BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Evolution is a fact

According to Wikipedia: "The overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that creation science is a religious, not a scientific view, and that creation science does not qualify as science because it lacks empirical support, supplies no tentative hypotheses, and resolves to describe natural history in terms of scientifically untestable supernatural causes" http://en.wikipedia.org... That's proof that creation scientists do not follow the scientific method and creation science is not a science. /wiki/Evolution_as_fact_and_theory The claims of any cover ups by my opponent has not been substantiated. I want to thank my opponent foe this debate. I wish he could have given me real evidence as opposed to just assertions. Although my opponent may believe what he is saying is true, that doesn't make it true. Evolution is a fact http://en.wikipedia.org... Evolution is not "just a theory" http://www.notjustatheory.com... My opponent wants evidence that he can't disprove: Here are the facts about evolution: http://howgoodisthat.wordpress.com... 1. Beyond a shadow of doubt, human DNA and chimpanzee DNA are 98% identical. 2. The genetic evidence of natural selection is compelling enough proof of evolution without any evidence from fossils whatsoever. 3. Not a single living organism that has ever been discovered shows any sign, whatsoever, of having evolved by non-Darwinian means. Go ahead. Disprove that.
Evolution is a fact

I'd like to point out that there is no such thing as a "creation scientist" because creationism isn't a science. None of these so called "scientists" have ever had a peer reviewed paper published in a scientific journal. My opponent is making claims without evidence. Please provide proof that what these "scientists" are claiming is true. Please, also provide documentation for any "sightings" you claim to have happened. As far as the questions go: 1. DNA does not prevent evolution. DNA mutation is actually needed for evolution to happen. . http://evolution.berkeley.edu... 2. The Grand canyon has nothing to do with evolution. But if you want it explained, here's the link: . http://www.bobspixels.com...
We should institute "Artificial" Selection for the betterment of the human race.

Con claims that "Artificial Selection is not practical". If this were true, I would not have brought up the topic in the first place. The entire function of the proposed system is to improve the human race. If this is not practical, then I don't know what is. This process is already applied to plants to improve the crop output of a piece of land. The same could be done for the human race. Not necessarily improve land use, but improve society as a whole. I hope con has not given up, as I was looking forward to a lively debate.
We should institute "Artificial" Selection for the betterment of the human race.

"How will this control overpopulation?"Overpopulation will be managed because a significant portion of the population will be removed and cease to reproduce. The bottom percentile would be determined by a collection of these negative characteristics, mostly genetic. It could be anywhere from 1-5% of the population, and if done regularly, this will prevent overpopulation. Of course, a whole new system of recording the population would have to be implemented to suit these purposes, but the benefits will outweigh this cost. "Global warming will obviously continue."With the reduced population, there will be less need for many of the contributors to CO2 pollution, thereby reducing the greenhouse effect and global warming. With this new system of "Artificial" selection, there will also be reduced poverty and a higher standard of living. With reduced population the ratio of people to jobs will decrease, therefore giving more people work and reducing unemployment. When more people have jobs, everyone has more money and the standard of living will increase.Improving the gene pool will increase humanity's survival in the event of a disaster. As I said before, better genes means more adaptability to the world. The system also allows for choosing the certain genetic mutations that will help ensure survival in the future.
We should institute "Artificial" Selection for the betterment of the human race.

I think Artificial Selection is not practical. Pro needs to define how the bottom percentile of the population is measured? Is the bottom percentile the poorest 1%? The poorest 10%? The least educated 1%? The least productive members? How can the population even be measured to find these? Also, how will this control overpopulation? The rest of society will continue to grow. Global warming will obviously continue. Crime will also continue. I don't think people are motivated to break the law for purely biological reasons, but rather circumstance. I agree that disease from genes could be lessened though.
We should institute "Artificial" Selection for the betterment of the human race.

To begin, I would like to elaborate on the topic. I believe that the bottom percentile of the population should be removed from the gene pool for the betterment of the human race. If this occurs, many beneficial results will be achieved. First of all, this will obviously control the population. This will benefit the environment and reduce the general strain that humans are putting on the earth. Removing the bottom percentiles will cause the "better" part of the population to remain. This will speed up the evolutionary process and increase the human race's ability to adapt. This holds massive benefits for the future. As this process occurs over many generations, much more progress will be made in every aspect of society and reduce or eliminate many of the problems that modern society faces. From overpopulation and global warming to crime, problems will become less over time. If society remains how it is now, we have a much higher chance of being wiped out by a disease or enviromental change/disaster. Through this "artificial" selection process, our adaptability to the enviroment and disease will be greatly increased. Although my ideas may seem extreme, before refuting what I say, really think about the huge benefits that can be achieved over time.
Conservatism and Libertarianism are ideological allies

Conservatism and libertarianism will not be defined explicitly, given that the ideological content of the positions is exactly what's at dispute here. Both debaters will present their own competing definitions (and respective conclusions based partly on those definitions) and argue for which is more reasonable.The definition of ideological ally will be along the lines of having similar enough goals to warrant inclusion of the two in the same set wherein differences do not outweigh similarities. To illustrate the latter clause, arguing that liberals and Nazis have *some* similarities would not be enough to warrant inclusion of them in the same set since the differences highly outweigh any similarities.My burden will be to defend the thesis that conservatism and libertarianism have goals which are too distinct from each other, or that the differences between the two ideologies are too great (or both). My opponent's burden on the other hand will be to argue that the goals of the two ideologies are similar enough and that the differences don't outweigh the similarities.===Rules===1. Drops will count as concessions.2. Semantic or abusive arguments will not be counted.3. New arguments brought in the last round will not be counted.4. R1 is for acceptance. Argumentation begins in R2.5. BoP is shared between Pro and Con.
US Hegemony is bad

Im not sure what world you live in where hegemony and pulling together other powerful nations to accomplish a single cause are seperate entities, but in this world, multilateralism has been a part of almost every major hegemon's plans in recent history. Im not sure how it declining proves its a bad thing. If anything, our poor stnading in Iraq, bad economy and issues with other major powers prove that hegemony is a missed entity you can cite as many reasons for counterbalancing as youd like, you need to give evidence on terrorism and nukes if you want to prove terrorism and nukes. either way, thanks for your time. good debate. wish ya luck at harvard if youre going
US Hegemony is bad

Benign hegemons still cause counterbalancing Christopher layne 2002 "offshore balancing revisited" other states will draw the opposite conclusion: that the united states is too powerful and that its hegemony must be resisted. Even if the us foreign and defense policies remain relatively benign, other states always will fear that such benevolence might disappear in the wink of an election. we WONT be seen as a hegemon if we adopt multilateral policies, that is the entire point of the concept of multilateralism. I dont know if you're citing evidence, but I actually know for a fact after doing alot of research on hegemony, that we are declining now. Yes in the past we had heg, but its DECLINING. You cant just say no link about terrorism or prolif when I'm reading evidence that hegemony leads to counterbalancing and all that offense. Hes dropping way too much.
US Hegemony is bad

- Youre assuming the US is going to aggrivate backlash. A good hegemon and any hegemon are two different things. The US has sustained its placment as a hegemon and used that to get the UN and its related bodies to promote US interest. - Countries will see the US as an enemy no matter what. unless you suggest we purposley down grade our selves as to not be powerful enough for anyone to care, we will always have the threat of opposistion. US hegemony only places us in a better position to deal with it. - actually, since the end of the Sp.-Am. war over 100 years ago, weve been the forefront of world politics. We established the league of nations, we established NATO, our envolvment ended WWII and started Vietnam, we have been consistantly upholding the TR corallary in our hemisphere and have front runners for the war on drugs/arms. Soviet Russia was known for paying little attention to organizations like the LON or UN. - i agree that we have become multi-polar and that nuclear prolif. is a threat. But i cant agree that US hegemony has any logical tie nor that a lack of it will solve the problem.
US Hegemony is bad

Thanks for the topic, its a very good one Ill start by running down your points: 1) Theres no reason multipolarity and hegemony cannot co-exist. Hegemony only substantiates the US as a leader, not total ruler. Europe and China may emerge as powers, but thats all the more reason to concentrate ourselves on hegemonic power. As the UN grows legitimacy, US interests have the best chance of being served if we gain hegemoic power. 2) Your assumptions are very elastic. I fail to see any logical reason hegemony cultivates the wrath of other nations, nor how ignoring global issues makes other nations less aggressive (if we assume your first assumption is correct). Non-US involvment is not going to solve global issues, but exacerbate them. Look to Darfur (not that there arent other examples) 3) Now i understand as a policy debater, your life revolves around linking nuclear war in any way possible, but your 3rd assumption is extremely baseless. The US has been the hegemonic world leader for the last 100 years. Never has proliferation been because our hegemony "doenst make them feel safe". 4) Terrorism is in response to american values, but hegemony is by no means the source. 5) Your confusing hegemony with a non-existant ideal. Hegemony doenst cost money, it is only a state of mind. Hegemony's benefits: 1) Gives us the ability to stop genocide and other human rights violation 2) Grows partnership with strong nations (i.e. European nations, China) 3) Establishes an untouchable status among powerful nations
US Hegemony is bad

Hegemony is counterproductive: Multipolarity now -- other powers are emerging such as Europe and China. This non uniques any claim as to why hegemony solves war because thats empirically denied -- we should be in a large scale war right now then 1. Hegemony causes counterbalancing -- other countries will try and balance out the US, killing any attempt at reform, especially in foreign policy. No US engagement will work, and our army becomes overstretched. 2. Causes proliferation -- other countries will proliferate WMDs to combat US heg since its the only way for them to feel safe. Proliferation increases the likeliness of nuclear war by making it easy for rogue states to launch nuclear missiles. 3. Spurs terrorism -- the reason there is terrorism is because they're hostile to the american value system, especially hegemony. Terrorism is obviously bad, and if someone wants to indict this impact, be my guest. 4. Kills our economy -- deficit is bad now, if we keep increasing hegemony, we will plunge our economy down the drain. Keeping our military up costs alot of money and we cant afford it anymore right now. 4 offensive reasons why heg is bad, just need to win one
The Cincinnati Zoo is allowed to shoot the gorilla to preserve a human life.

The boy did not die, and the gorilla did not deserve to die. The boy only got hurt because of the fall ino the gorilla enclosure. There were other ways of getting the child away from the gorilla. Also, the gorilla had no bad intentions. Does an animal of an endangered species deserve to die because it was being protective of a child? I think you know the answer. Also, I should also mention that this incident should not have happened in the first place. If the parents were more attentive, the boy wouldn't have fallen in and the gorilla would still be alive.
The Cincinnati Zoo is allowed to shoot the gorilla to preserve a human life.

My opponent doesn't realize that the same zoo director also said that from direct quotes from the Cincinnati Zoo Fire Department, "the gorilla was dragging the boy around." The fact that the Cincinnati Director saying the gorilla was a good guy is true, but he also acknowledged that they had to save the boy's life. I have watched the footage of Harambe the gorilla and the boy, and according to the same video that my opponent referenced the gorilla was dragging the boy around. Also, the boy had to go to the hospital in a serious condition, according to http://www.nbcnews.com... Just because the gorilla might be a so-called "good guy," the zoo cannot assume that a strong male gorilla was protecting the boy. The footage shows the boy being dragged around in the moat, and the zoo has to do something to save the boy's life. If you care about the precious life of a child and if you believe that the zoo did the right thing to protect its visitors, I hope you will stand with me on this issue.
The Cincinnati Zoo is allowed to shoot the gorilla to preserve a human life.

My opponent says, "Well, assuming that your points are valid, they still could've shot its feet or somewhere that would disable it but not kill it. Then it would still be alive. It would've dropped the baby and still lived. Then, the public opinion would still not decline and they would not have to kill the gorilla." My opponent doesn't know what he is talking about. In Round Two, my argument was: "Critics could argue that this would have saved the gorilla as well, but the gorilla would have been shocked by the pain of the tranquilizer." If you shot at its legs or its feet, the initial pain would send the gorilla into panic, and the pain doesn't go away in ten minutes like the tranquilizer would. Look at this website: http://www.nbcnews.com... According to the Zoo Director, Harambe the gorilla was stimulated and excited. The pain of a bullet would make the problem worse, rather than helping the child.
The Cincinnati Zoo is allowed to shoot the gorilla to preserve a human life.

A. My opponent says, " My first point will be that they could've used a tranquilizer gun and figured out some sort of punishment for it. It was at a zoo, so there were probably plenty of tranquilizer guns there. " This was not an option, because tranquilizers would take up to 10 minutes to work. The boy would be in more danger than he already by the time the tranquilizers took effect. Critics could argue that this would have saved the gorilla as well, but the gorilla would have been shocked by the pain of the tranquilizer. This gorilla would have been 130 to 180 pounds, and you can't just wait for the tranquilizer to work. B. My opponent also says, "Also, the public's opinion of the Zoo would not decline because they killed a gorilla." My opponent fails to realize another possible scenario. What if the boy died at the zoo? Public opinion of the zoo would also decrease. Also, it would take far longer of a time for the zoo to recover from the incident. People wouldn't want to go to the zoo with their children because of the safety hazard. Remember Malaysian Airlines Flight 370? Just because of that accident, the airline lost a lot of revenue. The zoo did what was necessary to protect a living human being, and it had to do so at the expense of public opinion.
The Cincinnati Zoo is allowed to shoot the gorilla to preserve a human life.

Thank you for this opportunity to debate.It was definitely not beneficial for them to kill the gorilla. My first point will be that they could've used a tranquilizer gun and figured out some sort of punishment for it. It was at a zoo, so there were probably plenty of tranquilizer guns there. If they had tranquilized it, they could've put it in a cage farther from the public. Then, the gorilla's life would be saved and it will be simpler for the Cincinnatti Zoo because they don't have to find a new gorilla to replace the one they killed. Also, the public's opinion of the Zoo would not decline because they killed a gorilla.
Professional wrestlers are better athletes than football players

Anyone who wishes to take this debate may do so 10000 character limit. 1st rd for opening arguments 2nd and 3rd rds for rebuttals and cross examinations. 4th rd closing statements no new arguments can be made I base my belief that professional wrestlers are better athletes than football players on the following points: 1. Wrestlers perform in excess of 5-7 days a week no breaks. Sometimes more than once a day. Football players play once a week. The extent of physicality is not much different. You have big men throwing each other around in Professional Wrestling as you do in football. The fact that wrestlers do this more often is indicative of wrestlers being better athletes. 2. The second point is very similar. In wrestling there is no off season. Which means they are doing it nearly every day of the week. often times only getting 10 days off in a year. Football players. professional ones at least, have one game a week for 17 weeks. that comes to 16 games in a football season when you factor in a bye week. Wrestlers perform often times 100s of times in a year. Of course I am not counting JUST televised events for professional wrestlers. 3. Wrestlers travel more and further than professional wrestlers. After every show, if there isnt my multiple shows in one town, that means one night in a hotel then it is off to the airport and flying to some other state, city, or even country. Football players cannot say they travel as far or as often as wrestlers. Wrestlers have the stamina that football players do not have 4. Moreover, there is alot more to being a professional wrestler than being a football player. The ability to travel for hours on a plane then get up early in the morning for public apperences or some sort of promotional escapade, and then perform later that night speaks volumes about the professional wrestlers athleticism and endurance. Conculsion: Professional wrestlers perform more and travel more, testing their ability to consistantly perform on a much higher scale than that of a football player
Professional wrestlers are better athletes than football players

I will repeat my five points here again for a review.1. Football players play competitively. This point stands as is. I showed how football was competitve with teams winning the Superbowl and actually competing. While my opponent pointed out how it is "competitive" backstage. In my arguments, I exposed this for being nepotism and favoritism, this has nothing to do with competition.2. Football is actually antagonistic. I showed how football players can be genuinely hostile towards each other. This add to the intentsity of the games athelticism when one is trying literally to take out one's opposing team members. My opponent referred to "stiff" matches. I showed how that was illegal and against the sports entertainment permit that a pro wrestling company is liscensed. 3. Football games demand far greater endurance and physical athleticism. I showed how football players have to compete for longer periods and require greater endurance. My opponent pointed irrepresentative examples of long pro wrestling matches which was fallacious.
Professional wrestlers are better athletes than football players

In closing, as per the rules, I cannot make any arguments this round. I would however like to thank my opponent for a pretty good debate. To end the debate let's look at the following points 1. My opponent brought up how football is antagonistic. I fail to see how this is relevent to the debate of pro wrestlers being better athletes than football players, but i bit, and dismantled his argument by showing how, while choreographed, pro wrestling is antagonistic as well. 2. My opponent claims football is competetive and pro wrestling is not. Again, I successfully showed how pro wrestling was competetive. 3. I showed how Wrestlers must have endurance, which is an athletic trait. 4. I showed how wrestlers are prone to in ring injuries and their ability to fight through them, showing their toughness, again, an athletic trait 5. I showed how wrestlers compete more often than football players, often times more than once a day. Again endurance.
Professional wrestlers are better athletes than football players

My opponent just doesn't seem to get it. On the subject of backstage politics, this IS in fact an example of the competiveness of professional wrestling. Performing as a main event player to get your boss to notice you and give you a title, IS competiveness. On the subject of whether my examples of stiff workers and actual fights breaking out between wrestlers both in the ring and behind the scenes, that shows the antagonistic nature of professional wrestling. Example would be, if you are playing basketball and someone elbows you in the back or side, would you not consider that antagonistc? You are not supposed to elbow other players in basketball, likewise you are not supposed to work stiff (actually hitting opponents and sandbagging them, etc) in professional wrestling. The only difference between the two, is unless done covertly, outright hitting another player in basketball is an illegal tactic, whereas, working stiff in wrestling is just bad etiquette. On the other hand bumping and covertly knocking another basketball player is, like working stiff, bad etiquette Now my opponent wants to say that professional wrestlers are not athletes. Again to the contrary. While many are not wrestling athletes such as Kurt Angle, Brock Lesnar, or Shelton Benjamin, many others have a background in football, like The Rock, and even softball and soccer like the Bella Twins. My opponent is just being silly and uninformed about this. Why would endurance matter? While pro wrestling is a show, you, unless certain things pre match stipulate it, you still do not want to appear gassed. Likewise you do not want to appear drugged as Jeff Hardy did against Sting at Victory Road 2011[1], but I digress. Endurance MATTERS! You would not be putting on the show you are supposed to put on, if you are slowly trotting around the ring breathing heavily, letting the audience know you have bad cardio. How can something be done in pro wrestling if someone doesnt allow it to happen? Easily. Accidents happen. Each of the examples I provided were accidents. Sure there is risk involved in these matches, but it certainly is not planned. Someone can land the wrong way. [1]