BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Intelligent Design is the most likely to be true hypothesis for the origin of life.

"You don't get to justify intelligent design because we lack scientific understanding of something. " The type of reasoning I am using that you say is incorrect is used often in the historical sciences. Like in the scenario I described, the scientists made their conclusion based on the fact that they did not know of any other natural phenomenon that creates craters with those specific features. If you are to be consistent then you would criticize their deduction that a meteor impact hypothesis is the one most likely to be true. You would say that they cannot justify their hypothesis because they "lack scientific understanding of something"; the "something" being how craters of that type can form via other means. "I think it would also be helpful if Pro told us what they have in mind when they say something is a "type of code". " In this instance by code I mean a sequence of physical characters that chemically and/or physically interact with a system to cause it to perform a function. The specific order of the characters is significant, with different sequences producing different results. Also there is a level of abstractness or potential for interchangeability involved. What I mean by this is that, with the case of DNA, it is not physically necessary that the codon CAA signify glutamine. It would be possible for CAA to denote any other of the amino acids if its respective tRNAs were modified. This indicates that the association between the codon and the amino acid is to an extent an abstract one, not one that follows from physical necessity. DNA and computer programming both are of this type of code. Human and other animal languages are of another type. They convey messages that flow from one intelligent source to another. The code is read, heard, seen, etc. , and then the message is consciously interpreted. Such is not the case with DNA or computer programming, as neither cells nor computers are conscious entities. The code, via chemical and/or physical interactions, instead forces the system to respond in a certain way. "But does this fact mean that we can then infer that a "type of code" that is NOT MAN MADE is intelligently designed too ? " For reasons that I have already described in detail such an inference would be logical and follows current historical science methodology. I thank Con for their participation in this debate and again apologize for an irresponsible number of forfeitures.
Intelligent Design is the most likely to be true hypothesis for the origin of life.

I think it is worth repeating Pros stated premises that appeal to ignorance. .. .. .. .. . ""3. We have no scientific understanding of how functional DNA can arise by natural means. " "4. Therefore it is logical to conclude that an ID explanation for the origin of life is the hypothesis most likely to be true. " You don't get to justify intelligent design because we lack scientific understanding of something. Pro tries to make it sound like their case is based upon what we do know, rather than what we don't, where they say. .. ""2. Codes have only ever been known to be formed either directly or indirectly from a source of intelligence" I suspect that the codes that Pro speaks of here are all human made. So of course they are intelligently designed. But does this fact mean that we can then infer that a "type of code" that is NOT MAN MADE is intelligently designed too ? I think it would also be helpful if Pro told us what they have in mind when they say something is a "type of code". I look forward to Pro's reply.
Intelligent Design is the most likely to be true hypothesis for the origin of life.

Thank you Illegalcombatant for accepting the role of Con in this debate. Con"s criticism of my argument is that it is committing the argument from ignorance fallacy. I will explain how this is not the case. To take from the definition Con provided- "It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa)." A well-known example of this kind of argument is: You can"t prove that God doesn"t exist, therefore He does exist. This is obviously illogical reasoning. If the argument I made this fallacy it would be of this general form: "We do not have evidence proving that DNA"s origins weren"t intelligently designed. Therefore the ID hypothesis must be true." This is clearly not how my argument was stated. When Con quoted my argument he left out the 2nd point of my reasoning: "2. Codes have only ever been known to be formed either directly or indirectly from a source of intelligence, ie. people." This is positive evidence for the ID hypothesis. This kind of logic is commonly used by scientists when attempting to explain historical events. Often it is the case that there is more than one story that could possibly explain the occurrence of a past event. However if there is only one known cause that can produce the result in question, then that cause is considered the hypothesis most likely to be true. For example, let"s say scientists discover a large crater on the ocean floor. They first suspect that the crater was either caused by a volcanic eruption or a meteorite. Upon closer inspection they observe that the crater floor is lower than the surrounding environment, that the crater rim is circular and that there is an ejecta blanket covering the surrounding area. Because the scientists know that this combination of features are caused primarily by meteorite impacts, and are not known to be formed by any other natural phenomenon, they logically assume that a meteor hypothesis is the hypothesis most likely to be true. The reasoning of the ID argument I proposed is analogous to the method of deduction used in this scenario. I should have mentioned this earlier but the main body of my argument I got from Stephen Meyer"s book "Signature in the Cell". I am not arguing that the origins of DNA were supernatural. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Intelligent Design is the most likely to be true hypothesis for the origin of life.

I thank Myrrh for instigating this debate. Before I go into my counter argument I'd like to expand a bit on what we mean by saying something is the result of "intelligent design" By intelligent design what is the crucial distinction that sets it apart is how an outcome was pre-conceived, that the outcome existed before as a goal in mind so too speak. I maintain by debating intelligent design what we are really debating is intentionality. For the sake of saving space I will now refer to intelligent design as ID. Pro claims that DNA is "a type of code" and thus we should conclude that is the result of ID. But how did they make this jump from "a type of code" to therefore ID ? Well they did it with the following premises.... "3. We have no scientific understanding of how functional DNA can arise by natural means." "4. Therefore it is logical to conclude that an ID explanation for the origin of life is the hypothesis most likely to be true. This is an argument from ignorance. The fact that we are ignorant about something, such as how DNA could happen by natural means and/or happen absent ID does not justify the conclusion that therefore DNA is or more likely to be the product of ID. Wikipedia explains the logical fallacy of argument from ignorance as such..."Argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false" [1] Ignorance of how and why things are what they are in nature have being used to justify personal agency the most common being God of the gaps...."The term God-of-the-gaps fallacy can refer to a position that assumes an act of God as the explanation for an unknown phenomenon, which is a variant of an argument from ignorance fallacy.[13][14] Such an argument is sometimes reduced to the following form: There is a gap in understanding of some aspect of the natural world. Therefore the cause must be supernatural. One example of such an argument, which uses God as an explanation of one of the current gaps in biological science, is as follows: "Because current science can't figure out exactly how life started, it must be God who caused life to start." Critics of intelligent design creationism, for example, have accused proponents of using this basic type of argument" [2] I look forward to Pros reply. Sources [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Intelligent Design is the most likely to be true hypothesis for the origin of life.

1. DNA is a type of code. 2. Codes have only ever been known to be formed either directly or indirectly from a source of intelligence, ie. people. 3. We have no scientific understanding of how functional DNA can arise by natural means. 4. Therefore it is logical to conclude that an ID explanation for the origin of life is the hypothesis most likely to be true. Rule: Other arguments concerning Intelligent Design (and not Creationism) may be discussed, but Con's retort must include a counter to my main argument. To enter this debate means to accept this rule. I welcome anyone who will assume the role of Con.
bible has no siginficant contradiction in it

i don't know what to make of the geneology points. it looks like a very complicated issue, and i don't want to take the time to sort it all out. i will concede the point for the sake of argument, for that reason. both the writer of my paste job, and you, are both very educated, intelligent, articulate people. and there's something to be said about what you are both saying and the few points i mentioned, is all i know. i would recommend trying to be less wordy though, too much to digest, just get to the points. not that im immune from criticism. a lot of your other points are interesting, and i would suppose probably true, in that the bible is not historically accurate. again i dont want to delve into needing to learn more about more history, though. i'd rather judge the bible based on its own consistency, in this debate. one example, though, is perhaps Jesus wasn't born 0AD as is commonly said, perhaps a little earlier, as is also commonly speculated, as that would explain a few of your points about the authorties who existed at the times. also, even you say 'most historians' etc etc, not as if it's all factually recorded by historians. that point, and most of your points are addressed here... (another punt on addressing specifics, yes http://biblical-thinking.org... i am not familiar with your time frames for when mary and joseph were in bethlaham and nazarath. is this extrabiblical information? if it's in the bible i suppose i am just ignorant. i dont see it. i dont see it in a basic google search, so i am not sure where you are getting this information. it adds credibil.ity to the claim bible claims are false, given gods mated with humans, and something akin to that hapepned in the bible. but this isn't an inherent contradiction of the bible or anything. i see that you take any error as a sign to not take any of the bible as being true. this doesn't really have to do with addressing contradictions per se, but i would note as a side note, argue what you said in the comments, that some christians argue, that we dont have to throw the baby out with the bathwater. christianity can still be true even if the bible is not always accurate. it is too bad we never really got into a lot of meat on specific contradictions of the bible. either cause i didnt want to engage it, or what you presented wasn't in the category that was to be debated.
bible has no siginficant contradiction in it

the only one's i predict you might find, as trivial details, like how many people were at a place, or the color of something. or things that are too vague to mean anything, "our God is a venegful God" "our God is a merciful God". or are too literal, "all have sinned" "jesus hasn't sinned right?" etc etc anything else i will argue, has reasonable explanations. please provide no more than three. more than that and people are just copy and pasting everything conceivable throwing it to teh wall to see what sticks. three makes you pick your best and stake your credibility on it, and it makes it easier to deal with, all it takes is one blatant contradiction to show the bible has error.
Lego is better than Minecraft

Thank you for offering this debate to me. I will try to get a sufficient argument together in the 13 minutes that I have before my round is forfeited. I feel that children can learn just as much, if not, more with Minecraft. While there are unlimited blocks in Minecraft and the Laws of Physics do not always apply, children can explore their creativity through Minecraft. For instance, I am currently building an entire town in Minecraft. I have a bunch of houses, a hotel, a town hall, offices, a police department, and a whole lot more. Yes, one can program with Lego Mindstorms, but couldn't they also learn to program by making mods for Minecraft? Minecraft lacks certain things that I would like to use in my city, but if I try making mods, I could add new types of furniture, new building materials and so much more. Minecraft also has survival mode, where you basically are trying to "live off of the land". You must hunt for food, build a house, avoid getting killed by monsters, mine for iron, et cetera. I only have a minute left, so I have to cut this one short. Thank you for debating with me.
Lego is better than Minecraft

Thank you for debating (or trying to) me on such short notice. I appreciate your time and let's get started in this debate. 1) Kids can learn more When you play with Lego's, you have opportunities to open up: Creativity, Patience, direction following, programming, and MUCH MORE! For example: Creativity. This is because you are only given a set amount of pieces in each set, and you have to work with what you have. Lego Mindstorm gives you the ability to make countless things with programming, such as a machine that can solve a Rubik's cube, or a robot that can preform tasks. In Minecraft, you can have unlimited amount of blocks, and that's not really testing your creativity to it's max. That's why kids can learn more playing Lego's.
K-Pop is the Future of Music Industry

My opponent has agreed to the parameters of the debate. Even without rebuttals, it is obvious he has not fulfilled his burden of proof. He provided more evidence of the popularity of the song "Gangnam Style" but failed to demonstrate why this would be a "world-wide trend" rather than a one off, as is far, far, far more likely.He starts by providing evidence for the Gangnam styles popularity. This has already been conceded - the video itself is very popular. However, this is not relevent to the debate unless the owner of Wayne Entreprises13 can demonstrate that this will cause a trend. His first point is a non-argument until he provides substance to the assertion that this will cause a trend.The second point is again related solely to Gangnam style, so without any demonstration of how Gangnam style's enjoyability will make K-Pop a dominant genre world-wide, it does not fulfill Brucy Boy13's BoP.His final argument is also irrelevent to the debate. Firstly if very few people understand the lyrics, they can hardly be attributed to its popularity. Secondly, this does not relate to the genre of K-Pop as a whole.He dropped both of my arguments as he did not suggest how single data points could be used to reliably predict a trend, nor did he prove that the qualities Gangnam Style became famous for are qualities uniquely (or dominantly) inherent to K-Pop.I would like to add a third argument that the language barrier makes K-Pop, as a genre, too inaccesible for it to become a major world-wide phenomenon. To a great deal of people lyrics are very important. Whether they are deep and meaningful or whether merely discuss the finer points of bitches, they draw in their particular audience. Whilst in Gangnam style it was not an issue merely because the dance was main selling point, a genre cannot survive on funny dances alone (and funny dances can be found in more accesible places). A language barrier will prevent the vast majority of K-Pop songs becoming mainstream. Whilst there are people who do enjoy listening to songs they can not understand, they do not comprise a significant enough number To sumarize the crux of my argument; not only are whole genre trends nearly impossible to predict, even more so with only one data point, Gangnam style has not become famous for any element of the song which is inherent to K-Pop. So why would K-Pop become a mainstream world-wide genre as a result?
K-Pop is the Future of Music Industry

Thank you for taking part in my debate, dear Contender! I'm agree with you that future for each one of us is unpredictable, but world-wide trend is something we can actually predict. First of all, Youtube is the big social network with millions of people around the world watching videos. If there are almost 500 million views in only 3 months, it shows a huge popularity of this music video and the artist by itself. The video was even shared by several Western celebrities: T-Pain, Katy Perry, Britney Spears, Tom Cruise. Nelly Furtado and Maroon 5 made covers on "Gangnam Style". If they did it, they liked it without doubts. Moreover, the music video appeared on CNN International, so it gained more popularity around the world. Secondly the style of the song is suitable to the world trend. Like you said: "hilarious music video", but what do people actually need nowadays? Maybe exactly those kinds of music videos? To have fun and don't think about problems. I think people totally fed up with serious faces and heavy lyrics with deep meaning. Hilarious dance? Why not? Even if it's easy and funny, but it's reachable dance for most people in the world who can't dance so good. Turn on Gangnam Style and just do it. Nothing hard, just repeatable moves, which are good for our lazy bodies sometime. Finally, even if the whole music video seems to be stupid and meaningless. Actually it has unseen and amazing meaning in it. First of all, I want to give you some background information. Gangnam is luxurious neighborhood which covers only 15 square miles in the heart of Seoul, but it's wealth capacity is $84 billion=7% of the whole country's GDP. It's the "valley of millionaires". The whole South Korea's problem is that everyone there in the pursuit of wealth and money. People forget about valuable things of their own lives. Instead of paying only $2 for lunch and $7 for Starbucks to look rich, people should firstly think do they really need to spend so much money on just cup of coffee. Like in PSY's lyrics, he says "a guy who one-shots his coffee before it even cools down", people are so obsessed with showing off nowadays. In conclusion, I would like to say. This song is not just about "horse dance" and "hey sexy lady", it is about how "to show" the problems of society. For reference, here is the article which says about my third argument: http://www.theatlantic.com... Thank you again for joining this debate! Wait for the second round.
K-Pop is the Future of Music Industry

As the title sets rather vague parameters on the resolution I shall define them in accordance with those set by the instigator. That is, that " K-Pop is going to be next world-wide popular style of music after Western pop culture".Thus, for Master Wayne13 to win, he must demonstrate, beyond reasonable doubt that K-Pop (Korean Popular Music) will become a persistant world-wide phenomenon, beyond the influence of Gangnam Style. This naturally sets a rather high burden of proof for dear old Bats13.It is worth noting that the time limit for each round is only three hours, therefore it is highly probable, one if not both of us, will forfeit atleast a round.On to arguments Bruce13!1) The future of music is rather unpredictableThe music industry is constantly changing, with few analysts having much success in predicting with any certainty what genres will become popular. Hence, it cannot be declared that "there is no doubt K-Pop is going to be next world-wide popular style of music after Western pop culture"2) Gangnum style is very probably a one hit wonder (on the world-wide scale)Sadly few people actually enjoy the song for its musical qualities. It doesn't have any particularly defining features or any quality worthy of its fame. It is the hilarious music video and the dance contained within which has granted it memetic status. The actual music itself is forgettable and average at best. K-Pop as a whole does not have this attribute, thus is unlikely to succeed beyond Gangnum Style.When chocolate rain was the meme de jour, it would have been foolish to suggest that deep singing was going to take over as the next musical genre. In the same way, Gangnum Style is appreciated for appearing amusing and providing a very distinct and amusing dance which is simple enough for the casual viewer to enjoy. It does not suggest that K-Pop will a huge surge and become a worldwide phenomenon. I wait the Dark Knight13's response.
White fingers and thumbs, the encouragement of racism.

Wait, how the hell did we skip round 2?Case 1:If this site is racist against whites, then why are there white avatars? Case 2:How can this site be racist when they put in the race section, an option to be white?Case 3: Based on demographics given by the site itself, the site is 62 percent white. (1) If it was racist towards whites, why are there so many whites on the site?BoP is on you. You must prove your side, and prove all my cases wrong to win. 1. http://www.debate.org...
White fingers and thumbs, the encouragement of racism.

I am assuming you have the BoP since you didn't clarify and you were the instigator. So, let's get on the business shall we? From what I see here, you are Pro instead of Con.LET THE AUDIENCE NOTE THAT MY OPPONENT IS PRO AND I AM CON!Rebuttal 1: Logical FallaciesCon makes an assumption that since there is not a black finger or thumb, the site is racist. Let me point out something.THE SITE HAS BLACK AVATARS So, under my opponent's logic, all the avatars would be white, not black.Case 1: African Americans joining the site.If this site was racist, then why do they put the a race option for African American? Think about a good answer.These arguments are to test if this is a troll debate. I want my opponent to respond before I go any further.