational person cannot accept premise 2a by the definition of rationality. This is especially true for the atheist. Who much of the time believes the universe can be scientifically explained. Thus, it is intelligible and has an explanation. 4. A rational person must accept premise 2b, the universe has an explanation. (The only other choice.) 5. There are 3 types of explanations: a) Scientific: physical conditions + laws = an event b) Personal: Explanations citing desires, beliefs, powers and intentions of some personal agent. c) Essential: The essence of the thing to be explained necessitates its existence or qualities (for example, if you ask why a triangle has 3 sides, I would respond that it is the essence and necessity for a triangle to have 3 sides by its definition.) 6. The explanation for the Universes entire existence cannot be scientific. There are no independent laws and physical conditions independent of what is being explained. The Big Bang theory, for example, fails to explain the existence of the entire universe. It fails to explain, on its own, where the Big Bang singularity "came from". The Universe as a total of all natural conditions and laws cannot be totally explained without an Archimidean reference point outside the system. I except much of the debate will be centered on this point. 7. The Universes existence is not essential. The universe does not exist necessarily. The Universe does not have to exist. There could simply just have been nothing. There is a possibility for the Universe to have not existed in the form we see today. If the Big Bang, for example, had been slightly different large scale structure may not have existed. Therefore, the Universe is not essential. By definition, the universe does not have to exist. 8. A rational person therefore, must believe the Universe has a personal explanation. 9. No personal agent but, a deity could have created the entire universe. C. A rational person must believe a deity exists. I wish my opponent good luck when they construct their arguments. Sources: 1. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... 2. http://www.merriam-webster.com... 3. http://en.wikipedia.org...
The WWII 3rd reich holocaust occured.

Hello, I am here now to address the issue of Jews. Jewish people are known for being greedy and evil. Their evil intentions were the cause of World War II, and those filthy pigs deserved to suffer. I am not denying that the holocaust occurred, but I am arguing that the holocaust wasn't even that bad, and those israeli muslim fagoats deserved worse. Somehow the Jews got scot free from WWI crimes yet the Nazi's were executed in the Nuremberg trials? Unacceptable. Jews need more punishment. Hitler was definitely correct when it came to killing off all those people, I mean look at global warming today! Perhaps if more people had died we would have had less of a global waring epidemic as we do now. And if more people had died, perhaps wars like the Vietnam or Iraq war may not have happened. And horrible things done by horrible people like Hillary's email scandal may not have happened. On a lighter note, some small things like 9-11 wouldn't have occurred, which is not that important. Arnold Benjaman PhD History and Literature
The WWII 3rd reich holocaust occured.

Round two argumentsFirst there is the holocaust survivors. [1] Over 33,000 of them. Next, there is the pre/post war numbers of Jews. [2] This is also my profile picture in case this doesn't load. [3] Then, there is the main stream media and history. [4] Next, there is Mein Kampf"Mein Kampf“”If at the beginning of the war and during the war twelve or fifteen thousand of these Hebrew corrupters of the nation had been subjected to poison gas, such as had to be endured in the field by hundreds of thousands of our very best German workers of all classes and professions, then the sacrifice of millions at the front would not have been in vain.—Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf[19]Many historians, including Ian Kershaw[wp] (one of the world's leading experts on both Hitler and Nazi Germany) have pointed out that several passages in Mein Kampf are of an undeniably genocidal nature.[20] Among these passages, Hitler also overtly suggested that;“”The nationalization of our masses will succeed only when, aside from all the positive struggle for the soul of our people, their international poisoners are exterminated.—Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf[21]" [5]This shows undeniable evidence that Adolf Hitler intended to mass murder Jews. Finally there is the holocaust musems. [6]Thanks for debating. Sources.1. http://www.jewishgen.org...2. https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net...3. https://www.quora.com...4. http://www.history.com...5. http://rationalwiki.org...6. http://money.cnn.com...
The WWII 3rd reich holocaust occured.

Intro, I wouldn't be doing this, but I noticed someone on this debate site appears to deny the WWII holocaust. I find this deeply disturbing and wish to extend the gauntlet of debate. "Holocaust = bullsh!t" Edlvsjd [0]StructureR1 Acceptance and definitionsR2 ArgumentsR3 RebuttalsR4 DefenseBurden of proof will be equally shared. I will argue that the that the tragic events of the WWII 3rd reich holocaust occured.My opponent will argue otherwise. Round oneAcceptance and definitions only. All definitions will use common usage unless otherwise disputed and agreed upon.Round two argumentsEach person makes his/her case. Respond only indirectly.Round three rebuttalsRespond directly to your opponent's r2 arguments.Round four DefenseRespond directly to your opponent's r3 rebuttals. Source0. http://www.debate.org...
Whether homosexuality is wrong or not is a religious question that will never be settled.

I feel that with a newer generation coming into the world . This newer generation is more accepting no matter what religion they are. I do not feel that homosexuality will be accepted across the world. But I feel it will be accepted in most countries. Including the USA so I feel like the government will not even have to do anything. Because people are getting more and more accepting. My example is from 21 Jump Street when Channing Tatum Punches a gay kid in the face and everyone is angry at him. Society is becoming less and less religious.
Whether homosexuality is wrong or not is a religious question that will never be settled.

My statement is this: the main arguments against homosexuality are religious. Who is right and who is wrong? Who wins the right to force their beliefs on other people? Jews? Christians? Muslims? How about any one of the many schools of Sanatana Dharma (Hinduism)? How about Buddhism? My point is if we open up the door for the government to get involved in a religious debate, we open the possibility for a theocratic dictatorship.
I Am Not Charlie_Danger

Thx for reply? Ok, so I won't lie here: I'll probably be known here as a troll. It's basically everything that I've done. But I will be serious for a minute, and say that I truly am NOT Charlie_Danger. I am his brother, Connor. My Facebook: http://www.facebook.com... His Facebook: http://www.facebook.com... If you don't believe me, since I made my facebook today, before I made my debate, because friends of mine wanted me to get one, look at our steam profile pages. Mine: http://steamcommunity.com... His: http://steamcommunity.com... Neither of us have been online for a long time, him because he's been grounded and steam uninstalled on his computer, me because my laptop broke. And our youtubes. Mine has crappy videos made with windows movie maker: http://www.youtube.com... And his, which you've seen, with vidoes he recorded with his camera. I don't have a camera. http://www.youtube.com... There you go. cough.
Children under 12 should use smartphone

On Windows 8.1, there's an app for Viber, which also allows you to talk and text for free. Secondly, kids under the age of twelve don't need any apps or anything, there's no reason for them to have access to mind numbing games such as subway surfer or angry birds, they would get addicted, and end up wasting too much time for this. Apps in a smartphone don't allow anything real work to be done, that can't be done on a computer. And, on a computer it'll be more efficient. So, if kids under 12 really want to get work done they can just get a computer. Using a smartphone properly requires maturity, BBC reports that 1 in 5 kids with their own smartphones reported seeing somthing upsetting online. http://www.bbc.com...
Children under 12 should use smartphone

I accept. I think children under 12 should use smartphone , because they can contact with their parent by smart phone by dialling numbers or whatsapp.A smartphone is not required to call, for this, parents can provide their children with a simple flip phone. There have been many ill effects studied by phycologists about addiction to one's smartphone, and these effects would be more prominent in children, who are more suceptible to addiction at that young age.Second, children can spend time when waiting bus or waiting something else.There are many more useful ways to spend your time on a bus, such as reading a book. Short character limit, so I will end it at that.
Children under 12 should use smartphone

Adult supervision would reduce the harm brought to children, but it's been reported that 1 in 5 parents don't supervise what their kids do online.http://www.bbc.com...Simply because you know a few people who use smartphones and aren't addicted to them, doesn't mean that children under 12 have any real use for them. The harm is very real, and hard to monitor. ConclusionThere is no need for children under the age of 12 to own a smartphone, they can call people by using a flip phone, which is a lot safer for them. They may develop addictions to it, and their parents will have a hard time monitoring what they do online.
what50 and masterful are the same person

Your main argument is that we are both equally disgusting therefore we are the same person. A black child and a turd are both equally disgusting, but you can't say that a turd is the same person as a black child. Thus your argument is flawed and lazy. The question is; is it unreasonable to believe What50 and I could be different people? No, the accusations made against us are nothing more than mere guess work of a conspiratorial nature. I would expect nothing less than my opponent to support his extraordinary claims, with extraordinary evidence. Thus far, I'm significantly underwhelmed.
what50 and masterful are the same person

Djksp cannot vote on the debate for he is a vote spammer.What50 and I are not the same person.What50: http://www.debate.org...For a long while now, my political enemies have been accusing What50 and I of being the same person in an attempt to discredit the organisation we both once belonged to. Even after our organisation had disbanded, theses propagandist attacks still continue.Such claims have drawn the attention of the sites moderator known as 'Airmax' who has deemed us to be separate people.I am interested as to what evidence my opponent will bring to this debate and look forward to proving my innocence. I urge voters whom are black people, fat people, Jews and rape victims not to continue reading this debate as the contents within might cause harm.
If Emotional Intelligence Exists, Homosexuality Must Be a Choice

Pardon me, but you've said a lot that's off-topic. One, this discussion has nothing to do with different people's emotions being the same or different. Two, I'm not sure how referencing a character in a fictional TV show helps. Three, this discussion doesn't have to do with actually choosing emotions. It has to do with how if "emotional intelligence" is real, then homosexuality must be a choice. Whether or not "emotional intelligence" actually exists is another topic. Also, you were vague when you said, "Sure some choice is involved with your emotion, but a lot of people feel different emotions naturally from their own DNA/Genes." Can you prove that the same genes evoke multiple emotions, and that people choose which emotions to evoke? Yes, who you become aroused by is emotional. That's why everyone isn't bisexual - they're not aroused by everyone. There's also a difference between behavior and feelings. Pretending arousal isn't arousal itself. Yes, if you polish a turd, it's still a turd. Yes, people can act, but acting isn't feeling. This debate is on emotional control, not behavioral control.
If Emotional Intelligence Exists, Homosexuality Must Be a Choice

I understand what it means to be aroused. I understand what emotions are. However, you would agree that not everyone' emotions are the same correct? Ever see that episode of friends where Rachel becomes attracted to some fat guy on the street when she would have never been attracted to him before? Sure some choice is involved with your emotion, but a lot of people feel different emotions naturally from their own DNA/Genes. Being aroused is emotional, but who you become aroused by is not emotional at all (which is what this talk is about no?). And there is a difference from what you stated now and what your initial argument was. Of course people can, in some way, control their genes (even if it is undesirable), I even gave an example of a homosexual pretending he's only aroused by woman even though he really is not. It's a different argument to make a choice based on what you want then what you don't want. You are right in saying that homosexuals can act straight their entire lives, but that doesn't make them straight. If you polish a turd, it's still a turd. If you cross dress, you're still your original sex. There's no difference with this case.
If Emotional Intelligence Exists, Homosexuality Must Be a Choice

I don't disagree with what you said (although some might say the "gay gene" is controversial). However, emotions in general are genetic, so "emotional intelligence" would entail the ability to control one's genes: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... http://www.wellcome.ac.uk... http://www.newscientist.com... http://www.nature.com... http://www.sciencedirect.com... http://pmbcii.psy.cmu.edu... http://www.youtube.com... I also find it odd that you suggested sexual orientation isn't emotional. You know what it means to be aroused, right?
If Emotional Intelligence Exists, Homosexuality Must Be a Choice

I will be arguing that homosexuality is not a choice, emotionally or in any other form. I'll start off by a scientific study to find the chromosome differences in gay men to straight men (http://www.webmd.com...). There even mentions his excerpt "Since sexual orientation is such a complex trait...". Hear that? It's not based on emotional intelligence, although you can make the case that some people choose to ignore their homosexuality and have relationships with girls although they aren't sexually attracted to them. There's a bunch of genes, DNA and chromosome properties that effect if a person is gay. Now I know you said that this debate was not about whether homosexuality is a choice, which is weird, but I have stated from another scientific view that homosexuality is not based off emotion. Therefore your whole argument is flawed because sexual orientation is not emotional. Also why have this debate in the first place if it's obvious that homosexuality is in your DNA and genes?
If Emotional Intelligence Exists, Homosexuality Must Be a Choice

Clarification: This debate is not over whether or not homosexuality is a choice. Please do not join if that's what you intend to argue about. This debate will argue over whether or not homosexuality must be a choice if "emotional intelligence" exists. That is if people can educate their emotions and choose what they feel, homosexual feelings would be one feeling among others that could be chosen. A simple syllogism will be provided to explain: "Emotional intelligence" lets people control their emotions. Sexual orientation is an emotion. Therefore, "emotional intelligence" lets people control sexual orientation. To be clear, this debate is not about whether or not emotional intelligence exists either. Voters should note that it's very well possible that neither emotional intelligence, nor sexual orientation control, might exist. However, that is not what's being debated here. What's being debated is a very simple resolution: If emotional intelligence exists, homosexuality must be a choice. Given the above syllogism, burden of proof has already been satisfied, so rebuttal up to Con.
John F. Kennedy assissanation was a conspiracy

Of course it is up to debate today, but i still think that Oswald did it himself or with a partner but without the government even though you do have strong evidence or a strong argument. The government could be part of it like you said but your right that truth will never be revealed. Also the family should do more investgation if that is true because that should be known by the public of what kind of government we have. Furthermore, i still believe that it is possible for one man to plot and plan to kill JFK and have the timing right, all the other facts and opinions are just throne in their to confuse everyone else just because he was a president. In the end it can be possible and still think that he was killed by Oswald!