BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory.

Yes, your side is hard to argue because its incorrect. At least you gave it try, though. I appreciate it. I'm not going to really respond to your last "point" because it's not relevant (as I'm sure you know--I understand that your not being serious). But here are a few things to say in the event that any voter is persuaded by whatever idea your trying to get across. (1) We can't presuppose the existence of God in a debate. For example, if we were debating the issue of global warming, I couldn't just say God doesn't allow global warming and expect this to be considered as a valid point. You can't appeal to God because not everyone believes there is one. If I could make this point, the debate would have to turn to the question of God to determine if my point was valid. So, it may even be true that God doesn't allow global warming to take place, but its a contention that can't enter a secular debate. If these points could be made, no debate could be unified under a resolution, which is necessary for exploring a given topic. (2) I'm not sure if God "created" science. God created things to be observed and studied, and people to do perform these tasks, but it doesn't seem like he invented the practice of science. Science is just something humans do, and, as far as I can tell, WE created it as a way to learn things about our world. (3) If their is an all-knowing God, He couldn't claim that any thing he desires is science. This is logically impossible because science is a certain type of practice. God could not, for example, say that bachelors are married men because married men are necessarily not bachelors. He could define the term "bachelor" differently, but then it wouldn't matter because were talking about a different word. So even if God did change the definition of science to make it everything he desires, it wouldn't matter for the purpose of this debate because I'm talking about science as it's currently understood and defined, not in the future sense of the word, after God has manipulated the definition. Consequently, even if I considered your wildly off topic contention relevant to this debate, it still fails for the second and third reasons. Finally, even if you were to successfully argue against the points I just made, it shouldn't affect the vote because it's not under the scope of the resolution. I think I clearly demonstrated that Intelligent Design is not science; therefore, I win.
Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory.

oh ok. I didn't really have any argument to make, I was just tryiing to take up this torch. This dead, dead torch. Seriously, its like trying to prove that salt is sweet, or that Socks could justifiably be considered an alternative energy source. It can't be done. well, not logically anyhow. So, for the sake of argumentation, logic can be set aside. for now... God created science. therefore, in his infinite wisdom (which coincidentally he makes known to me) anything He does desire shall be known as science, despite conventional practice. By this irrefutable doctrine of indirect omniscience, I win. Right guys? Right? Because I'm trying to convince voters here. VOTE FOR ME!
Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory.

Seeing as the entire argument of my opponent is based on a very simple premise, that of the apparent lack of refutability of the theory of intelligent design, it is my primary objective to prove that in fact within the construction of said theory their is a great deal of scientific refutability; further I will prove that it is in harmony with current scientific practice. Please excuse my verbosity. That was quite the long sentence. 1. My first argument is that many currently accepted scientific theories are based only on observable data and cannot necessarily be tested, particularly geological and astrophysical theories. For example, there is no way for anyone to prove or disprove the theories of what comprises the earths core, or what really happens at the event horizon of a black hole. We can only theorize what is going on based on our observations of the world around us. Similarly, just as we can theorize that the core of the earth is made of super-condensed super-heated metals based on the gravitational and magnetic fields of the earth, many natural phenomenon are explainable through the theory of intelligent design. 2. Additionally, as in my opponents opening statement, there is already proof of part of the theory being possibly refutable, given with the example of the advanced eye. By theorizing that it is the result of intelligent design, which is a logical conclusion considering the complexity and placement, it is also apparently not above refute to come back with a theory from the evolutionist view that there are in fact ways for the eye to evolve as it is known today. 3. Finally, the theory of intelligent design stretches to cover more than simple biological matters. That is only part of a greater theory that involves the creation of the entire universe, pre-dating in even the Big Bang in as much as the laws of thermodynamics forbid the creation of something from nothing, unless we accept the idea of an all powerful creator to provide the initial mass and energy. In this respect, no theory is truly refutable because of our limited ability to perceive the universe. We cannot see past the beginning of time, no matter how we stretch, or even to the Big Bang because of our limitations of our technology and data. Therefore even a well held theory such as the Big Bang is irrefutable in its very nature, yet still founded in scientific principles of observation and logical conclusion.
Does uganda police fulfilled there expections

Let’s start off by defining expectations: a feeling or belief about how successful, good, etc., someone or something will be. http://www.merriam-webster.com... http://www.opm.go.ug... this is the Ugandan Police Act, it was written to show what the police are expected to do. Because Pro has the burden of proof he has to show how 100% of Ugandan Police have fulfilled this act.
The earth is flat...

Thank you for the response! I would like to start off my argument by saying that pictures and videos are not the reason that I believe that the earth is not flat. I agree that pictures can easily be faked and quite often are. 1. My first argument defending the shape of the earth is gravity. Gravity is why stars and planets always seem to come out round and not flat. The pull of gravity has the same strength in all directions( assuming the object in question has equally distributed mass). If every part of an object is being pulled on equally, the object will of course form a sphere because spheres have no angles. An example that you can try yourself is this, grab a chunk of clay which will represent earth. Now use your hands to represent gravity and roll the clay between your palms(attempt to give equal force everywhere on the chunk of clay). After about 30 seconds you will find that the clay has formed a ball in your hand. If your clay is flat you did not exert the same amount of force on all sides like gravity does. 2. earth has no edges. If you were to theoretically travel around the entire earth in a ship, you would never reach an edge. You can continuously travel around the earth but you will never know if your on the top, bottom, left, or right because the earth is a sphere. 3. Time zones. Differant areas of earth have differant time zones simply based on when the sun rises and sets. Time zones occur like this because earth is indeed a sphere, if the earth was flat time zones would clearly differ from what they are now.
The earth is flat...

first of all I would like to say I don't think it is flat. I am just going to prove to you that you don't know if it is flat or not. now, how do you know it is not flat? who told you? have you seen pictures? pictures can easily be fake. this being said, you don't know if it is flat until you have seen it with your own eyes. assuming you haven't been in outer space. people lie. you never know if the people who tell you it is not flat is lying.
The Legislature is responsible for the Family Separation Policy at the US-Mexico border

The morality of seperating the families is not the issue of the debate. The issue of the debate is if the separation is the Legislative Branch's responsiblility. That being said, I believe I made the case for why the Legislative Branch is responsible. This is because the citizens of the United States do not want the power of law making in the hands of one man or a few unlected judges. So, when President Trump mandates an executive order which changes current law, it is a tyrannical action regardless of the morality of that action.
Same-Sex marriage.

Now you said for me to not compare animals and gays when your doing that yourself.Thanks for answering my question on the two dogs humping each others faces.Now you said that the mother dog was straight but the son was PROBABLY gay,where's your evidence that her son is gay.If that dog was truly gay then it wouldn't have let its mum hump him. You also never answered my questions IS THE CHILD HAPPY? and yes I know that even when your with straight parents you can still get bullied but studies show that if your parents are gay then you have a HIGHER chance of getting bullied then a child with straight parents. You also didn't get my point on the people in France.Just because they think its wrong doesn't mean I think its wrong. and the only way you could re butt that point was by saying false. You also said that I might as well say that if some Muslims are terrorists then all Muslims are terrorists. If some white people are gay it doesn't mean that all white people are gay. In conclusion I say that gay marriage is NOT right because Its bad for the children,Its causing chaos in the world and it makes no sense.I say that i should win this debate because you have only answered one or two of my questions but you couldn't answer some of my other questions and i do believe that I have answered all of your questions. Thank you Duncan and I really enjoyed this debate.
Same-Sex marriage.

You have misunderstood my entire speech. First of all, a debate topic like this seems too good to be true, and this led me to wonder whether you were simply trying to anger or troll me. Nothing but healthy paranoia. 1; True, we are animals, but homosexuals are still the same species. Animals are not. We have many aspects as humans that set us apart from animals. We can use tools. We have thumbs. We can pay taxes. This is the bi one. We can convince others of our species to give up money for a result they do not want of care about, for the good of others. Ants may have a similar lifestyle, but an ant will only give its life for the queen once for obvious reasons, we do it on a regular basis. It just comes out as immature to compare animals to homosexuals. It's quite hurtful too, like calling immigrants monkeys is hurtful and mean. 2; Marriage is not a Christian thing. Muslims marry too, and the men can have multiple wives. Jewish people marry too. Marriage is in fact a promise to another person to remain loyal to them for the rest of their lifetime. Granted, many fail at this, but a lot of those are Christians. You are forcing your own moral code and religion on others. And do remember, every kid gets bullied. Having straight parents won't save you, I can promise that. But gay couples cannot reproduce naturally. That means they cannot have accidental children like straight couples. That means when they get a child, it is because they want one and have planned for it too. Homosexuals could be much better parents than straight parents, and all they ask for the church to stop saying that they will burn for their heresy and vileness. They want recognition as a genuine couple that love each other. And we can't marry animals because there's no way they could give consent to the marriage and it would be completely one sided. 3; Yes, the dogs in that video were both guys. And the mother is straight, but the son is probably gay. (It's a family joke that he's 49 in dogs years and lives with his mother) The point of that video is that you can't really attack something for being unnatural when nature can be considered so bizarre, like how it's natural for female mantises to bite off their mates' heads, or how the male seahorse gives birth, not the female. Next up, Ad Populum. You are saying that because a lot of people in France think it's wrong, it must be wrong. False. Next up, gays don't dress up as women, that's transvestites. Transexuals and Transvestites are such a minority, you may as well be saying that since some Muslims are terrorists, all Muslims must be terrorists. I hope you see the twisted logic you follow as it is and I will see you next round. Duncan.
Same-Sex marriage.

I see that you take this debate as a joke by calling me a troll. I haven't said anything bad to you so could you please NOT say anything bad to me. I am going to answer your question. You said When it comes to legalising gay marriage,why does the opposition always jump straight to animals? Well there is a simple answer for that.It has been scientifically proven that us humans are actually in fact animals ourselves but with a slight difference.And I don't think you got my 1st point. I said that if you could marry your own sex then why not marry animals? You have not answered my question. Also I used animals in this debate to refer to equal rights. Now im not talking about parents with low income backgrounds and confiscating them.But remember that gay couples can have low income backgrounds to.And homosexuals can be abusive to.Also you haven't answered my question I said to you that the child has a high chance of being bullied so the gay couple maybe happy but is the child happy? You haven't answered my question. Now im not saying that gays should become Christians but marriage is a Christian thing so who are these atheists to come and take away a Christian thing and change it.You also said that they should have the right to marry so if they can marry why cant we marry animals? (like I said.) You also said that Homosexuality is a natural thing and you showed me a video but are those two dogs having sexual intercourse? and are those two dogs the same gender? You also said that your neighbours dog humps HER own SON but are they gay? Are they the same gender? And some people do bat an eye on gays there people in Paris who are protesting and are burning things because they don't want to legalise gay marriage. And I think if a man is dressing up like a girl then he is probably gay. And if a person gets a sex change then there gay because they want to be there opposite gender and do it with there opposite gender. Sahaam.
Same-Sex marriage.

This will be fun. I will counteract each point in the order that you have put them. (I am paranoid that you might be a troll) 1; This is a question I have longed for the answer to; When it comes to legalizing gay marriage, why do the opposition always jump straight to animals? Homosexuals are still human beings, regardless of sexual orientation. To draw a line between gays and monkeys is extremely derogatory and you should not resort to such hysterical arguments as your first point. 2; Next, you argue the rights of the child. Look, if you are concerned about whether or not children will be raised correctly, then you better start confiscating a whole lot of kids from parents in low income backgrounds, or any abusive family. Homosexual families would only preach more tolerance than other parents, and you have a fixed idea in your mind that there must be one mother and father per family. This stereotype is broken by various religions and cultures, and is only a staple of Christian denominations, and homosexuals also have the right to choose their own religion in the same way they have the right to marry. 3; Homosexuality is a natural thing. I can prove this with great ease. http://youtu.be... If you do not wish to see the video, it's of two dogs humping each other in the face. That's natural for dogs. No one trains them to do that. You know what else animals hump? Their own family. My neighbor's dog humps her own son. Nature is not always a good thing, especially when it comes to sex. I don't think I need to say more, but if a girl dresses up as a guy, no one bats an eye, but when a guy dresses up as a girl, they are often laughed at because gays don't actually dress up as girls. You are thinking of transvestites, which are not the same thing. I will see you next round, Duncan.
Same-Sex marriage.

Hi my name is Sahaam. On the 19th of August same-sex marriage will be legalised officially in New Zealand. I don't agree on this. Being a Seventh Day Adventist Christian, I know that same-sex marriage is NOT right. My 1st point is that if we legalise same-sex marriage then we might as well legalise other laws. For example if I wanted to marry an animal, would you think im crazy? Its equal rights.If you can marry your own sex then why not marry a cat or a dog or a monkey, and so on. Marrying an animal would be offensive to people right? Then imagine how offensive it is to people who don't agree with Same-sex marriage. My 2nd point is that we need to think about the children! Because Homosexuals cant reproduce babies they adopt.This will confuse the child as it grows older.If the child has two dads the child might get confused on who is the mum.And the child might want to know who his or her real parents are.When the child goes to school he or she will have a high chance of getting bullied,statistics show this. This may depress the child and cause the child to commit suicide.The gay couple maybe happy that there married, but is the child happy? My final point is that being Gay/Lesbian is not a natural thing.If you see a man dressed up as a woman you instantly think that,that is not normal.Gay/Lesbians get influenced by Society,Friends,Television and so on. In conclusion I say that Same-Sex marriage should NOT be legalised. Thank you.
Military Superiority of the West from 900-1300 AD

This is my second debate about an historical topic. Check out the first one at . http://www.debate.org...! This debate is impossible to accept, so write your proposed topic in the comments and I'll invite the person with the best topic to debate. Please include all definitions and assumptions you'd like to use in your comment. Also, no WWII topics - there are thousands of years of history to choose from, please pick something less cliché. Structure will be as follows: Round 1: acceptance only, no arguments Round 2: Opening statements for each side (no rebuttals allowed) Round 3: Rebuttals and additional arguments Round 4: Final rebuttals and conclusion (no new arguments)All sources are encouraged except Wikipedia. Use of Wikipedia or non compliance with the debate structure will result in a 7 point penalty. Looking for a serious debater who won't troll or forfeit. Burden of proof will be shared. I am slated for Con so you must be in favor of whatever prompt you give.
Resolved: Governments ought legislate anti-bullying policies focusing on sexual orientation.

Morality of LawWhen someone is punished for a crime, for instance life in prison for murder, their rights get violated. The very important question is, when does the government have a valid reason for violating someone's rights? The answer is, only when someone violates the rights of another. If a bully is calling another person mean names that is mean but should not be a crime. That does not mean there should not be other forms of punishment by the school and/or parents. If a bully physically assaults someone, that should be a crime. Bullying is BullyingIf a bully were to punch a short kid because he was short and punch a gay kid in the same way because he was gay, it would make no difference. Both kids have been punched, the thoughts going through the bully's head at the time are of no importance. "Contention 1: Anti-bullying legislation focusing on sexual orientation is practical". It is far more practical to follow laws currently in place for assault. Assault laws apply to everyone and not just specific groups. "Sub-point 1a: Bullying is common against members of differing sexual orientation, and this has severe negative effects. Bullying is also common against small people and the effects can be just as severe. The reason for the bullying is not important, only the fact that bullying has taken place. If legislation is going to be passed in an attempt to deter bullying it should apply to all forms of bullying. Sub-point 1b: Legislation is effective, and alternatives are few. Legislation is almost always percieved as the answer to every problem when in fact, legislation is the cause of the problem in the first place. For example, imagine if schools operated like private businesses. They would not allow bullying because it would be harmful to their reputation if they were known as a school with a bunch of bullies. Art Carden wrote, "If there’s a solution, it’s competition. This would make schools accountable to those to whom they should be accountable: the parents and students they are supposed to serve. I predict that in a totally private market for education, schools that have reputations for being places where students are bullied for any reason will lose a lot of business and a lot of community support. "[1][1]. http://blog.mises.org...
It is Probable that Europa Supports Life

In the absence of PRO posting a round 4 I want to add a few more thoughts on the unlikely prospect of life originating on Europa.1. Recent evidence suggests that the ocean of Europa are too reactive to easily generate long chain organic molecules. This includes acids and other reductants.http://www.space.com...check out this quote . . . “The oxidants on Europa's surface are likely carried downward in potentially substantial quantities by the same churning that causes water to rise from below. Oxidants could be of great use to any life in Europa's ocean — for example, oxygen was pivotal to how complex life evolved on Earth. However, oxidants from Europa's surface might react with sulfides and other compounds in its ocean before life could nab it, generating sulfuric and other acids, investigators said. If this has occurred for just about half of Europa's lifetime, not only would such a process rob the ocean of life-supporting oxidants, but it could become relatively corrosive, with a pH of about 2.6 — "about the same as your average soft drink," Pasek said. This level of acidity would be a significant challenge for life, unless organisms were to consume or sequester oxidants fast enough to ameliorate the acidification, researchers said. The ecosystem would need to evolve quickly to meet this crisis, with oxygen metabolisms and acid tolerance developing in only about 50 million years to handle the acidification.” 2. The surface temperature is around -260 Fahrenheit Between the lack of solar energy and the crazy cold temperature the basic chemistry of life is unlikely.