BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Evolution and the Scientific Method ----> Creationsim

The key piece missing from evolution and the scientific method is experimentation.* experimentation - a test, trial, or tentative procedure [1]In short there is no way to test for evolution in a labratory or in the field that yields positive results in favor of evolution. In fact without experimentation the scientific method reads as thus:1. Ask a question/establish background knowledge2. Construct a hypothesis3. Analyze results4. Draw a conclusionAs you can see this method does not make sense now that experimentation has been removed from the equation but this is the structure used when discussing evolution. Observation alone cannot explain a theory alone and data collected when using the scientific method has to be done so in a "reproducable manner" [2] which data from evolution cannot be since it cannot be reproduced in a controlled experiment. Using just observations it becomes a speculative science. If you cannot reproduce the results in a lab or set up a situation in which the theory can take place then it is speculative science. You cannot experiment on evolution. Arguments stemming from observations of nature and fossil records can be used to support evolution.You cannot experiment with creationism. Arguments stemming from observations of nature and fossil records can be used to support creationism. The two must be treated as equals in the scientific community.[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Evolution and the Scientific Method ----> Creationsim

I accept, but first I would like to state that there is no single definitive scientific method, merely patterns in scientific inquiry that are generally accepted in most situations by scientists. In any case, I have a feeling I know where you are going with this. In any case, I propose that we use the following as the basis for this debate:1. Ask question/Background research2. Construct a hypothesis3. Experimentation (including but not limited to field experiments, labaratory/manipulated experiments, and natural experiments, all of which are accepted by the scientific community)4. Analyze results and draw a conclusion concerning said hypothesis.
Gun Laws / Control in the United States

Welcome. I do not think there should be restrictions on Guns. Now, let me make a clear point here. I'm talking about guns, not deadly weapons ex. Nuclear Bombs or Missiles. I believe that the gun control in the US is unnecessary and nonproductive. I am glad to find someone to debate me over this topic in which I feel very strongly about, and welcome you and you're beliefs honorably. So, here we go. Gun control and laws are wrong.
Gun Laws / Control in the United States

Hello, Samyul. Thank you for the debate and I appreciate the sentiment. Unfortunately, however, I strongly disagree with your premise. My opponent's claim.My opponent has stated that he does not believe guns should be restricted. On first glance, you'd naturally assume that he meant further restricted or abolished. But no, as of Thursday, 10/11/12 5:10 am, through his posting in round one and through his remarks in the comment section it is very clear that my opponent is referring to any restriction whatsoever.My opponent's inevitable defense. Being that my opponent resides in Columbus, Ohio, it isn't unreasonable to assume he's referring to the US. My opponent's defense is 2 fold. He must first defend the abolition of basic gun possession laws, and then defend restriction of gun possession in regards to area. As defined by this debate, my opponent has rejected the laws preventing certain people, such as convicted felons or people with mental health problems, from owning guns & that gun owners are to be above the age of 18 years old. I ask you, my opponent, my audience, and my judges, is it plausible to allow a 10 year old child to walk to the store (Because we deem him/her unacceptable to drive due to age and maturation) and buy a fully automatic assault rifle? In terms of area, should that same child be allowed to take his newly equipped fully automatic assault rifle to elementary school?Conclusion In conclusion, it is inconceivable to allow a 10 year old child to possess said weapon, and then allow the child to take it to elementary school. Thus, requiring gun restriction laws.
Transexuality

Some people think that people shouldn't change their genders, or that it is something abnormal, some think that transexuality is okay, but they should use the ocker rooms/bathrooms fit for the gender in which they were born, some people think they shouldn't be able to marry or adopt... What do you people think? In my opinion, transexuality is completely normal, and people shouldn't look at it as something which is abnormal. As for marrying and having kids, I don't see why not, they are normal people just like a heterosexual person.
Transexuality

The suicide rate among transgender people who had reassignment surgery is 20 times higher than the suicide rate among non-transgender people. Studies from Vanderbilt University and London"s Portman Clinic of children, said 70% and 80% of children who express transgender feelings "spontaneously lose those feelings" over time. Transgender thoughts are mentally wrong and need to be fixed. If someone who wants to do something irreversible to their body, such as suicide or removing sex organs, are we not morally obligated to help them get well? A person who thinks they are the opposite sex is the equivalent of a person with anorexia who thinks they are overweight. Sure, we can let them keep starving themselves until their death (as long as they aren't bothering anyone else, of course) or we can do what is morally right, give them help. A transgender person"s disorder is in the person"s assumption that they are different than the physical reality of their body, their maleness or femaleness, as assigned by nature. I've already explained how science and logic clearly says the you cannot change your sex. Cosmetic surgery doesn't automatically make you the opposite sex. It would be the equivalent of putting a Ford logo over a Subaru logo. Bottom line, its still a Subaru. If you think that a man with a brain that slightly resembles that of a woman, I'm sure you can explain how males who identify as females have brains with male DNA (that thing which makes us what we are and who we are). Women can have mescalin features, such as thick body hair or even armpits, but that still doesn't make them male. The bottom line is transgender thoughts and desires are a mental problem these people need to cope with and by allowing and encouraging them to to irreversible things to their body can have serious consequences on their well being.
Transexuality

If you want to base this debate in science, then allow me to tell you what science thinks about transexuality. Science agrees that transexuality has an anatomical basis, proven by Antonio Guillamon of the National Distance Education University in Madrid and neuropsychologist Carme Junqu" Plaja of the University of Barcelona. They did an experiment using as subjects 42 people, both male and female, who agreed that they felt they were born in the wrong body. Upon many tests and experiments done in their brains, their results, published in 2013, showed that even before treatment the brain structures of the trans people were more similar in some respects to the brains of their experienced gender than those of their natal gender. For example, the female-to-male subjects had relatively thin subcortical areas (these areas tend to be thinner in men than in women). Male-to-female subjects tended to have thinner cortical regions in the right hemisphere, which is characteristic of a female brain. This isn't the only experiment done to determine whether transexuality has an anatomical basis, psychologist Sarah M. Burke of VU University Medical Center in Amsterdam and biologist Julie Bakker of the Netherlands Institute for Neuroscience used functional MRI to examine how 39 prepubertal and 41 adolescent boys and girls with gender dysphoria responded to androstadienone, an odorous steroid with pheromonelike properties that is known to cause a different response in the hypothalamus of men versus women. They found that the adolescent boys and girls with gender dysphoria responded much like peers of the gender they wanted to be. However, putting science apart, can you imagine what these people must be feeling like? Being their whole life in a body they don't like, where they feel strange, feeling like they aren't quite the same as the people from their gender? If they want to change their gender, because they feel more at ease, because they feel comfortable, then why should other people tell them what's morally right or wrong? These people are not hurting anybody by being transexuals, they are only trying to be happier, and we should respect them and their decisions, because they shouldn't have to deal with people telling them that they are monsters, aberrations, abominations or things like that. If they are happy, and not hurting anybody, why not let them be? It's their body, and they can do whatever they want with it.
Transexuality

Transexuality is absolutely not normal. Transexuality means to change your sex, which is not possible at all. You may think that simply removing the reproductive sex organs of a person automatically makes them the opposite sex, but that is not the case. Sex organs are not the only things that distinguish the difference between male and female. Some of these differences include: Women have developed breasts that are usually capable of lactating, while men have not, men have more bodily hair than women do, and one of the most distinguishable characteristics, women have two X chromosomes and men have an X and a Y. There are approximately 37.2 trillion cells in the human body which 46 chromosomes in each cell. That adds up to a total of 17,112,000,000,000,000 chromosomes in the human body. You cannot change 17,112,000,000,000,000 chromosomes. It is not possible because you would have to change each and every one of them. You can have a sex organ change or shave body hair or even grow it out, but doing just those things does not at all make you a completely different sex.
An experienced veteran should decide which user-generated questions in Triviador go into the game.

This time, I will respond to all four of your points. 1) Yes, it is true that one player (a veteran) having the position as an adjudicator while everyone else not having that position is, in a certain way, unfair and an advantage. However, by this logic all modern countries/companies/organizations should abolish their leadership structure in favor of one similar to that of Classical Athens where everyone had a vote on every issue in theory to make things more fair. Does not the prime minister of any one country have an advantage over the other citizens because of access to the legislative process that no one else has? To make things more efficient, I think, we need to delegate authority to a given player that can also be taken away if that power is abused. This ties into what I said earlier when I talked about not everyone having the time or means to devote to this; one player can dedicate the time to doing a comprehensive job on question selection. Power delegation in this way should be seen as making the game more efficient and not primarily as a way to give too much advantage to one player. 2) Yes, the question factory does have two elements...however, why not have one left to popularity and one left to expert descretion? I think that the advantages poised by implementing this change outweigh the disadvantages that would happen due to the mild erosion of popular control. Furthermore, yes, many people do enjoy being able to vote in questions...however, sometimes the popular option might be to delegate this to an authority. Do we know if most people would not like having that part taken away from them? In politics some positions might be elected while others might be appointed. Sometimes the public prefers to delegate authority. We should investigate before we make a claim about what seems fair to everyone. 3) The proof I have for my assumption is mainly what so many have already observed and what should be known a priori. Experience in the game enables players to answer questions quicker and sometimes with the ability of answering them in fractions of a second after only scanning keywords. Novice players are not any less qualified at things non-Triviador related (they may know much more than any other Triviador player) but can't possibly have a deep understanding of what questions are in the game and what are not simply due to lack of experience. Therefore, when other players submit questions that are repeats and/or similar to things they already know from the game, a novice player would not know this while an expert would. This is not to demean anyone; it just means novice players can't give full consent to all these things just as a jury can't give a fully-informed verdict without first hearing all the facts about the case. 4) It has been proven that some people can be trusted with authority. Sonia and many other moderators have competently executed their duties entrusted to them and most people are fine with their performance. If there is abuse, the player can be replaced.
An experienced veteran should decide which user-generated questions in Triviador go into the game.

I appreciate the opportunity to debate this, Jo. Firstly; voting a veteran in as adjudicator would not be fair to other players. This would give that player an advantage over his/her peers. Secondly; the question factory has two elements (setting a question & voting on a question), to deny players one element is unfair. This game must not only be fair to all, it must be seen to be fair. Thirdly; I'm not sure how you arrived at the supposition that players vote in detriment to their own interests? I would argue that the vets would balance this supposed shortcoming. I am a mere beginner compared to the vets of this game, but have the intelligence to vote a question in or out for valid reasons. So your suggestion that novice players would not know or care is an unproven assumption on your part. We don't know if players view the fanpage & choose not to respond. In conclusion I would not ask a single player (no matter how experienced) to make judgement's in the question factory. This job should be done by Triviador ( a non-player).
An experienced veteran should decide which user-generated questions in Triviador go into the game.

Thank you, Mazzy, for engaging in this debate. I agree with you when you say "excluding less seasoned players would only serve to alienate many players" and I think we need to look to ways to help keep the marginal fan interested. However, anyone already has the right to participate by submitting questions and I don't believe this aspect should be abrogated. The veteran player also could be elected by a popular vote to increase involvement from the less-seasoned players. More importantly, I think that sometimes people often vote against their own interests. When less-seasoned players vote for questions that are easy and/or repeats, they only serve to increase the challenges posed against them by the more experienced veteran players. This goes into point 4 that I originally made; I think that an arbiter who is knowledgeable of what would really be beneficial to the less experienced would better help their interests than they can for themselves. Keep in mind that an experienced vet also knows the types of questions that are unknown to most vets and, if honest, knows what questions he/she would not be able to get in less than a second. Most people don't have enough time or enough interest in the game to make fully-informed decisions about what questions should be in the game. I would also argue that most novice players would not even know or care if this change were made as many never come to the fanpage and never comment on changes that have been made in the past. Also, many people just turn the question voting option off to get right into playing a game. But yes, in the end, I would prefer your suggestion of 20% of questions going back into a second round of adjudication to no change at all.
An experienced veteran should decide which user-generated questions in Triviador go into the game.

I would argue that excluding less seasoned players would only serve to alienate many players from having a say in the question factory. This is a Trivia game, not Mastermind. Surely, it is for the enjoyment of all players, not just a select few. I suggest that 20% of rejected questions should go to Triviador for final adjudication. This would give valid questions a second chance to be entered into the game.
An experienced veteran should decide which user-generated questions in Triviador go into the game.

Your statement that there are already some players that are privy to the answers, is a revelation. For any player to have access to answers is madness ( other than the question factory). This goes against the integrity of the game & is certainly not a level playing field for those battling against such players. If these privileged players would like to play under a 'handicap' system depending on the level they are playing against, that would level the playing field, but I digress..... This also confirms for me that NO player should have answer access other than the question factory, which is open to all players. For you to say that having access has not ruined the game, is debatable. Maybe an independent body can be set up? You stated that there is more to the game than just the answers & I agree, but the answers are a fundamental part of the game. In light of your revelation I certainly would argue against players having access to answers. Thank you, Jo, for this opportunity to debate with you. I have enjoyed it.
An experienced veteran should decide which user-generated questions in Triviador go into the game.

What I would say in response to "to give one player the answers should not be made possible" is that it is already in existence. I will not say who (they haven't given me permission to disclose this information) but there are already a select few players (not in working relationships with THX Games) who have been given the privilege of looking at all the questions (and I am not talking about Sonia). Even if that were not true, though, the developers, the triv guy, and other people who are commonly known to have access to all the information also play on different accounts and there has not been that much complaining about that. One individual veteran I know who has access to the questions (although he does not actively take part in putting questions into the game) is very good but is still beatable. We may not want to give this privilege to a player who would spend all his/her time using this privilege as a way to become unbeatable but like many others, I do know that there is more to this game than possessing the answers. Skill is needed to skim questions, to answer them quickly on the spot, and to strategize for a maximum chance of winning. Plus, it would be just one player and many players would welcome (albeit with some complaint) the chance of playing against a player who would possess this advantage. The point is that some players already have access and it has not ruined the game so I don't see why creating this post for one or more veteran experts would change much other than letting everyone know who precisely has this information rather than keeping people guessing. I mainly disagree with you here, though, in terms of who you would want to oversee second chances for questions. I do like the Triv Guy and we are friends, however, he has not always been cooperative in getting high quality questions into the game. He is prone to making excuses like when he told Armen that the question about Armenia establishing Christianity first was inaccurate (citing google {Ethiopia potentially being earlier}) without realizing that the question was multiple choice and was only asking about "which of these." He also has not played the game as much as say, Garisson or Ferry, and does not intimately know all the questions in the game (even though he has access to them). I would maintain that someone else should have this role. I am not asking to put in a lot of obscure questions; I am asking for a moderator who would put in a lot of questions on important topics that are still not yet in the game. And I don't think there is any prominent individual who is arguing that Triviador is already saturated with all important topics and that there isn't any left to cover. I think the Triv Guy has failed in addressing this. A moderator need only go to the database of rejected questions (thousands and thousands) and peruse them for more interesting and important topics to include in the game. This is something the Triv Guy will not do.
An experienced veteran should decide which user-generated questions in Triviador go into the game.

I appreciate what you are saying, but to give one individual the advantage of knowing the answers to a number of questions amounts to letting the the quiz master play the game as well. I maintain that the adjudicator should be impartial & have no part in the game. For those that wish to take part in the question factory, should continue to do so. To me, it's part of the game & gives involvement to those who wish to take part. The basic structure should remain, but, valid rejected questions should be given a second chance. I think we both agree on that point. The question for me, is who should have the job of deciding this. From my understanding, Triv Man already does this if he feels a question is valid. I suggest that this be made official, so that a player may send his/her rejected question to an arbitration box to get a final decision & that decision should be final. To conclude; the "faceless majority" is what makes this game what it is today. FUN! As for an authority figure, that is the developers of the game. They have the final say in what is implemented. They are kind enough to allow us to take part in the question factory & they listen to our gripes & try hard to solve problems, which cannot always be easy for them. Everyone wants to see a level playing field in the game from the developers standpoint. Each players abilities is the factor which changes that dynamic, so the basis of the game must start with 'all things being equal' therefore, the player makes the difference. To give one player the answers should not be made possible. Triviador should be the adjudicator, not a player.