BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
exams should not be abolished!!

There is one slight argument i can offer. Here in New Zealand we have something called NCEA. this exists as NCEA level 1,2, and 3. level one you earn at age 15/16 , level to at 17 and level 3 in your final year of high school. this is how it works. each level requires a certain amount of credits to acheive and you gather points by completing assignments or tests from different subjects through out the year. there is still an end of year exam which can help you gather credits. However it's not the be all and end all of your success or failure. The great thing about this is that if you are really good at English and poor at maths you may ace all your English assignments and exams and get the bulk of your credits from this and only a few from maths etc. this allows students to gain their qualification using their own skills and strengths. and does not punish them for their weaknesses. this is far better then one big end of year exams with requires a holistic knowledge of most school subjects which the passing or failure will make or break you. Also this system is good because if you leave school early you may still leave with a level 2 or 3 qualification and also you can continue to earn more points in community colleges or courses to get your next level. the title of your debate was a bit vague and i am to be unsure if you mean any form of exams or exams in the sense that they most commonly exist today as one big end of year test. Either way i think the system we have here in New Zealand is a far more flexible system and therefore better system then just exams.
exams should not be abolished!!

i see from your profile that you have joined only one day ago. this coupled with your lack of argument leads me to believe you are making this debate solely for the sake of meeting the minimum debate requirement of 3 debates. i am also new and wish to achieve this. although i was hoping to actually achieve this via actually debate to help me get a feel for the site. Il make a brief and poor argument anyway. for the sake of it. Exams pigeon hole students and blah blah yea nah. im done. It's a shame this debate wasn't better. oh well
Humans and Chimpanzees are related.

Ya sorry about not looking at the link, That phone I was on wouldn't load it. I agree with you, We can have any world view we want, But it does not make it right, Or accurate. I personally still like my analogy, Because sure we have only observed people creating art, And art is not living, But we can ask our self the questions, Why do we like to create art in the first place? What if it's because we are made by a common creator, And we have some of his characteristics? What if his art did include living organisms? Just because art is non living does not mean a god that can create life wouldn't make art that is living, That can reproduce, And can change. Besides just like we can't observe if something created the universe and life as art, As you pointed out. We also can't observe the past. You say it's all evidence of a common ancestor, But it is a theory since we can't observe the past. I think something else happened, And we are looking at the same evidence, But through a different world view. Which there are pretty good alternatives to evolution that I looked into before, That make sense to me. Even if I was not a Christian and I one hundred percent agreed with you that humans and chimpanzees were related, I still don't think there is proof of it. I think it's just a belief. We can believe it's true, And use our modern understanding to try and make predictions, But predictions are just predictions, Because they were not observed. Also once a prediction has been made, Another prediction could fit the first prediction, Seemingly confirming the first prediction even though the first prediction was false, This can cause a completly misleading and false world view. This is going to be a very over simplified analogy that I am making up off the top of my head, But lets say someone broke into your house and stole food out of your refrigerator. Now lets say they left a trail of crumbs from your house all the way to there house. It would seem that they were the culprits, But is this really proof? You didn't see them do it. It could have been someone was trying to set them up, Or that house was actually another house the real criminal robbed right after your house, Or could it be that someone else that was not the criminal tampered with the bread crumbs, Changing them in a completely different direction? There are many possibilities to this simple analogy that I could put together. Now something as complex as evolution who knows how many possibilities or twists there are? Also how do we know there are not any false predictions that has been confirmed right? It might only be me that feels this way, But I feel like it's a good prediction, Or theory if you don't believe what the Bible says, But I don't think it would be right to count it as a fact since it was unobservable. You can believe it, But I don't think it should be counted as fact, Or truth. Thank you though for teaching me more about evolution, I learned a lot. I would really like to debate you again sometime on this topic, But after I have studied into it more, And have a better understanding.
Humans and Chimpanzees are related.

I want to say sorry about not being able to debate this topic very well. I would really like to debate you again sometime in the future when I have a better understanding on these topics. I see what you are saying, Through an evolutonary world view these things seem to make sense. I have a different worldview though. You say its highly improbable that that these genes would develop in each animal independently, But through my world view it would make sense. If we look at an artist, We see many simularities in there art. What if its because we have a common designer, And not a common ancestor? Since we have not observed what happened in the beginning, I dont see how there would be no assumptions, Or guesses in evolution. Except for speciation and natural selection and things like that, We have not really observed animals changing into other animals, Just different species. I understand you said its slow so it only seems that way, But it does not change the fact we have not observed it yet. As for that link Ill look at it when I can, This phone I am on won't really let me go to it for some reason.
Humans and Chimpanzees are related.

When ever these duplications happen, How does natural selection change it into new information? Is a copy not just a copy of the same information? It sounds very complex. Is natural selection the main thing that causes evolution to happen? To me, It seems like an assumption to say all life on earth is related back to a single cell called LUCA, Because we can't observe the past. I understand they traced it back using DNA, But what if something else happened, And this method just seems to be correct at the time? Also if all life on the planet can be traced back to LUCA, How do we know there was life before LUCA? Are there any examples of kinds of animals changing into other kinds of animals? This is going to be a dumb example, But what I mean by that is, Is there an example of a cat kind becoming a dog kind? Of course I know this example sounds kind of ridiculous, But as far as my understanding goes the human race has only observed kinds of animals reproducing the same kind of animals. For example cats remain cats, And dogs remain dogs. Sure the dog came from the wolf, But it is still the same kind of animal. Just a different species.
Humans and Chimpanzees are related.

I am a Christian, But that is mostly irrelevant. I do have a different world view, But my main reasoning for accepting this debate is because I want to understand more about the subject of evolution, And why someone would believe in it. I'm not going to lie, There is a lot I don't know about evolution and natural selection. So I want to learn more. Correct me if I am wrong. My current understanding of natural selection is, It changes the genetic code in DNA, Causing mutations and adaptations. Never adding new information to DNA, But only using existing information, And can only cause loss of information in DNA. When these adaptations or mutations happen, The animals who are better selected for the environment they are in will survive, While the others will die. Sometimes a kind of animal will become so different they can no longer reproduce, Called speciation. For example a domestic cat and a lion. It does seem to make a lot of sense that since we share such similar genes with chimpanzees that it would have to come from a common ancestor, Not to mention the similarities in the body structures of a human and chimpanzee, But do they know this for sure? Is there any assumptions in this? How do they measure mutation rates, And how genomes change over time? What is the type of dating they use to get these numbers? Are there fossils in the fossil record that show in between fossils? I understand it takes millions of years for the little changes to happen, So there is no possible way we could observe such a thing happening. It takes way to long, But that still does not mean we shouldn't find any fossil evidence. Is there any remarkable evidence in the fossil record that show humans were anything other than humans? I took a quick look at the links you posted, But as for the moment I need to get to bed because I have to go to work in six hours. I will look more into them when I get back on. I look forward to this conversation and debate.
Man-Made global warming exists* and poses a serious threat to humanity.

*Exists and significantly contributes to overall global warming. RulesRound 1- Acceptance, Historical Background, and Definitions only. Round 2- Constructive Arguments only. Round 3- Free choice. Round 4- Rebuttals/Defences only. Round 5- Closing Remarks. No new rebuttals/defences/responses/arguments may be made in this round. You may, however, make fresh cross examinations of points, using your own points. Any rule violation constitutes an immediate loss of conduct points. Forfeiting more than 1 round constitutes a full 7 point loss. The BOP is shared. For the sake of this debate, Pro must argue that Mankinds interference with nature is a significant cause of the general upward trend of average global temperatures. Pro must also argue that this general upward trend will have effects that are seriously detrimental to humankind. Con must argue that Human-Action does not significantly contribute to the general upward trend of average global temperature. Con must also argue that this general trend will not have seriously detrimental effects to humankind. No arguments of semantics are acceptable. No arguments that question the premise of the debate are acceptable. DefinitionsGlobal Warming- The general upward trend of Global Average temperatures. Man-Made Global Warming- a force that contributes to general global warming that is caused by the greenhouse effect, and other forms of human interference with nature. Greenhouse effect- An effect that results from CO2 and CH4 pollution (there are also other chemicals that contribute, these are called greenhouse gases). Causes heat to be trapped in the earths environment. Serious Threat- Anything that could potentially kill a large number of people, wipe out a species of animal, or ruin any sizeable economy constitutes a serious threat for this debate. Significant Cause- anything that has a noticeable impact on the overall force.
Poetry "battle". (Rules below and confines of "debate")

(for E. Yes, you.) TITLE: Veritas, or Six Ways of Looking at a Blackbird I. ex nihilo nihil fit It is in the emptiness The between-spaces— The voids— Something from nothing. II. shadow puppetry Light, brightly piercing? No, it is the darkness Thusly illuminated That holds secrets Beyond imagining. III. nuages Grey melds into streaked white Rounded edges Catch trailing breezes In their softness Then dissipate. IV. muir's grove Tall Vastly tall, and ancient Towering Knowing, verdant Swaying, soaring Rooted. V. sacred Darkly arching, Reaching upwards Solemnly, reverently. A candle is lit— A prayer said, then— Stillness. VI. morning In the bright daze Of early wakefulness She turns to him And smiles. Author's note: This piece is obviously structured after Stevens' "Thirteen Ways." In order of appearance, artistic inspirations/oblique references: The Sound of Music, Plato's Allegory of the Cave, Debussy's Nocturnes, redwood trees, Basilica de Notre Dame (Quebec), and my own unrealized dreams. I thank my opponent for posting this debate. Let the voting commence!
Poetry "battle". (Rules below and confines of "debate")

(For you, mother.) Your lies, the bottle, and Your Conscience Covering your face Pull, delve, and indulge Fanciful as lace 'Til the enigma bulge Your wishes and joy Spread your lies like dark Truely no surprise Of lies that shine so stark Barren truths don't please All fantasies remain To put you at ease You never really gain Until pain sinks in Tainting your pretty dreams Past the picture lies sin Now nothing's as it seems Corrupted with hate Don't pretend innocence Can't blame it on fate Just for your convienence A million lies could Sustain your perfect world If no one was good If every map curled To hide the edges Of your own realm of sins Showing true pledges Your perfect lie begins But I am the wieght I'm your concence not took Opening the gate To flaws you overlook Unfurling the map I speak without your slur Somewhere in the gap Eyes fill with tears and blur Your facid of life Your own tears are the mask That blocks any strife Along with your filled flask With bottle in hand You drown the pain inside Escape to a new land But you can't hide From the one who knows All that you have become It strikes you like blows To see the final sum Drown in self-loathing Your conscience dies within You have sealed your fate With the bottle of gin With no direction But with the dying sun Lost all protection Bottle and lies have won
Poetry "battle". (Rules below and confines of "debate")

TITLE: La Muse et Le Poete Always, I write in pen. Perhaps to feel The half-formed words Straggling out Defining themselves in ink— Black, dark, inscrutable— Splayed haphazardly Over pages upon pages, Reams and reams. I am not one comforted By the tapping of keys Nor the whirring Of printers and Xeroxes. It is the silence Between me and my pen That seeds the thoughts Nebulous, unreal In the dark recesses of my mind. Thoughts drifting, coalescing ‘Til they are born—feebly, wretchedly As luminous strands—pure light— As I sit quietly, pensively. *click* goes my pen And then I sit And write. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Author's Note: This poem has nothing at all to do with the Saint-Saens piece for violin and violoncello and orchestra by the same name. I know I promised something lighter, but ended up with something not quite as dark, but more introspective. Incidentally, the working title of this piece was "Eidolons," after the Whitman poem, but it no longer seems to fit. Just thought I'd share.
Poetry "battle". (Rules below and confines of "debate")

Dirge For November (Inspired by Opeth's; Dirge For November) Here is nothing, such quietness in the still Turning past the wilted trees Waiting in the wind for someone until I fall down to my very own knees Raising my hands to the sky Lifting my voice to the edge of the cosmos Screaming to the heavens that lie Wondering if they can hear my woes Lamenting to the earth and water of my plight Nothing on Earth to comfort me But cold winds that stir in the deep of night The ones that have been said will be But for now there is no one, nothing to fear Still hoping for something far away I'm just wondering why you're not standing here I've hoped for this somewhere along the way I wish that you would come to this hilltop With only the Forest of Fear around To guide me back and make this stop Tethered until I am unbound Screaming your name, but no one's there Something tells me don't be afraid It's hard to live on just a prayer So I blur the fact I should've stayed There is still a chance I might be wrong And everything will be set right I hope my salvation won't be long At least before the coming night Calling from the desolate plain Wondering what is going on I knew this would happen again Tell myself I need to be strong All of this time I couldn't see The darkness that was closing in Constricting itself around me I assume that this is the end Fight my way back to sanity I may win my salvation yet Why can't I find humanity? These aren't the people I had met They stand for what they fallen for And you're pouring out your sorrow But I won't take this anymore We won't last until tomorrow Filled with lies in broken measures Your wounds now cry for your own grave You lay down with sinful pleasures Rose with the shackles of a slave Pray for something that can't exist You now stand up on the hilltop Know that you will never be missed You now wish that the pain would stop Would've surrendered everything Just to find and be beside you Now I will not give up anything It's odd what betrayel can do Traded places with each other Now you stand under the sky Seeking the love of another I'm glad this is good-bye Soon I know I'll wake from this dream Still feel the pain- I wish it'd leave Until it is ripped from the seam I find it difficult to breathe The memory now turns to ash It was unbelievably slow Time has finally come to pass And I can finally let go
Poetry "battle". (Rules below and confines of "debate")

Also, I failed to read my opponent's original round--his first poem is posted in the comments section of the debate without penalty. I apologize for the inconvenience to voters and note that judging should be based on the quality of the poetry, not the awkward positioning of the submission. Thank you. And now, my first poem. TITLE: "An Ode to Drowning" I feel as if I am teetering, Teetering on The edge Of a too-sharp knife. One day the blade Shall snap and I will fall Down--far, far down A Modern Icarus Waxen wings melted Poor, pretty things. Molted feathers Drifting, silently, reverently Over a fathoms-blue sea. And they will sink Down, further, farther down 'Til one day the last of them Has been swallowed By the hungry deep. Hello, world. Remember me? Bird-woman lost O'er the too-dark sea? -------------------------------------- Author's Note: No, I'm not suicidal, only mildly depressed at times. I wrote this poem last spring, in the middle of a hectic school year as a sort of cathartic release. I was feeling dark and broody. Hopefully the next one will be a tad less morbid. Thanks!
Anime: English Subs are (usually) better than English dubs.

I say that subs are usually more liked compared to dubs mostly because they came out first. I myself am neutral to this topics, but try this on for size. Check out two animes you have not seen, then for one listen to the dubs, and for the other listen to the sub. After several episode, switch. the dub becomes sub and the sub becomes dub. It'll sound foreign and the voices you were more suited to will be more favorable instead of the opposite.
Anime: English Subs are (usually) better than English dubs.

By accepting you agree to these conditions: -It is based solely on logic, and relevance. -Facts, Statistics, and definitions will play no part in this argument. -Assume the viewer natively reads/writes English, and has no sensory impairment -This is about anime, not manga -Examples can be given. It is not about: -what most people like or prefer It is about: -Logically, which will give a viewer a more meaningful (and better) experience?
Anime: English Subs are (usually) better than English dubs.

1: Newer viewers will gravitate to what is popular or well known, not just the animes still coming out. Naruto and Bleach for the most part are dubbed. 2:There are plenty of complex dubbed animes so this claim needs more evidence. FMA can make you think at times and is very complex in it's mythos. 3: I was distracted as a newbie, BUT as I became more of a VETERAN I got used to it. You just contradicted your statement since my claim was that newer viewers be distracted, not veterans.
Anime: English Subs are (usually) better than English dubs.

1. Newer anime fans gravitate towards mecha and mainstream anime, not classics. Naruto, One Piece, Bleach are all still coming out. A viewer watching subbed could enjoy not having the frustration of a longer wait. 2. Subs cause a viewer to stay attentive. Anime, such as 'Serial Experiments Lain' or 'Baccano!' require a viewer's attention to understand the plot. 3. Subs do not distract a viewer. It takes no time to get used to. 4. Dubs take away references/formalities of Japanese culture.
Anime: English Subs are (usually) better than English dubs.

Well 1: Newer anime fans will gravitate towards classic animes already dubbed since there are so many thus spreading the influence of anime and benefiting the community here in the west. 2: The FMA:B/FMA Dubs were superior (In my opinion) Yes, subs may be better at times, but for newer viewers, there is already a full arsenal of dubbed anime that they can gravitate to because in dubs you can better focus on the action(shounen) or story rather than reading it below. (Doesn't apply to veterans)
Anime: English Subs are (usually) better than English dubs.

I disagree. Subs and dubs have profound differences, and are not equal. 1: Season 1 Code Geass in dub... Sub is better. 2: Season 1 of Black Lagoon in Sub... Sub is better. English subs provide a better experience for viewers. Viewer that start watching an ongoing anime series, will always have to wait longer for the dubs. This not only frustrates a viewer, but causes dubs to rushed when finding voice actors. Because of this, subs represent characters better than dubs.
I won't contradict myself

I have seen much of these types of debates and gladly accept. This is currently my 2nd debate as I have not been using this account regularly until 2 weeks ago. Questions: 1) Do you support abortion 2) Do you see ACTA as a threat to privacy? 3) Do believe in individuality? 4) Do you believe in a singular God? 5) Do you advocate global warming as a myth? 6) Is it morally permissible to kill in self-defense? 7) Will you contradict yourself? 8) If, you do contradict yourself what will you day? 9) Are you gay? 10) Is 2012 real?
I won't contradict myself

==Rules== 1. From rounds 1-4 Con shall ask 10 Pro Yes/No questions. 2. In these rounds, Pro must answer all questions either Yes or No. 3. In rounds 3-4 Con must try to find contradictions in the answers and point them out. 4. In rounds 4-5 Pro must attempt to refute con's suggested contradictions. 5. Con may point out any contradictions from rounds 2-4, but no new contradictions may be pointed out in round 5. 6. Definitions of words shall not be abused - the first definition from a dictionary shall be taken. 7. If I am found to be contradictory, Con wins. 8. If I am not found to have made a contradiction, I win. If any rules are violated, all 7 points must be given to the other person. By accepting this debate, my opponent agrees with my rules. Good luck :)
God Exists and He Created Everything

There is no "God" who created the world God is made to fulfill the blanks about the creation and universe. Greeks used to say storms were created by Gods now we know the reality behind it; soon we will answer the complex questions and the God will disappear. And there is a purpose without God such as living a fulfilling and valuable life leaving good memories behind because there is no more life you are just the memories you left in the minds of people after you die.