BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Monkeys eat their children from time to time

I can't stress enough how credible my evidence is. Monkeys DO, in fact, eat their children approximately once a day. And I assumed you interpreted "their" as a possessive adjective pertaining to the whole community or species of monkeys. Therefore, the mother or father of a singular monkey familial unit can eat the monkey babies of another monkey familial unit. A recent study, done by *Cannibalism in the Wild Study Group*, suggests that the problem of infanticide followed by cannibalism (I'm unaware of any single term for the consumption of one's own offspring) is more widespread than previously thought. One researcher, Antonio Malvoroni, concluded after a recent trip to South Africa to observe several Chlorocebus tribes, that "after conclusive documentation and observation, I've concluded that velvet monkeys {chlorocebus} display an odd and seemingly disadvantageous tendency of eating their own offspring, usually within 2-3 months of birth, and offering chunks (such legs or thighs) to other mothers of the same clan" (http://en.wikipedia.org...). If that's not definitive evidence, Lieutenant Zubin, then I don't know what is. Zubin your own grubin.
Monkeys eat their children from time to time

When I first saw the latest post, I was more than somewhat alarmed. It seemed that my opponent had done thorough research and found conclusive evidence that the practice of monkeys eating their children from time to time being fairly widespread. Upon further observation, however, of my opponent's post, the quotes seemed more and more ridiculous, until I noticed that they were in fact completely fabricated. The links to websites that he provided were seemingly random wikipedia articles. The supposed quote from CBS News linked to the wikipedia page of CBS Sunday Morning News, nothing more. Perhaps my opponent finds that locating evidence of the alleged monkey-children-eating phenomenon is too difficult, seeing as there is none. Perhaps he is hoping that the reader of this debate will not bother to read into his arguments and/or accept them on blind faith. Whatever the case, my opponent has as of yet presented no real evidence or any sort of arguments for monkeys occasionally eating their own children, having opened with an ad hominem attack and continuing with a barrage of pure fantasies. I urge him to conduct research on this topic and provide evidence for his stance, as I may very well be proved wrong on this topic if real evidence is put forth.
Monkeys eat their children from time to time

"observed by the researcher Jane Goodall, this killing involves consuming the meat of the infants" Although, as you said, this statement does not make the proposed resolution true, it leads me to present you more evidence that was collected, in fact, by Jane Goodall herself, the very researcher you sought to discredit me with. According to a 2004 bimonthly report, (annotated by Queen Latifa, among others), "monkeys, including the small white-fronted capuchin, have been increasingly observed as, or caught in the act of, eating their children, or the children of the other members of their species"(http://en.wikipedia.org...). "To get around this problem, I propose that "from time to time" be interpreted as "occuring frequently enough so as to be observable on multiple occasions and not seen as exceptionally uncommon"" My second problem is with these proposed definitions that you have assumed in making your arguments. As instigator, I propose that "from time to time" be interpreted as "approximately once every 1-2 days, or 24-hour periods." "However, monkeys EATING their own children is the central statement, and such a phenonmenon has not been documented in a meaningful way. " On the contrary, several reports made by the Egyptian Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities as well as two independent reports by CBS News Sunday Morning (http://en.wikipedia.org...) have evidently concluded that "monkeys have adopted a serious and potentially harmful trend of increasingly eating their infant offspring, so relatively often that, even in times of nutritional abundance and thriving, baby monkey bones are being found dispersed among the many Crab-eating macaque villages that populate Southern Laos." (http://en.wikipedia.org...). With surmounting evidence, I rest my case.
Monkeys eat their children from time to time

Thank you for the debate challenge. The statement "Monkeys eat their children from time to time" immediately presents two central problems. The first is what is exactly meant by "monkey", especially since the answer to this question can vary widely depending on the extension of the term monkey to certain primates. For the purpose of this debate, I will consider monkeys by their biological definition, namely, that they are members of the phylogenetic group categorized as primates and have a tail (this definition excludes gibbons, chimpanzees, bonobos, humans, and other apes). The second problem with the question is what is meant by "from time to time". This vague wording allows for many interpretations of the statement based mainly on semantics, thereby distracting us from the central question of this debate. To get around this problem, I propose that "from time to time" be interpreted as "occuring frequently enough so as to be observable on multiple occasions and not seen as exceptionally uncommon". This is different from saying that it only has to have happened once, or that it theoretically could happen. Given these assumptions, the debate is actually quite straightforward. Monkeys do not regularly, or even moderately rarely, eat their own children. No such behavior has been convincingly documented, as far as I can research. It is very true that monkeys will occasionally kill the children of other monkeys, especially in the case of males looking to eliminate the offspring of sexual competitors. Even rarer is the occurence of mothers killing their own children, usually based on a perceived illness on the part of the child that would cause the subsequent upbringing of the child to be a waste of resources. However, monkeys EATING their own children is the central statement, and such a phenonmenon has not been documented in a meaningful way. Here's where the definition of monkey comes into play. Chimpanzees, which are apes, and not monkeys, will sometimes kill their children or the children of other mothers. Sometimes, as has been observed by the researcher Jane Goodall, this killing involves consuming the meat of the infants. IF this debate included all of primates and not just monkeys, the resolution would be much less clear. However, the statement "monkeys eat their children from time to time" implies not just that the event occur enough times to be an observable, repeatable phenomenon, but also that it occur within the phylogenetic category of monkeys. I challenge my opponent to present clear evidence that this behavior is in fact not drastically uncommon in monkeys. Otherwise, this may be a very short debate. SOURCES: http://www-personal.umich.edu...
Monkeys eat their children from time to time

Thank you, Conor, for placing yet again little responsibility on me for refuting your arguments. A quick google search reveals no hits for "Antonio Malvoroni" besides this very debate. The same goes for the supposed study: "Cannibalism in the Wild Study Group". In fact, Chlorocebus monkeys, also known as velvet monkeys, do not include large animals in their diet, never mind their own children. The only animals that they consume are invertebrates such as insects, and some small vertebrates. In this debate, my opponent has provided no credible evidence of monkeys eating their own children. Research on my own part has revealed that while chimpanzees may consume the meat of other juvenile chimps, but as chimps are not monkeys, but are apes. Also, while some monkey species systematically kill the children of other monkeys, they do not eat them, and this only occurs between separate monkey families. The resolution is negated.
Evolution is a proven scientific theory

My opponent began his debate by confidently asserting that "There is no evidence proving that we came from monkeys." He then used the example of the Bible to attempt to refute my statement. By applying his logic that a book must be true, I can think of, just off the top of my head, several thousand academic papers and hundreds of books, asserting that evolution is true. As well as this, my opponent has committed a logical fallacy in assuming that because something is unnatural, it must be untrue. Incorrect. Quantum Mechanics is the wackiest theory in science today, but it"s true and has been proved multiple times, just like evolution. In fact, there is an enormous amount of evidence that suggests that we indeed "came from monkeys" as you disparagingly put it. My job in this debate will be to rebut your evidence and present mine. First, a definition Evolution Achange in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes such as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift. Point 1 Our family tree can be traced back to Luca, the Last Universal Common Ancestor. (he was probably a bacteria) From there, we lose track until Lucy, Australopithecus. http://upload.wikimedia.org... This is startlingly human-like. However, scientists have carried out test which show that she knuckle-walked, just like a gorilla (you can see the rounded fingers), and probably had fur, just like an ape. Point 2 Our genome is like a map of who and where we came from. We share 99.8% of our genome with apes (and 99.99% with pirates!), therefore it seems almost self-evident to assume that we must be close relatives of apes. Point 3 We've seen it happen. We've started, and are continuing an experiment known as the e-coli project. Basically, it consists of taking bacteria, and waiting. A long time. And sure enough, the generation 50000 bacteria grow about 100 times faster than Generation 1. (1)http://humanorigins.si.edu... (2)http://myxo.css.msu.edu... (PS, thank you to my opponent for accepting this debate. It's going to be interesting!)
Evolution is a proven scientific theory

It is blatantly untrue to say, just 'because' creation might create more beautiful things, it does not mean it is true. I defined, in the second round evolution. I provide here a definition of adaptation. 1. the act or process of adapting or the state of being adapted; adjustment 2. something that is produced by adapting something else 3. something that is changed or modified to suit new conditions or needs 4. biology an inherited or acquired modification in organisms that makes them better suited to survive and reproduce in a particular environment . Pay close attention to No.4. Is that the same as evolution? No. Your rebuttal of the E-Coli source holds no water, because you failed to engage with the heart of my claim- that the E-coli grow faster because of the competitive environs. Instead you went off on a irrelevant tangent about how bacteria we can treat but virii we can't- I don't see how this helps your case. ==SUMMARY OF MY CASE== I stated that we come from, the longest way back from bacteria, then to the hominids (the apes) and now us. I then said that we looked at our genome, and it's like a map of where we came from, and it definitively shows that we came from apes. I am , with 99.98% sureness an ape. And apes are, with 99.96% sureness human. There is no bone in the ape body that I do not share. Heck, there isn't even a brain lobe that is different. Thank you to my opponent for a very interesting debate. Vote Science. Vote Pro. (1)http://dictionary.reference.com... (2) Genome, Matt Ridley 1999
Evolution is a proven scientific theory

Thank you for being my first official debate. Now yes I did use the bible because the theory of evolution may be true, but if you take a look around you on earth you'll see more creation and more beauty than if you look at evolution. Evolution may be true, but its more like adaptation the ones that are stronger and smarter will survive so to call adaptation evolution is the same thing. you mentioned bacteria yes it grows fairly quick, but if you get sick from a bacterial infection its treatable and its gone in a few days but if you get sick from a virus there's not a lot you can do to treat it.
The USFG should substantially increase social services for persons living in poverty

Now that the forfeits are even, I will refute my opponents arguments for the last time. Here we go: Topicality on Increase: My opponent is completely wrong in saying there is no increase in social services. As a matter of fact, there is an increase in ALL social services. When the poverty line is changed this makes more people eligible for social services. This means there will be and increase in ALL of them. My opponent then attempts to justify his argument saying this is wrong by saying my case is Fx topical. This could be applied to ANY case saying that there is always some medium the process goes through to make it Fx topical. This is another example of a conditional argument. My opponent then tries to justify his conditional arguments by saying that he HAS to run them because there is no non-conditional material he could run. The fact that my opponent is unable to procure a valid argument is his own fault. His lack of ability to make arguments is no justification whatsoever for presenting conditional arguments, and they should be thrown out. Missile DA: Here my opponent, again, posts a conditional argument and tries to justify it by saying it's all he can run. Please cross apply what I just said about conditional arguments here, and also note my opponent agrees that they are conditional. I would like to bring up another point here to refute this argument. He says because less money will be spent on defense, that another country will attack us. But if we look at the past, we see this is untrue. There have been countless acts in the past that needed funding and we have never had another country come at us with missles. So my opponents impact is horribly exaggerated and, for that matter, untrue. I will walk through my opponent's CP now: He states in (1) that states can change federal poverty line and that I conceded this point. Nowhere did I concede that this was true. Another lie from Con it seems. Secondly, my opponent completely ignored the fact that states have NO CONTROL OVER THE FEDERAL POVERTY LINE. To even say that states can control the federal government is completley illogical. (2) Once again just because the Neg is incompetent at presenting valid arguments this gives him no right to abuse and cheat. (3) Net benefit only comes if the plan works. Because I have shown it is literally impossible for the plan to work, the net benefit obviously does not apply. VOTERS I am completely good on all of the stock issues including topicality so this round flows Aff. I have proven every one of his arguments are conditional and gone the extra step and dissproved them anyway, round flows Aff. As all issues have flown Aff this round obviously goes aff. DA: I win because I've broken impact and its conditional. States: Impossible, illogical plan. Final vote: aff.
The USFG should substantially increase social services for persons living in poverty

I am deeply regretful that I missed that last posting. I was grounded and had no access to the computer. I will attempt to refute your arguments even still. First of all the T on 'increase'---increase means to augment something pre-existing (this follows your argument). We are augmenting the federal poverty line (which already exists). We are not creating a new one. Neg states that "aff doesn't increase an existing Social service, they instead modify one". This is illogical as it is impossible to increase something without augmenting it. Therefore I am topical. To refute the standard of limits, I have shown we are topical therefore this is within the Negs limits. I offer a counter-voter of fairness as it is unfair to sway T to Neg if I am topical. I offer the counter-standard of Framer's Intent which shows that the framer meant for a program to be increased (as res states) and it should be debated as such. Next the ASPEC argument---- As our plank 3 states we will be using the Department of Health and Human services. I am obviously topical in this matter and the argument should flow Aff. To the missile DA. ----This attack is both illogical and conditional. First of all, it is unfair for the Neg to use a conditional statement as it is impossible for the Aff to meet both the DA and the Resolution. It is abusive to Aff and should also flow aff. Also this says that S.S. increase will result in declination of defense programs and hegemony. The money stays in the U.S. so there will be no loss of money in the country itself. Also funding for military and S.S. come from 2 different sources so the to funding sites are seperate and, therefore, dont affect each other. So I have double the refutation and this should flow aff. Finally the counterplan----- this is illogical. Our plan directly makes use of the federal goverment as it uses FEDERAL government funding allowances and the FEDERAL poverty line. The states have neither the power or inclination to carry our the plan therefore the CP is completely illogical. I would also like to point out this is a conditional CP. I am sorry I missed one round but luckily we have 3 more. In regular CX debate there is not 5 rounds so this does not really matter. So because I have refuted the opponents attacks and CP and because my plan has ALL of the stock issues covered I urge you to vote AFF. Thank you.
The USFG should substantially increase social services for persons living in poverty

I will be running 2 topicality arguments and a DA/CP. I will probably add case arguments in the 2NC, and if my opponent permits a Critic. - - - - - Topicality "Increase" - - - - - - - 1. interpertation - increase means "pre existing" 2. violation - the aff doesn't increase an existing Social service, they instead modify one, and create a new one 3. Standards a. limits - they explode the topic by allowing the aff to modify their plan by creating new ones. . I cant research new programs it's impossible. 4. voters - Fairness, I'm am unprepared to debate something untopical and my opponent must remain within the groups of the resolution or I lose Da/CP ground and lose links to argument. Education, we came here to debate the resolution. - - - - Topicality " ASPEC" - - - - - - - 1. interp - aff must specify the agent doing the plan 2. violation - they don't specify an exact agent 3. Standards a. aff conditionality - they can shift their agent to change the function of the plan and kills our offense b. PLan text is key - textually binds them to defend an agent to prevent ambiguity. 4. voters - Same as first T, cross apply Missile Da A. uniqueness (Krauthammer 09) Social services cause a direct trade-off with defense spending, cutting back defense programs and hegemony in general. (I can post card if needed) B. INcrease in SS spending leads to decrease in Defense spending/heg C. Missle is key to heg. (Staes News Service 09) D. Hegemony prevents nuclear war ( Khalizhad 95') E. Impact - Russia a) Russia is building nukes that can penetrte our defense systems / ( Hodge 10) b) Russia percieves US as threat (Trenin 07) c) Exstinction, nukes--->death. (Cohen 96') - - States - - - - The 50 states in unison shall enact the Affirmatives plan. Cont 1) CP is mutually exclusive and gains all solvency of the Affirmitive since the CP can do the Affirmatives plan 100% unless proven otherwise also. STATES AND LOCAL WELFARE PROGRAMS ARE MORE EFFECTIVE Browning 08' "Welfare programes operated by states, local, and nongovernmental entities can be expected to be more efficent per dollar spent than federal level. They have greater felability and states utilize different approaches and learn. " Cont 2) Net benfit - The CP can 100% solve the case and totally avoids the DA. No policy advantage can outweigh extinction, and since the CP avoids the link to the DA and wont cause nuclear war you should vote on the CP.
The line, "One nation under God," should be taken out of the Pledge of Allegiance

You have just gave out false information. The U.S. military does not recite the pledge of allegiance. They do not say them before training, or during a ceremony or anything like that. As I said before the Pledge is for the U.S. military. It is to honor the soldiers. Plus might I add that many people believe it is part of U.S. history. It is not directed to religion. It is simply a traditional pledge, of U.S. pride, history, and soldiers. You refer as the part you shouldn't use as "one nation under god'. Though I think the words you should be protesting against are "under god". What is religious about "one nation"? Nothing. Yet you insist of including those words as well. Now here is in my opinion the most confusing part of the argument. You referenced a bible scripture, the thing you despised in your last argument, is now your argument itself. This tells me your only intention of this debate is for self-purposes. You are refusing to say the pledge because you say in enforces a god. Which you are atheist. But it does not enforce a god. You say that we are suppressing our beliefs, our thoughts. But are you not doing the same? You only mention the "bad" Christians. Things some of them have done wrong. You call the atheist oppressed. But are you not oppressing as well? You are the one trying to take away the tradition and honors of our soldiers. You see this as equality and fairness. I see it only as a ongoing fight. I do not see the world for religion, I see it as people holding together. But back to the actual argument. I have proved that people are choosing to say the pledge it is not anywhere required to do. Both of these things you have chosen to protest about, because they are oppressing religion are in fact not at all doing that. Now it is more tradition and religion for "in god we trust" to be on the coin. It is not made to "save students from shootings" or anything like that. Some of our first settlers came here for the freedom of religion. All religions had the same Christian God. So even though even I myself am not much for religion. I still want to keep it because it is our tradition and history. I will not be arguing in the next debate you are putting out of this, I think I know of someone better than myself to argue this point. I thank you for the debate though.
The line, "One nation under God," should be taken out of the Pledge of Allegiance

You opined that the Pledge of Allegiance mostly applies to schools, but I will insist that at most military if not all military related events the Pledge of Allegiance is recited, required to be recited by the soldiers, who are required to say the words, "One nation under God," despite their personal beliefs. I concede that restricting the freedom of speech and public display of religion is a violation of American rights, and have been swayed to at least overlook the minor religious amendments to our nation's pledge and currency. I would like to finish with your comment about public worship, however, by quoting from the gospel of Matthew 6:5-6 (NKJV), "And when you pray, you shall not be like the hypocrites. For they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the corners of the streets, that they may be seen by men. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward. 6 But you, when you pray, go into your room, and when you have shut your door, pray to your Father who is in the secret place; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you." Now this is more of an internal issue within the Christian conscience to be dealt with personally. I will finish with this: All nations have a Pledge. The Pledge signifies a citizens values; not all citizens believe in a God, therefore it should not be included in the Pledge. One should be allowed to show reverence to their soldiers and veterans without having to hear the words, "One nation under God." I digress.