BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Evolution: The ramfications of multiple mutations And the necessity for Informatio.

Despite the current beliefs on the Evolution theory, this one's is not as stable as we were lead to believe. The following arguments are quite logic and do no require any specific scientific knowledge apart from bases in anatomy and biology. The basis of the theory clearly state a starting point from where a mutation occurs and cause radical or simples changes in the individual. Due to Darwin lack of recent knowledge into anatomy, specifically the way that organs interact with each others, his mistakes are quite easy to understand. What we have come to learn recently is that no "simple" physical mutation may occur without a disregard to specifics from the said mutations or another organ that might be linked. As a quick example to help understand what I mean: If having a third arm would help to one's species survival and that some day, an individual would have one, he would therefore need new nerves connection to his brain that would fit EXACTLY the new arm, (Which would need to be a separate mutation, as nerves and arms are quite separated in the DNA) And then he would need new entries into the brain to "acknowledge" the new arm, which would require a new mutation (As again, brain functions and arm's are quite separated) and from now on, he would also need new ligaments and et cetera. As one's could imagine, the probability for all those mutations to concur into one's body and to "fit" with each other, not to mention that even with billions of years of tries, the fact that one's mutation without the others would render the 1st mutation useless is even more detrimental to the probabilities. And those are quite slim. So slim that mathematically speaking, we do have an appellation for it: Impossible. My second point is referring to information. Most of you would agree that this one's needs to be generated by an intelligent organism, both for the encoding mechanism and for the decoding one, along with the fact that plain matter cannot create information. Then again, most of you would agree to the fact that the DNA possess information which is decoded by ribosomes. However, information cannot be created by matter, and such as, do need an intelligent source. As the sole source on Earth known to be able to do something that might approach some day the DNA complexity and information is the human, and that is impossible that humanity, time's paradoxes forbid, is the source to humanity, or evolution for that matter, we must conclude that a form of intelligence have preceded us. And no matter what is that source, in each case it involves exterior involvement in the creation of life, leading into a falsified, or at least incomplete evolution theory. Cordially, SX23.
Countries ought to prohibit the production of nuclear power

My opponent seems more concerned about the format of my argument, as apposed to the substance of my argument. I wont find anybody stating that MSRs are a threat, because I wasn't quoting anybody, I was just putting forth a viable question about the effectiveness of MSRs to fix the problem of the left over waste made by the nuclear industry.My post may be lackng any links,(because, I don't know how to post a link) but my argument does take into consideration the dangerous radioactive waste the nuclear industry must atone for. Link, or no link, my opponent can't deny that nuclear energy makes radioactive waste. My opponent fails to address the fact that, getting uranium means having to rely on a similiar minning process that coal needs to rely on. I won't let my opponent link nuclear energy with renewables, or try to seperate the nuclear industry, from fossil fuels. My opponent seems unwilling to address anything in my argument, accept how the argument was presented. I implore my opponent to look at the Physsicians for Social Responibility website. I challenge my opponent to address the "futile claim" that the nuclear industry relies on goverment subsidies, instead of simply brushing the argument aside, because I didn't post any links. As far as I'm concerned, the "futile" claims I made still stand. It is my opponents responsibility to DISPROVE these "futile" claims! I would like to take this time to address the possibility of nuclear terrorism. Dirty bombs, purposeful meltdowns, jet liner attacks, cyber seizure of a nuclear reactor. The threat of terrorism is not exclusive to the nuclear industry, but the terror threat is certainly magnified when it comes to the nuclear industry, because of the magnified danger it could possibly pose to a large number of people. A jetliner attack on a nulclear plant is an undeniable concern. If a terrorist were to get a hold of radioactive waste, they could make a dirty bomb. Terrorists could concievably take control of a nuclear plant, and purpously cause a meltdown. The possible devestation caused terrorism is on a far higher scale when it comes to nuclear power, as opposed to any other energy source, because of how effective radiation can be at devestation. Of course, terrorism is concerning on any level of our infrastructure, but the thought of NUCLEAR terrorism, is of a higher eschalan of terror.
Countries ought to prohibit the production of nuclear power

I apologize for not posting the format earlier but the format for the remainder of the debate is as follows. Pro R3 Post Argument, sum up why you won Con R3 Rebuttals, sum up why you won "Nuclear matters is a special interest group" This claim is simply not true and the feeble argument posted by my opponent has no substance to why it is true. Even if which is a big if, Nuclear Matters wasn't a reliable source, you can't deny the fact that Nuclear power gives us a huge amount of our power and we couldn't afford to lose the efficiency. My study which was done in June of 2016 stating Nuclear Power is efficient trumps my opponents study which was not as recent. "Subsidies" My opponent makes a futile claim that the Nuclear Industry is bad for the economy however they are unable to prove that all of the jobs Nuclear Power is creating are somehow bad. "Nuclear Energy is worse than Fossil Fuels" My opponent makes this claim yet I have evidence as recent as 2013 from a top notch University that proves contrary while my opponent has NO evidence proving this claim and no Statistics. "MSR's sound like a threat" I challenge my opponent to find a statement about MSRs by a Nuclear or Government Official that sounds threatening. Just because some may feel threatened doesn't mean it is actually a threat. This argument also has no sources or Statistics to back it up so therefore we don't know if it is really true. This rebuttal lacks substance and a true link to nuclear power.
Bible is Self-Contradictory

I am debating for the statement: "The Bible is self-contradictory." The only rules are: 1.No trolling. 2.Use only verses from NIV and King James, and clarify hebrew words before using them as a defence. 3.Show me all sources via an online bible(link) 4.Valid points only. No religious fanatics that wish to convert me will be tolerated. The first round is a clarification round. You may start your side of the argument first, and only after the clarification round is over. State all definitions of controversial terms.
Islam is better than christianity

My opponent has inserted the phrase "among you" in the Koran verse and it's not orginially there. We must disreguard that as to see as the verse reads teh first of the Muslims. This unedited version shows that the contradiction still exists and even if this point is invalid notice how he dropped the rebuttals to Abraham and Moses. Thus I extend those contradictions across the board here in this debate. My opponent is incorrect as if we look at the history books and even the Koran itself you'll see that it shows Muhommed using Conquest on the Arabian pensuela WAR. You'll see the Ottowans, an Empire built and led by the desendents of Muhommed, that they used conquest to spread Islam across the Middle East and the Spanish Penensual. It is at the Battle of Tours that the Franks stoppage of the Muslim invaders that prevented the Entire Continent from being conquered by Muslims. (. http://www.orthodoxytoday.org...) We can see that Gauls weren't a deposit government as Pro claims nor were they "wrong" about really anything. The Muslims invaded and set out for conquest for the spread of Islam which is contrary to what my opponent is saying. (. http://www.thelatinlibrary.com...) We can actually see that Europe actually got Torture from the Muslims. (. http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com...) We can also see from the War map bellow that the Muslims conqured the Catholic Empire of Byzantime, but lost to Austria. Apparently, these Catholic Empires must have been wrong as well. As for the POW argument we can actually see that if the conqured do not convert AND they don't pay a major fine we can see that they are to be enslaved! (Muhammad 47:4) How is that just and Geneuva convention worthy? I extend across all of the arguments that my opponent has dropped. Because of that I urge you to Vote Con. Thank you.
Islam is better than christianity

My opponent is mistaken, as though I did give Biblical verses here I showed in another part that he is the creator via the Koran. Let's look at the verse again. and he shall be a prophet to the people of Israel (saying), that I have come to you, with a sign from God, namely, that I will CREATE for you out of clay (annee AKHLUQU lakum mina ALTTEENI) as though it were the form of a bird, and I will blow thereon and it shall become a bird by God's permission; and I will heal the blind from birth, and lepers; and I will bring the dead to life by God's permission; and I will tell you what you eat and what ye store up in your houses. Verily, in that is a sign for you if ye be believers. S. 3:49 PalmerHere we can see that the Koran speaks of a Prophet from Israel that shall create life. Though bestowed upon him by Allah, we can still see that Jesus has the ability to create and mind you that my Opponent has not refuted and has DROPPED the Holy Trinity argument so we can see that Jesus has to be God under this standard of Christinaity and hence worshipped, but it shows that God doesn't have to give Jesus power as he IS Jesus. Jesus was always in exsitance through God. My opponent stated that he has already given the answer to violence, but I made refutations last round and it was DROPPED by my opponent. For the creation let's compare the two verses. " It is He who created for you all of that which is on the earth. Then He directed Himself to the heaven, [His being above all creation], and made them seven heavens, and He is Knowing of all things."- 2:29" Are you a more difficult creation or is the heaven? Allah constructed it...And after that He spread the earth."- 79:27-31If we view the above we can see that after God made the Earth that he made the 7 heavens, which in itself is another contradiction, but I'll get to that later. It does not state that he turned to them, but he made them the seven heavens which shows this fallacy and contradiction here between the two verses. [It is He] who has made for you the earth as a bed [spread out] and inserted therein for you roadways and sent down from the sky, rain and produced thereby categories of various plants.- 20:53Here the Koran states that the Earth is spread out like a carpet and there are several Koran verses that state that the Earth is flat like this. The Koran also states that the Sun and stars move around the Earth, contradictory to what we know now. (Qur’an 2:258; 21:33; 36:40; 52:49; 53:1). The Koran also points to the reason that the Earth is together is that the mountains themselves are holding the Earth together, though we also know that to be false. ( Qur’an 21:31) Finially, the Koran states that the moon has been cut in two by Muhommed, but that's obviously false as there's no way a man could cut the moon like that. (4:830-832; 5:208-211; 6:387-390).With that I'll pass things back over to Pro.
Islam is better than christianity

First of all I will begin by making my opponent clear that Jesus(A.S.) is not God by Muslim standards. 1)God is the creator Here, my opponent never gave a single verse from the Qur"an, thus he Is not following rule: 5. Also, if he supports this line using bible, he is never showing that Jesus(A.S.) is the creator by Muslim standards. 2)Is he the source of life? And [make him] a messenger to the Children of Israel, [who will say], 'Indeed I have come to you with a sign from your Lord in that I design for you from clay [that which is] like the form of a bird, then I breathe into it and it becomes a bird by permission of Allah . And I cure the blind and the leper, and I give life to the dead - by permission of Allah . And I inform you of what you eat and what you store in your houses. Indeed in that is a sign for you, if you are believers. 3:49 In the above verse we can clearly say That Jesus (A.S.) performed some miracles but by the permission of Allah. Then, how is he the creator. He performed those miracles with the permission of Allah. Why should a God need the permission of someone else? 3) Is he ever living? Yes, Jesus (A.S.) was never killed but it is not that he was not created. A God should not be created. He was once not present or created, and then Allah created him. Talking about violence, I had already given the answer. I don"t enough time to answer further. Sorry.
Islam is better than christianity

First of all, I would here like to mention that Christianity of today was once the correct religion. But people corrupted it. When I say Islam is better than Christianity, I mean Christianity of today. Allah sent a series of Prophet to mankind for guidance. Allah appointed Adam (A.S.) as His first Prophet in the series. When people moved away from the straight path, He sent another Prophet with His Message. Again people left the straight path and He again sent His Prophet. In the same way He sent series of Prophets. He sent Prophets after Prophets with His Message of Guidance. In this series only He sent Prophet Jesus (A.S.) who was the son of Mary and not God or son of God. Just like other Messengers, he was also a Prophet and Messenger of God and not the Son of God. After people corrupted his Message( which was actually the Message given by Allah), Allah sent His last Messenger, the Greatest Messenger-Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him), with His Final Message-The Holy Qur'an, which can't be changed or corrupted. But Christians think that Jesus (A.S.) was the Son of God and His message is not corrupted and they believe in trinity and they never understand that Muhammad (SAW) is the Greatest and Final Messenger of God. Jesus (A.S.) never said himself in the Bible that he is God or that he should be worshiped. Instead it is written in the Bible that- (i) "My Father is greater than I." [The Bible, John 14:28] (ii) "My Father is greater than all." [The Bible, John 10:29]. (iii)"And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou has sent." [The Bible, John 17:3] In this round I challenge my opponent to give me a single verse in the Bible in which Jesus (A.S.) himself said that he is god or he is to be worshiped. The Truth is that Jesus (A.S.) was a Messenger of God and not god or son of god and he should NEVER be worshiped.
Islam is better than christianity

I am here to have a debate on a great topic which is 'Islam is more better than Christianity' .Actually I want to say that indeed Islam is the Best Religion. I went to search for the best on the net and I was knowing that I will not find the correct answer but what I found was shocking! People said that Islam is a religion with violence. It is a religion of Peace.Those terrorists are not Muslims who say that they kill people for no reason in the name of Allah.They are stupid. Islam is better than Christianity. Earlier Bible, Injeel or something like that was a great book of message to the people by Allah through his Prophet Jesus Peace be upon him.But people later corrupted it and then Allah sent his last Prophet Muhammad SAW with the great book Qur'an which can't be changed.I challenge you that you can't ever prove Bible of today better than Qur'an. You can't prove that Qur'an is not the word of God. 1_Very important be polite, no cursing, sarcasm, or being rude 2_see that everything you say has to have a proof. 3_if your not sure about what are you talking about don't write it, if it is very important and you know it somewhat,mention it but also write that you are not perfectly sure . 4_ you have to have a valid proof to support claim 5_ you can't support your claim using the bible, same thing applies to me, you can't get a proof from a verse, but you can get a proof from certain verses for an example, you can't get a proof from a verse that says jesus is a god, and same thing for me i can't get a proof just by saying that the quran says that jesus isn't a god, but you can get a verse that supports what it is saying for an example, god is etc etc etc because etc etc. 6_I will myself try my best to follow the rules.
You should be allowed to bump people with your car.

Quite aware of what you're talking about, but the point I'm making is that your plan is going to do more harm than good as pedestrian/automobile accidents will increase significantly when it becomes legal to hit people with cars (as explained, one of the primary deterrents for not hitting people will be eliminated according to your plan). On the other hand, my plan gives people NO EXCUSE to be on the roads, thus, deaths/accidents are decreased by a large amount and you have nothing to be annoyed at. When my plan is put into action, someone standing in the road will be the equivalent to someone openly robbing a convenience store (though one won't necessarily go to jail under my plan). I provided a non-potential-lethal means of helping people learn their lesson, which is to force individuals to pay LARGE fines for crossing the road and/or for them watch which is arguably one of the worst films ever made for an uncomfortable amount of time. In no way has my opponent contested this point (or my plan period for that matter), thus, it is quite clear who the victor is. Thanks for the debate.
You should be allowed to bump people with your car.

Some people are only alive because it is against the law to kill them. I am not talking about people who are forced to cross roads in congested areas and are traveling for a purpose. I am talking about people who purposely black the road just to block the road. You should be able to bump them out of the way and and cause painful injuries to them to teach them that they are no match for a car even if they think it's funny to block the road. They deserve to be injured for challenging a car and it's driver.
You should be allowed to bump people with your car.

Have you ever been driving down the road and a group of people are standing in the middle of the road? They see you coming, they see you getting closer and closer yet they just sit there with some dumb look on their face. Some times they are riding bikes and swerve like they are going to turn in front of you and other times they just stand their ground, flip you off or yell some obscenity at you as you are forced to drive around them. I think you should be able to run into them to teach them a lesson. I don't want to kill them just hurt them enough to respect the power of an automobile and their complete disregard for the person driving the car as they may not see them and run over them and be killed. Their parents or guardians obviously never taught them not to play in the street. I think this would be a very effective way to teach these belligerent aholes a lesson about the rules of the road. I follow them, what is their special privilege that permits them to ignore them without impunity.
GOD does not exist,

it would be nice if there was some possible way for Him to exist, but I simply cannot see any way. It's impossible. Look at the evidence! My father says the Bible is evidence, but the Bible is not evidence. It may be based on fact but something that old could've been written as a book of fiction based on reality and we would never know. Also, the way religion changes so much. There are no set rules. Religious leaders come up with new rules all the time and it's just ridiculous.
GOD does not exist,

Can't look in her eyes She's out of my league! Just a fool to believe I have anything she needs She's like the wind... Hi. My name is Thaddeus River. I am a lonely soul wandering down the lonely garden path of loneliness. I'm interested anyone, preferably of the female nature. This person must also enjoy flying sky galleons and not be allergic to dragons or dancing. Yours Thaddeus the Radd(i)est
GOD does not exist,

Hi Mind! Welcome to DDO and thank you for sending me this challenge. For this debate you are asserting that God does not exist. As the instigator, and pro you have the burden of proof to demonstrate that God does not exist. Seeing as God hasn't been defined let us define it as an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent being which created the universe. I shall now address pros arguments 1. The bible is not reliable While I do believe the bible to reliable, it is not really relevent to the debate, as it is entirely possible for god to exist, yet the bible be completely false! This argument does nothing to demonstrate that god doesn't exist. 2. The lack of fixed rules Here you are saying that because men are fallible and change their minds about things, god cannot exist. This is a non-sequiter. It does not show that god does not exist. Even though it is not required of me to give arguments for gods existence, I shall do so. Unfortunately, due to lack of time, I will not be able to post them in this round.
Time Travel to the Past will never be possible

Well, it might vaporize them, but only if they were in the same physical plane ... like you've said, a future society would have to be very advanced to pull it off, to the point where we could scarcely imagine the forces involved. It is possible that in the future mankind will have evolved to a state unrecognizable as the crude material it once was. Assuming abiogenesis, we started as chemicals and minerals, became simple organisms, then became more complex organisms, and are now organisms that transform chemicals and minerals around ourselves. Who knows what we could become in the far future? Perhaps we will be a form of radiation, or energy, or pure information imprinted in some unimaginable medium ... the possibilities are endless. While it may be true that people of the future can not travel to the past, it is certainly true that people of the present can not accurately predict people of a far enough removed future. How strange would our society seem to the ancients, the Ur-people who thought that we had animist spirits that were borne to the east or west depending on how well we fought, and saw a little god in every thing around them? Comprehension of a certain degree of divergence is impossible, because people simply do not contemplate it. So long as this is so, time travel to the past is possible, just very unlikely within that understanding provided us by the knowledge we presently possess.
Time Travel to the Past will never be possible

There are two basic problems with time travel, one is possible to overcome, the other is not. The energy needed (10 to the 19 billion electron volts, a quadrillion times larger than that produced by our most powerful machine on Earth) is so enormous that it is nearly impossible for our brains to comprehend. However, I will admit that it is theoretically possible to generate such energies for a sophisticated enough society. However, the second problem is the radiation that this causes. The radiation is so great that it would vaporize anyone who comes near it.