BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Evolution is false.

Thanks. I really thought you were going wait forever to post an argument and forfeit. We can know the life of the molecule because it exists today. Not because it supposedly existed 9000 billion years ago. Conduct goes to me for cons trick.If you say it would decay in 20,000 years, you'd be relying on the decay rates that cannot be measured in a lifetime.The mean of life would be the first life because it would've been there for a long time.If a leaf is on a tree for a long time, when it falls off it wont over time attach back on the tree. An average isn't something that's been there for a long time.av·er·age/ˈav(ə)rij/Noun"The result obtained by adding several quantities together and then dividing this total by the number of quantities; the mean." [1]This isn't something that's been there for a long time.Flagellum evolution is nothing but guesses by scientists.I've shown this to be not the case. As IC relies on a false view of evolution.Con claims i quote mine Ross, however how do we know he didn't quote mine Ross?Simply because all other sources say the 2LOT applies to isolated systems and we know the track record of creationists quote mining [2].It is obvious this is a letter to the editor. The article Ross was writing about "Physical Chemistry" was sort of a news article about the latest in equipment and techniques used in the field of physical chemistry. It talked about the areas of Lasers, Theory and modeling, Surfaces, and Biological Applications. It was in biological applications that the author of that article made the statement that Ross was responding to. The error that Ross was correctly pointing out was that by requiring a continual supply of energy, the systems do follow the second law. The reason Ross responded is probably because he had written many papers about far-from-equilibrium thermodynamics and is an expert in that field. Ross agrees with Steiger who says that evolution does not violate the second law, because it receives a continuous input of energy by the sun. That is why there are no known violations. So why does Wallace keep saying there is? Does he know something Ross, a "Harvard Scientist" (although he is now at Stanford as of this writing) doesn't know? [3]The second law applies to the whole universe, since its a closed system."The maximum entropy of a closed system of fixed volume is constant, but because the universe is expanding, its maximum entropy is ever increasing, giving ever more room for order to form (Stenger 1995, 228)." [4][5][1] http://lmgtfy.com...[2] http://rationalwiki.org...[3] http://web.archive.org...[4] http://www.talkorigins.org...[5] Stenger, Victor J., 1995. The Unconscious Quantum, Amherst, NY: Prometheus.
Evolution is false.

I'll be short on this one since it's the last round. Looking back at the glue argument, it looks like magic got me to hang myself. This is just a silly little trick he's going to the voters. Don't let him fool you. We can know the life of the molecule because it exists today. Not because it supposedly existed 9000 billion years ago. Conduct goes to me for cons trick. The mean of life would be the first life because it would've been there for a long time. Flagellum evolution is nothing but guesses by scientists. Con claims i quote mine ross, however how do we know he didn't quote mine Ross? The second law applies to the whole universe, since its a closed system. I urge everyone to vote me.
Evolution is false.

1. Glue The molecule is Acrylate. We know by how glue wears out that it cannot be millions of years. The decay rates were probably constant. The rates were determined by man who sins and is fallible so they cannot be said to be millions of years old. 2. Law of large numbers. It's not just with trails. Its with everything. So your argument doesnt fly. 3. The Flagellum Oh so how did the parts just come together magically. All origins assume the ion pump is fully evolved and functional. Your coming up with possible explanations to impossible events which is science fiction. " It assumes evolution only furthers by the adding of parts and never by the removal of parts. Some species of bats, spiders and deep-water fish lack functioning eyes. Because it costs too much to grow eyes for little or no benefit." The flagella is still functioning. No loss of information it works. " It assumes systems never change function. Ken Miller has taken Behe's mousetrap example to show that a missing trigger can be used as a tie clip, the spring can still be used as a key chain, and base can be used as a paperweight." It can't be used as a mouse trap. So the analogy fails. Were talkin about the mousetrap! " It assumes parts that begin as helpful cannot eventually become required." It cannot. If it's helpful it will always be helpful. It would be against evolution for it to become required since it would be dependant. 4. Mates But the point is it cannot find anyone to mate with. How can it mate when the animal has no other animal. 5. Thermodynamics You claim that the second law only applies to closed systems or isolated systems. But this is false. Dr John Ross of Harvard University (now Sanford) states: " there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems. " There is somehow associated with the field of far-from-equilibrium thermodynamics the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself. [1] " How can the law prohibit evolution, but allow reproduction. Reproduction produces an ordered copy of an organism" Microevolution is consistent with the second law. But macroevolution would need a decrease in entropy. Just about all the observed heritable variations show an increase in entropy. 6. Chromosomes So why couldn't synteny happen in creatures of the same species? 1. John Ross, Chemical and Engineering News, 7 July 1980, p. 40; cited in Duane Gish, Creation Scientists Answer their Critics Institute for Creation Research, 1993.
Evolution is false.

1.Glue The molecules that hold glue together are short lived, in 20,000 years they would've decayed.[1] Thus the universe is less than 20,000 years. Too little time for evolution. 2. Law of large numbers. The law of large numbers say that things tend to revert to their average over time. Evolution directly contradicts this 3. Flagellum " The flagellum of certain bacteria contain a multi-part cellular motor which fails to function if a single part is removed. This is the classic example of irreducible complexity as publicised by Professor Michael Behe. Because the flagellum must have all its parts to function it could not have evolved and therefore must have been designed by an intelligent being. At the Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District trial, Professor Ken Miller attempted to rebut this argument by pointing out that if 42 parts of the flagellum are removed what remains is a fully functional Type III Secretory System, used by some bacteria to inject toxins into target cells. While Miller's claim is factually accurate, it fails to explain how the T3SS could simultaneously add 42 parts to create a working flagellum."[2] 4. Mates All animals would've just happend to evolve at the same time as a mate with perfect reproductive parts. 5. Thermodynamics The second law of thermodynamics says over time things tend to disorder. Evolution is in direct contradiction. 6. Chromosomes Humans have 23 pairs of chromosome while apes have 24. Evos say there has to be a fusion. Yet go back before the apes we should have its ancestor with 25 pars and its ancestor with 26 so on and so on. Yet we don"t see this. [1] Jefferson, Jack Decay of Atoms (2006). [2] www.conservapedia.com/Counterexamples_to_Evolution#Irreducible_Complexity
God is a giant tortoise named Bobby

"I am the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Thou shalt have no other monsters before Me. (Afterwards is OK; just use protection.) The only Monster who deserves capitalization is Me! Other monsters are false monsters, undeserving of capitalization." Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster 1:1 The Flying Spaghetti Monster would own Bobby the Giant Tortoise in a fight. Just saying.
God is a giant tortoise named Bobby

You can see the wisdom in his eyes:http://arrangementsabroad.files.wordpress.com..."In the beginning, Bobby created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of Bobby was hovering over the face of the waters. And Bobby said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. And Bobby saw that the light was good. And Bobby separated the light from the darkness. Bobby called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day. ..."Genesis 1:1-31 ESV Mephitophenes 34:12"Lo, the turtle has bared its shell, as you lain bare your breasts for me. Lo, the turtle has sheathed it's head, as I have sheathed mine in you"
secular based morals are superior to religious faith based morals

My goodness. A sharp tone of criticism from a “secular based” over those who are “faith based.” Perhaps, more humility embracing an open mind would serve you well, and by the way, it is a moral thing to do out of kindness. Pro stated, “The religious often use empirical evidence to support their argument of faith. Faith is an unclassified cognitive illness disguised as a moral virtue.”Let's build on that “cognitive illness” point. Imagine a straight line segment having two end points. Label one point Science the other point Myth. The distance between those points is Statistics. To rephrase Pro's statement about faith in light of secularism using the above straight line statistical ruler: One employs statistics often use empirical evidence to support their argument of myth. Their statistical myth is an unclassified cognitive illness disguised as a moral virtue. There is a lot of junk science out there in the “secular based” world, simply “an unclassified cognitive illness disguised as a moral virtue” with the sole purpose to trick the uninformed to support their dogma.http://www.popularmechanics.com...http://junkscience.com...With that said, I thank Pro for the mutual learning experience and in light of this season, I wish Pro and his Family a safe and enjoyable holidays; a set of holidays that are “faith based.” In closing, I wish Pro a long and healthy “Life,” with ample “Liberty, and the” moral “pursuit of Happiness.”
secular based morals are superior to religious faith based morals

Science is used to explain the natural world not the supernatural world. The only part of the mind that can conceptualise the supernatural is the imagination. Religious faith has no bases in science, science uses reason and scrutiny all of which have proven detrimental to religion. The religious often use empirical evidence to support their argument of faith. Faith is an unclassified cognitive illness disguised as a moral virtue. Faith is not a virtue. From the objective perspective, rationality is a virtue because it permits me to ground my thinking on reality, which is more conductive to the pursuit of my goals than fantasy. For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring they my be. Faith can be used to justify and defend any belief including the belief that religious supernatural entities are imaginary, or not. If one had sufficient evidence to warrant belief in a particular claim, then one wouldn"t believe the claim on the basis of faith. "Faith" is the word one uses when one does not have enough evidence to justify holding a belief. This debate ultimately is about what we believe or want to believe. "I believe that people are basically good. That when they are freed from fear, want, and desperation people will usually do the right thing. "I believe that the natural word provides enough mystery and wonder to make the notion of supernatural miracles just seem silly and wrong. "I believe that the best guides to the truth are science and philosophy working in cooperation with one another. Science provides the facts, and philosophy makes the facts meaningful. "I believe that the best guide to morality is reason guided by empathy. "I believe that all gods in all religions were invented by human minds, and that the supernatural claims of all religions are false. Everyone has beliefs. In fact it would be impossible to function as human beings without beliefs, because we are always acting in the face of incomplete knowledge. The key is to keep learning and keep searching and keep questioning. Any opportunity to adjust my belief to be more in tune with reality is an opportunity that should not be missed. Thank you for the interesting and engaging exchange I hope I did not offend as this was not my intention I appreciate the respect you afforded me, and thanks for your time.
Voluntary Euthanasia is Morally Justified

So while I see your point that in some cases, it could be justified, I don't agree. First, when is it voluntary euthanasia and when is it suicide, what is the difference between a fourteen year old boy getting broken up with and trying to hang himself versus a woman at the age of 85 with no quality of life wanting euthanasia? Neither are enjoying their life at that time, so what is the distinction? Also, murderers could use voluntary euthanasia as a way out of punishement, because who's to say it was or wasn't voluntary.
Voluntary Euthanasia is Morally Justified

R1: Acceptance R2: Arguments R3: Rebuttals R4: Rebuttals and Convlusions The opponent agrees to the following definitions: Voluntary Euthanasia: Legal, consenting, premature ending of one's life in order to alleviate suffering. Morally Justified: Considered morally right or just. The opponent also agrees to the following rules: Rule 1: No forfeits Rule 2: No Semantics Rule 3: All sources must be cited and linked if it's a website Rule 4: there is no rule four Good luck to my opponent, and may you die in glorious battle! Qua'plah! TheBlueWizard (bonus points if you get the referance)
Canada vs USA

I would like to make this very interesting by using a 3 round debate with 500 characters. I will be for Canada. In this debate, I would like to talk about why Canada is a better country than the United States. My only concern is that the Con is an American for a better debate. I think Canada is the better country than the USA because we have a monarchy in which a queen rules over while USA is an independent country that uses nuclear weapons to resolve problems.
Canada vs USA

On America we done a lot of bad things, but so has every other country. Canada was built off the back of oppression by Scotland. The French and Native Americans were mistreated by the Scottish and northern English. Now, when you say fight for England, I definitely think you mean the south, because it's the north and the lowlands of Scotland that have the same qualities you accuse the USA of having. The north of the USA, founded by southern England, has a lot better things than some of Canada
Canada vs USA

America is a large country and we have amazing subway/bus systems. In Chicago, I know that have those trains that are above ground on like pillars or whatever and it is quite an inconvenience. Canada fights for England but the US try to create world peace by causing a war/joining in a war. They may have been responsible for many great inventions such as the atom smasher or the internet but they also create nuclear weapons and the stuff about gays and lesbians. PS I think all roads are the same.
Canada vs USA

I accept. To refute some of your things. On nuclear weapons: yes the USA has them. However we are in the position to defend allies like Kuwait. Tough times calls for tough measures. We have an awesome highway system, that Canada doesn't have. In America we believe in getting out of our luxury zones once in a while. Canada has awesome roads, I'll give you that, but America has awesome roads and highways. I love the smell of tollbooths in the morning lol. Come on, don't deny it. :)
F.D.R. Was a good president.

Pros CaseI. Domestic PolicyA) Rebuilding JobsWhen the great depression struck in 1929, unemployment was at an all-time high. Workers were losing jobs left and right, and no-one knew what to do to stop it. That was, of course, until FDR stepped in. Roosevelt created countless jobs with his "Alphabet Soup" organizations. The Civilian Conservation Corp alone employed over 250,000 workers (1). FDR helped the US economy immensely simply by creating countless new jobs for American Workers. The economy got back on its feet in no time. This is an excellent example of Keynesianism in aciton. B) Protecting the WorkerRoosevelt also created many programs to help protect the worker, as well as keep him employed. FDR established the minimum wage, and maximum work hours. FDR also abolished child labor laws. (2) With these new laws in place, the American worker was protected from abusive bosses, and were each guaranteed a fair deal for their labor. FDR also insured the banks, to protect the average citizen from bank failuresC) Developing InfrastructureWith programs such as the CCC, FDR helped massively increase infrastucture development. The money spent by the government under FDRs was well spent. The infrastructure improvements not only created jobs, but also helped provide many more services for America. Roads were improved, schools constructed, and National Parks were greatly improved. II. Foreign Policy A) DiplomacyFDR did a great job of remaining fairly neutral towards the beginning of WWII, in order to allow America to recover its economy and militarize, before becoming involved in 1942. He established lasting alliances with countires such as the UK, and France.B) WarAt war, FDR was pragmatic and practical. He attacked immediately after Japan attacked, and fought decisively. His expert command allowed us to quickly take care of Americas enemies.III. Lasting EffectsTo this day, America is stronger for the great advancements in workers rights and economic power established by FDR.After all, there's a reason he was elected four terms in a row (But he knew this was wrong, and established law to prevent more than two terms as president).Sources1. Robert Allen Ermentrout, "Forgotten Men: The Civilian Conservation Corps," (1982) 2. http://www.ushistory.org...
F.D.R. Was a good president.

My Standard BoilerplateRulesRound 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.Please, do not accept this challenge if you merely plan to challenge the premise of this debate.As the pro, I will argue that overall, Franklin Delano Roosevelt garnered net benefits for the United States of America that were above average.Con must argue that overall, FDR garnered net benefits for the USA that were well below average.
F.D.R. Was a good president.

RebuttalsI. ImmoralityA) Japanese InternmentLet this contention stand for my opponent has merely tried to justify and downplay FDR's actions. To say that it was even decently okay to imprison children and adults on the basis of racial fears is absurd. I do agree that no president is perfect and that sometimes mistakes are made but this is a rather large mistake. So instead of trying to justifying his actions we should instead be putting him down as one of the most immoral presidents and definatly not as a good president.C) Racist PoliciesThis point is a valid case against FDR. My opponent stated that "Simply because a policy affects a certain race negatively, does not mean that it's racist." and this by no means is not true. As I showed a fair portion of FDR's policies explicitly targeted the black community. Not to say that it was intended but it should still be noted that it wasn't equal for all races.
PC gaming is, on balance, better than console gaming.

Graphical fidelity and computational powerA high-end gaming computer is able to handle more than a current-gen console. This is mainly due to two things: price and age. Consoles such as the XBox 360 have relatively low prices and as such have to compromise on power. They are also using very old hardware, with the XBox 360 being released in 2005 and the PlayStation 3 being released in 2006. As shown in the videos{1}, the quality of graphics on the PC are better than on the XBox 360. Adding on to this, many console games run first-person games with a lower field of view. This can cause motion sickness in some people. This video{2} shows a comparison between different FOV values. Most console games also only run at a resolution of 720P, which is then upscaled to 1080P. Consoles also usually run at lower frame rates than PC's, which mean that they deliver choppier gameplay. PC's also have the option to upgrade hardware, while consoles do not. Modding capabilityGames such as Skyrim are able to be modded easilly, while the same game on the console cannot without a modified console. This increases the lifespan of a game, increasing value for money. Choice of gamesThe PC has a wide choice of games, as many games are multi-platform releases. With that, the PC also has many exclusive games such as MMO's like World of Warcraft, Tera Online, Eve Online, and Guild Wars 2. MOBA games are also fairly exclusive to PC's, such as League of Legends and DOTA 2. Also, many small indie titles are PC exclusive. {1} http://www.youtube.com...{2} www.youtube.com/watch?v=8G7wKzDoUMY
PC gaming is, on balance, better than console gaming.

Pro will argue that PC gaming is better, on balance, than console gaming. PC gaming will be defined as the following: "PC games, also known as computer games, are video games played on a general-purpose personal computer rather than a dedicated video game console or arcade machine." {1} Consoles are defined as the following: "A video game console is an interactive entertainment computer or customized computer system that produces a video display signal which can be used with a display device (a television, monitor, etc.) to display a video game. The term "video game console" is used to distinguish a machine designed for people to buy and use primarily for playing video games on a TV." {2} Console gaming will therefore be defined as gaming on a console. First round is for acceptance Second round is for opening arguments from both debators. Third round is for rebuttals. Fourth round is for further rebuttals and closing. No new arguments will be presented in this round. {1}http://en.wikipedia.org... {2}http://en.wikipedia.org...