BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Undeniable Proof That Evolution Didn't Happen

I am glad that I finally had the chance to finally get a debate with someone going on this topic. It has been a favorite topic of mine to debate on, considering that science is my favorite subject. I am going to give you several reasonable, logical explanations, that should clearly show my readers, (as well as my opponent) some of the things that are wrong with evolution. I could go on and on with the different things that prove that evolution is not true, but, what I am going to do in this debate, is choose a different subject for every debate round. I will not be providing a source, for there should be no need to provide a source, on things that is common knowledge, such a the sky is blue, the sun is hot etc. On this debate round, my subject of choice will be; mutations, and why mutations cannot produce cross-species change. I am looking forward to a enjoyable debate, and if I lose, it doesn't matter to me, it won't change my beliefs at all, I am very new to this site anyway, so we shall see. It is well-known among many knowledgeable scientists that if evolution could possibly occur, mutations would have to accomplish it. There is simply no other mechanism that can make changes within the DNA. Natural selection has consistently failed, so mutations are the last hope of a majority of the evolutionists today. Mutations generally produce one of three types of changes within genes or chromosomes: (1) an alteration of DNA letter sequence in the genes, (2) gross changes in the chromosomes (inversion, trans-location), or (3) a change in the number of chromosomes (inversion, trans-location), or a change in the number of chromosomes (polyploidy, haploidy). But whatever the cause, the result is a change in genetic information. Mutations are very rare. This point is not a guess but a scientific fact that has been observed by experts in the field. Their very rarity dooms the possibility of mutational evolution to oblivion. Mutations are simply too rare to have produced all the necessary traits of even one life form, much less all the creatures that swarm on the earth. Evolution requires improvement.. Mutations do not help or improve: they only weaken and injure. Nearly all mutations are harmful. In most instances, mutations weaken or damage the organism in some way so that it (or its offspring if it is able to have any) will not survive. There has not once ever been any recorded instance of a beneficial mutation. The fact that mutations are the only things that an evolutionists can stand on anymore, and as I have just proved above, they cannot use this as a justifiable for their process, and thus they have no process.
The US should legalize all drugs

http://www.cdc.gov... http://m.nydailynews.com... https://www.drugabuse.gov... There's the sources, didn't share them because I assume most people know this stuff, it's something people should know if they keep up with the new and such. Addictions should be treated like a health issue, not a crime, so thank you for stating that. I agree with that 100%. So you agree it is a health problem, you obviously just hated that. So should we not treat cancer, it's a Health problem. People don't decide to have cancer, and we try everything to get rid of it. It should be the same for addiction, and the biggest step is not legalizing drugs. Addiction is hurting many people, the number is much bigger then you realize, but you don't seem to look at the bigger picture. Since drugs have become more popular, the crime rate has gone up, a lot. https://ncadd.org... Not to mention all the sites you used are .com, not always reliable sources. Obviously you haven't seen addiction first hand, or else you'd have a better understanding of it. Your logic on the Oreo stuff makes me laugh. More people have died from drugs, then they have Oreos, so your "logic" from that doesn't phase me at all.
The US should legalize all drugs

C1) Paternalism is bad The government should not tell us what to do with our own bodies when we do something that harms no one else. Drugs would fall into this category. C2) Criminal networks According to Seth Jones of RAND Corporation, the Taliban gets 70-80% of their funding from the heroine trade. If drugs were legalized, US agrobusiness would be able to compete the Taliban out of business, meaning we would nearly instantly win the War in Afghanistan by denying the Taliban most of their funding. In addition, the Council on Foreign Relations points out that our drug demand fuels most of Mexico's cartels and much of the violence that spills across our borders. http://www.cfr.org... If we bought all our drugs from American companies, Mexican cartels would all go out of business.C3) Makes the government moneyWe'd save about $15 billion a year by ending the useless war on drugs. http://www.drugsense.org... In addition, we'd gain about $30 billion a year by taxing drugs, although it could be significantly more, since we can progressively raise taxes (as we've done with cigarettes). The Global Commission on Drug Policy points out, ""The global war on drugs has failed . . . prohibition has failed in tackling global consumption of drugs, and has instead led to the creation of black markets and criminal networks that resort to violence and corruption in order to carry out their business. This drug-related violence now threatens the institutional stability of entire nations."C4) Decriminalization decreases drug useWhen we treat drugs as a matter of public health, not criminal justice, people feel less stigmatized and feel better about seeking help. This is why a Cato Institute study of Portugal's decriminalization policies shows decreases in drug usage and safer drug use over time. http://www.cato.org...REBUTTALS TO COMMON ARGUMENTS1. Drugs are bad for youThis is answered by paternalism. Cigarettes and alcohol are also bad, but we are allowed to make these decisions for ourselves. In fact, alcohol is more likely to affect others than any other drug (drunk driving).2. Drugs hurt othersNo, they really don't, except that when we hurt ourselves, we hurt those who care for us. But this still doesn't justify paternalism, unless you believe loved ones should make all your decisions for you just because your decisions tangentially affect them.SOURCEShttp://www.cfr.org... http://www.drugsense.org... http://www.cato.org...
Advanced aliens laugh at Evolution

I am the Father of all gods. I gave you life 900 zillion to the 20th power years ago by using telikenesis mating spiritonic spermanoids on the demi goddess named Mendalinia. Luke, I am your father, and I chose to give you limited comprehension abilities when I designed and manipulated your ghost dna. You have a high IQ compared to humans sitting at at 10,649,547,413, but mine is unmeasurable because I am the grand creator of all things that exist. I am the creator of all things, so I declare myself a "superior alien" for the sake of debate. I can stop time, go backward or forward in time and change anything or even morph anyone's perceptions or thoughts. I put a governor on your mind and put a deception app on your mind. It causes you to believe evolution to be true when it abviously is not to a nongoverned mind. I am the omnipotent declarer of all things, have declared my power and authority and have the final say no matter what else happens. I declare in my omnipotant and "final say authority" that evolution is funny. I declare that advanced aliens laugh at evolution. This is the final command of the debate. I now command you to make a rebutal to my statements and to this debate topic to prove my power and authority. I also declare that rebutal as fiction that I forced you to type by my will.
Advanced aliens laugh at Evolution

"I am an advanced alien." And I'm God. "My race/species disproved evolution" Ahaha. You disproved evolution? That's funny because according to my omniscience, evolution actually happened. "Lol I laughed" Saying 'lol' is not the same as actually laughing. You have no definitive proof that you actually laughed. Also, my omniscience tells me that you're not actually an advanced alien. You're really just some person on the other side of the internet who is lying in a sad bid at winning a debate on an online debate site. I thought I told you humans something like 'Thou shalt not lie" somewhere in the last.. 2000 years or so? But if you want me to send you to Hell, that's your prerogative. "My fellow ship crew members.." You need to stop lying. I'm really going to send you to Hell. I'm not kidding. You're gonna burn for eternity. "Every one of the advanced aliens on this ship." Sir. Sir. I hate to break this to you, but these imaginary friends of yours? They don't really exist. You need to face reality. I know of several psychologists that can help you with your condition. Would you like me to call them? "Lol. Lol. Lol. Lol." Lol.
Advanced aliens laugh at Evolution

This is an easy one because I myself an an advanced alien, I can laugh, and I do not believe in evolution because my race/species disproved it long ago. It's an archaeic way of of trying to explain how life began. Really? You guys think T-Rex turned into a chicken over time? Lol! (See, I just laughed.) Your so called "scientists can't decide if chickens came from dinosaurs or if the dinosaurs were wiped out by " "big freeze". Or was it a comet? Nevertheless, it was neither one. There is no evolution. You have not witnessed anything change species for a reason. Your scientists have even coined the term "the first self replicating molecule". And... how did that happenM my feloow mother ship crew members have a morbid curiosity as to how your pion scientists try and explain away "abiogenesis". And how did that happen? Lol. Lol. Lol. Lol. Every one of the advanced aliens on this ship is laughing and hysterically.
Advanced aliens laugh at Evolution

Re: Well first, you have to prove that an advanced and technologically superior aliens actually exist. Your video shows me a bunch of lights in the sky that could be anything. There's no reason for me or anyone else to believe that those are UFO's. Re: Second, you have to prove that these aliens are capable of laughing. Still yet to be proven. Re: Third, you have to prove that these aliens would likely find humans explaining evolution to be laughable. Lots of people know that the square root of 2 is irrational. .01% of these people can prove that square root of 2 is irrational via logic by contradiction. 99.99% can't. Is that funny? I don't find it funny. You'd have to be funny in the head to find that funny. The fact that some people don't know precisely how the first life originated - even if it's the entirety of humanity - doesn't show that aliens would laugh or find it to be ridiculous. Re: Fourth, you have to prove that aliens would likely disbelieve evolution. You have not shown why aliens would disbelieve evolution. You've only shown that you personally disbelieve in evolution. Just because you don't know how to prove that the square root of 2 is irrational, doesn't mean that it isn't. Just because you don't know how to prove evolution's origins, doesn't mean that it doesn't have an origins. Life is a chemical reaction. THere were a lot of chemical reactions going around on the Earth billions of years ago. One of them just happened to be self sustaining and also had multiplicative properties. Not hard to believe imo. But I don't have to prove that evolution has an origins. You're the one that has to prove that the notion that it does is silly. You have not presented something that would show that it is. Re: Fifth, you have to prove that these aliens would likely coin and use the term "BS". Remains to be proven Re: If you can't prove any of these, then you're wrong and you lose. You're wrong. And you're losing.
Advanced aliens laugh at Evolution

UFO's spotted in clouds of Houston, TX http://www.mirror.co.uk... If the universe is infinite, by virtue of chance it means that every possible configuration of matter must exist somewhere (according to this documentary). If the universe is infinite, by sheer logic there must be a version of advanced alien out there somewhere in existence. If evolution evolved us, it can evolve aliens superior to us in intellect, and it can evolve aliens superior in intellect that are able to laugh in infinite time. Even Richard Dawkins, Biologist and proponent of evolution when asked how life began says,'?"The first self replicating molecule. When asked ,"How did that happen?" Replies,"Nobody knows that." If this was your explanation to someone superior in intellect, you would amuse them. When a race of aliens evolved amusement and the ability to laugh, they would laugh at a human explaining evolution then ending with "No one knows how it happened." In reference to the first self replicating molecule theory. It is funny and makes me laugh, and I am not of the intellectual capacity of a superior intellected alien. http://youtu.be... Evolved aliens would all be different as humans are all different. Therefore, sme of them would have a similar since of humor as I do.
Advanced aliens laugh at Evolution

Well first, you have to prove that an advanced and technologically superior aliens actually exist. Second, you have to prove that these aliens are capable of laughing. Third, you have to prove that these aliens would likely find humans explaining evolution to be laughable. Fourth, you have to prove that aliens would likely disbelieve evolution. Fifth, you have to prove that these aliens would likely coin and use the term "BS". If you can't prove any of these, then you're wrong and you lose.
Most Offensive Jokes

An alien walked into a shop and told the owner that he came from Mars and wanted to buy a brain for research. 'How much is this one?' he asked. 'Well that one is a monkey brain and it's $20,' he explained. 'How much is that one?' he asked 'Well that one is a female brain and its $100.' he explained. 'And how much is that one?' he asked. 'That one is a male's brain and it is $500' he explained. 'Why so expensive?' the alien asked. 'Well it has hardly been used!' **************** Q: How do you confuse a blonde? A: You put her in a round room and tell her to sit in a corner. Q: How does a blonde confuse you? A: She comes out and says she did. This was fun!
Most Offensive Jokes

A white boy, jimmy, and a black boy, jamal, are in the same kindergarten class. One day the teacher asks them to recite the alphabet. Jimmy goes first and gets through it perfectly. Jamal goes next, gets to h, stumbles and can't finish. That night, Jamal asks his mom why jimmy could recite the abc's and he couldn't. His mom responds with "that's because jimmy is white and you are black." The next day, the teacher asks them to count to 10. Jimmy again goes first and gets through it perfectly. Jamal goes second, gets to 4, stumbles and can't finish. That night, Jamal asks his mom why jimmy could count to 10 and he couldn't. His moms response was the same, " because he is white and you are black." The next day, while in the bathroom, Jamal catches a glimpse of Jimmy's penis. That night he asks his mother, "today I was in the bathroom and saw Jimmy's penis and mine was much bigger than his. Is that because I'm black and he's white?" Jamal's mother responds with, "no Jamal, that's because you are 18 and he is 5." _______________________________________________________ What's the difference between a pimple and a priest? . . . . . . . . . A pimple at least waits until you're 13 to come on your face.
Most Offensive Jokes

What's the difference between David Beckham and an airplane model kit? One's a glueless kit and the other's a clueless git! ********************** The Englishman's, Irishman's and Scotsman's wives go shopping one day to a big department store. While they are there a fire breaks out. Everyone in the store is killed, including the three women. Their husbands are summoned to the local police station where a policewoman breaks the news to them: "I'm afraid sirs, that we believe your wives were killed in the fire at the department store. However the fire was so intense we cannot identify the bodies. Only their handbags survived the blaze. Can you identify your wives' handbags from these three found in the store?" The three men all look at the handbags and each one is able to identify one of the handbags as belonging to his wife. With all handbags accounted for the policewoman leaves the men to deal with their grief in peace. The three men sit in silence for a while, then the Englishman opens his wife's handbag and rummages through the contents, finally pulling out a half-empty packet of cigarettes and says "All these years married and I never knew the old girl smoked." The Scotsman looks into his wife's handbag and pulls out a half-empty bottle of scotch. "Jings, I knew her all that time an ah didnae ken ma missus drank." The Irishman empties his wife's handbag onto the floor, looks through the contents and picks up a half empty packet of condoms. "'Saints preserve us! All dese years an oi never knew me wife was a man."
There's no where to go after Nietzsche

Possible Existence of BiasPro argues that anyone who attributes the rise of Nazism to Nietzsche cannot be objective. However, Pro hasn't cited any reason to believe that Camus was of this opinion. Most Nietzsche scholars don't think that his doctrines legitimately justify Nazism and his writings against anti-Semitism are well known. So it's certainly possible to not attribute the suffering imposed under Nazism to Nietzsche. Furthermore, Pro's argument leads to an absurdity. If we're to accept that Nietzsche's relationship to the rise of Nazism makes objectivity impossible, then any opinion on the philosopher is doomed to subjectivity, including Pro's. Will to Power or Will to MeaningPro argues that things like religions and personal philosophies are also explained by the will to power. But this is a dubious assumption, since one can point to several actions by people and by institutions that contradict this. When we freely sacrifice our lives for someone we love or any case in which we value someone else above ourselves, this contradicts the will to power. However, basing this action on our craving for meaning doesn't run into this problem. When Pro argues that the fact that people don't "quit" when they find their will to meaning, he makes the mistake of thinking that this doctrine is the end all of human affairs. The will to meaning only explains certain instances of motivation. We subscribe to a religion because we crave meaning. That doesn't mean that meaning is the only thing one can value. It's actually Nietzsche's philosophy that runs into this problem by applying the need for power to the motivation behind every action. Camus' philosophy applies to human action in the existential sense. When we make a bagel, we're motivated by hunger. When we devote our lives to a religion, we're looking for meaning. This clear separation of human action provides Absurdism with a superior theory of motivation since it doesn't run into the absurdities that would come along with applying it to every single possible course of action.Eternal Return or Integrous Acceptance and RebellionPro is overstating the similarities between the two doctrines concerning fate and meaning. Though they're similar in some respects, their differences are significant. Nietzsche's eternal return fosters acceptance and the rising up of man through adherence to value (will to power). Camus' rebellion fosters acceptance of the Absurd on the one hand, but existential rebellion in another. We accept the Absurd in the intellectual sense of not denying it or hiding from it. That doesn't mean we praise it. Camus argues that we live in spite of it as free and rational human beings living integrously. It's a matter of acceptance + praise versus acceptance + rebellion.========Thanks Pro for this debate. I admit I learned a bit in the process. Camus' non-fiction is certainly recommended, The Myth of Sisyphus and The Rebel among them. Good luck to you in the voting period.
There's no where to go after Nietzsche

I'm clearly not going to get a chance to read "The Rebel", the "Stranger" and "The Myth of Sisyphus" before responding, but I will quote the intro to "The Rebel" "Philosophy can be used for any purpose -- even for transforming murderers into judges" To respond to how Nazi Germany effected his philosophy, I think that's a pretty easy example. And I didn't say he became biased AGAINST Nietzsche, I'm saying it effected his opinion, which is much harder to deny. How can you critique someone you believe contributed to so much suffering? Without reading Camus' work, I have to believe it's impossible to be objective in that environment. So, starting with the basic tenors of Absurdism (the Universe is filled with Dualism and many of them are Absurd is my current understanding). .. Camus' derived that we have a Will to Meaning? The Will to Power equally explains religion, state and personal philosophy. .. I'd actually say better so considering people's apathy. You'll have to explain better how Absurdism answers alienation (and please explain what alienation is as well) for me to accept that Will to Meaning supersedes Will to Power. I believe that philosophers believe they live with a Will to Meaning, since philosophers gain power by understanding better. .. . but most people, once they find their meaning (which is quite easy once they associate with a religion/state/personal philosophy), why don't they just quit? They found their Meaning. .. . what in the Will to Meaning powers men to go on AFTER resolving and deciding upon that Meaning. I believe the Will to Power answers that. Amor Fati - The Love of Fate Is Absurd man similar in method as the "bermensch? Outside of that, isn't Amor Fati "acceptance"? "What, if some day or night a demon were to steal after you into your loneliest loneliness and say to you: 'This life as you now live it and have lived it, you will have to live once more and innumerable times more' . .. Would you not throw yourself down and gnash your teeth and curse the demon who spoke thus? Or have you once experienced a tremendous moment when you would have answered him: 'You are a god and never have I heard anything more divine. '" - The Gay Science Nietzsche gives the person the option when faced with Eternal Return of "throwing yourself down and gnashing your teeth". But alludes this is not what we should do. We should love that there is fate. That we are who we are. We should embrace this as the Holiest of Holy. We are alive and fate proscribes us. We cannot change it, but we don't know what "it" is yet. But we must love it, else we shall go mad. I don't see how Sisyphus is any different. .. he's just another example of a person existing with eternal return. .. but he can curse the demon (fate) or praise him as a God same as everyone else. He is no more stuck in his fate than us, he's just more aware of it.