BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: Biblical Creation Should Be Taught Alongside Evolution in Public High School Biology

For the most part, I am going to rely on my opponent to make his case rather than go out immediately on the attack. I do have a few caveats I think it would be wise to go over before I turn it over to my opponent. Technically, the resolution he agreed to was about "Biblical Creation", but my opponent seems to imply in his acceptance that he is only going to argue for deistic influences. If that is the case, so be it. Whichever way he goes, I'd ask him to keep in mind what does and does not qualify for science. I would argue that any theory or belief or statement he feels belongs in science classrooms should be applicable and available to the scientific method. Here is a description of the steps of the scientific method from Professor Frank L. H. Wolfs, of the University of Rochester: 1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena. 2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation. 3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations. 4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments. [1] If my opponent would give us an example of how he would utilize this procedure to further whatever statements or theories he'd like to be taught in science classrooms, one that could either support or falsify his position based upon the result, that would go a long way toward making his case that it belongs in a science classroom. Another thing which would be important if not vital to his case is the existence of some sort of peer reviewed literature in science journals on the matter. If there are such things, actual papers reviewed by scientific peers, within that paper could be just the experiment I asked for previously. Also, I understand that there are many different definitions of the word "theory". I would submit that since we are talking about a scientific theory, we should use the scientific definition of theory in our discussions, which is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses" [2]. Lastly, I would like to remind my opponent, for the sake of saving time, that a scientific fact or theory cannot be based in an argument from ignorance. Citing something that evolution or any other available theory cannot explain is not enough to establish a separate theory by itself. The fact that we don't understand the interaction between quantum physics and gravity does not give me the right to submit invisible undetectable elves as the cause behind it and call that science. If I were to argue that my elves theory is falsifiable because another theory could be proven would imply I don't understand the principle of falsification. I thank my opponent for his time and look forward to his response. [1] . http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu... [2] . http://www.nap.edu...
Cloning animals is beneficial

Why I win this debate: Contention 1: Not Commercially Beneficial My opponent has proved cloned meat is no different from regular meat. I have proved cloned meat costs about 10 times more than regular meat. This may also violate animal welfare (see contention 3). Impact: There is no reason for people to buy cloned meat anymore, as people will choose the cheapest choice over the expensive one. Contention 2: Not good for maintaining biodiversity I have proved that the history of restoring species back into the wild has been fraught with difficulty. My opponent insists that the researchers did not use reliable technology at that time, making it more difficult to restore the animals. But what I meant was animals went extinct in the wild because they lose their environment. Impact: Now if certain measures to the environment were done, any method to maintain biodiversity would have worked. But without doing anything to the environment, any single method, such as cloning, would never work. So cloning will not able to maintain biodiversity. My opponent also states if some animals die there will be more of them. Biodiversity means to have many species in the wild. I’m afraid my opponent has misunderstood its meaning and thought just having the animals alive would make it “maintaining biodiversity”. Contention 3: Violating Animal Welfare Cloning animals puts the sick and deformed clone and the surrogate in unneeded suffering. Cloned animals tend to have more problems during gestation and birth, resulting in higher rates of miscarriage and deaths among host mothers. My opponent states that clones can be able to be used as “machines” and produce in massive quantity agricultural and medical products. I stated how that will probably make them not treated like living things anymore, and might even turn into the next factory farming. Opponent supports the idea of factory farming, because that may support the growing human population. I will remind the opponent that the topic of this debate is “Cloning Animals is Beneficial” which does not point to a single group that receives benefit. So even if humans receive benefit, but it endangers animals, you cannot count it as beneficial. Impact: Since violating animal welfare will not be beneficial to animals, Cloning is not exactly beneficial. Contention 4: Commercial Endeavors Cloning dead pets can be expensive. But adopting animals from shelters is a better choice. Impact: Cloning dead pets not beneficial because homeless pets in shelters can use a home, but fewer pets will be adopted. Contention 5: Treatment for human diseases/ Biomedical Research Opponent states we will never know if cloning can cure human diseases unless we try. But he does not show exactly the theory or the how cloning can be cures. So it’s like grasping in the dark. Impact: It’s better to at least have a theory before we act. Opponent does not have a theory, thus unable to show cloning has certain health benefits. Cloning is not Beneficial (At least from what Pro says, it’s hard to conclude it’s safe. )
Cloning animals is beneficial

This brings us to our final conclusion. I defend my orginal arguments by saying...Thank's to everyone who view the debate. We hope that we'll get your votes.Cloning Animals is beneficial because...1) Agriculture and Drug Production: (make food and drugs to cure people)2) Maintaining Biodiversity: (make more of the animal so others will be left behind if some die.)3) Biomedical Research: (uses for research to find cure to some diseases)4) Commercial Endeavours: (food security is a serious issue and this can help with food security)5) Treatment for Human Disease: (if possible, treatment could be find for human diseases.)Now i apolozie, i might have went off a little bit off topic by saying "To clone or not to clone humans" and "“Recently, researchers have been able to transfer human genes that produce useful proteins into sheep and cows, which will then be produced in the milk of the animals” That’s genetic engineering, which a very different concept from cloning. So that’s sort of off topic. " they are off topic. i'm sorry."My opponent has found an official statement that cloned foods are safe. I disagree with their conclusion, as it has not been mass produced, consumed for long periods of time and or even available to the public yet." you cannot prove any evidence as you have not or been able to eat it yet. You disagree because its your opinion but clearly research shows it safe.
Cloning animals is beneficial

All following arguments are rebuttals against Pro rebuttals Rebuttal 1: Animal Rights First of all your quote from "123helpme the benefits of cloning animal states... "Now imagine it is the year 2007, andyou are in dire need of a heart. The doctors do several tests to determine your genetic make-up, so they can find the right animal to match your needs. After replacing your heart with a pig heart, you recover and go on with everyday life. No one had to die, and you received your heart. With today's technology, this, and more human benefits, will be made possible with animal cloning.” I don’t understand this argument really, especially the part about using pig heart on humans. It doesn’t make sense. And also about (I quote from you) “Recently, researchers have been able to transfer human genes that produce useful proteins into sheep and cows, which will then be produced in the milk of the animals” That’s genetic engineering, which a very different concept from cloning. So that’s sort of off topic. Rebuttal 2: Commercially Beneficial My opponent has found an official statement that cloned foods are safe. I disagree with their conclusion, as it has not been mass produced, consumed for long periods of time and or even available to the public yet. But still as I have proved cloned foods costs about 10 times more than regular foods, and you have shown cloned foods are no different than regular foods, I see no reason for people to want to produce or buy cloned foods. He has even collapsed my evidence on “36% of the public will want it” argument, because now we all know zero percent of the public will have interest in it. So basically, it has no economic value as a food product. Rebuttal 3: Guarantee of Safety As I have stated on the refutation to my opponent’s rebuttal, cloned foods are not mass produced, consumed for long periods of time and or even available to the public yet. So no one can guarantee it’s safety yet.
Cloning animals is beneficial

Contention 1: Animal Rights According to National Geographic Magazine April 2013 cloning requires the need to inject DNA into egg cells of the surrogate mother, causing the surrogate to develop the baby. This is violating animal welfare, as this puts the sick and deformed clone and the surrogate in unneeded suffering. Cloned animals tend to have more problems during gestation and birth, resulting in higher rates of miscarriage and deaths among host mothers. According to http://www.gracelinks.org... a 2007 study showed cloning success rates to be low as 10%. Cloned animals tend to have severe physical deformities in cloned animals, including oversized navels, oddly-shaped heads (cows that have heads shaped like those of bulldogs), immune deficiencies, diabetes, heart and lung damage, kidney failure, brain irregularities, and malformed arteries. Not really a humane thing to do, is it? Contention 2: Not commercially beneficial According to http://www.gracelinks.org... it takes $20,000 to clone a cow, compared to $2000 of a naturally bred. A 2006 survey by the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology that found American consumers are uneasy about cloning, with 64 percent of respondents saying they would rather not eat cloned meat. This means it takes 10 times more to “create” a slab of meat (remember, costs are also 10 times higher) but only 36% of the public will want it. Contention 3: No guarantee of safety There is no such thing as a complete risk assessment. Since cloning is still in experimental phase, people cannot absolutely conclude that something is safe. Just three years before the Chernobyl nuclear accident, B. A. Semenov, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s safety division, had written about the RBMK reactor design used at Chernobyl: “The design feature of having more than 1,000 individual primary circuits increases the safety of the reactor system—a serious loss-of-coolant accident is practically impossible” This example can also be used on the issue of cloned foods. Conclusion: Cloning subject animals to unneeded suffering to both clones and surrogates, due to high risk clones having bad health. This is combined with the high cost and low demand of clones to consumers, also with unguaranteed health of the food products. So basically cloning is bad for consumers, cloning industries, and also the animals. To wrap it up, it’s not beneficial.
Cloning animals is beneficial

Animals cloning is beneficial I would like to wish good luck to my opponent.Full ResolutionAnimals cloning is benefical. BoP is shared. Definitions Animals: "... A living organism that feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and nervous system and able to respond rapidly... Any such living organism other than a human being. Clone: the aggregate of genetically identical cells or organisms asexually produced by a single progenitor cell or organismBeneficial: Favorable or advantageous; resulting in goodWhat i am biscally saying is that animal cloning is beneficial for the human race. Rules1. The first round is for acceptance and appreciation. (only) 2. A forfeit or concession is not allowed.3. No semantics, trolling, or lawyering.4. All arguments must be visible inside this debate. 5. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed in the middle of the debate. All resoultion, definitions, rules, and structures are as stated.Voters, we hope you enjoy the debate. And that your vote is as stand.Debate StructureRound 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Presenting all arguments (no rebuttals by pro)Round 3: Refutation of opponent's arguments (no new arguments)Round 4: Defending your original arguments and conclusion (no new arguments)http://www.merriam-webster.com...http://www.google.com...http://www.google.com...
No evidence a god exists

Thank you for putting forward this debate. I contend there is evidence for the existence of a god.I submit, as evidence, the testimonies:OF the Apostle John, who shared in the ministry of Jesus of Nazereth, the Christ, incarnate God, as written in the Gospel of John.of Moses the Prophet who led Israel out of Egypt, and who saw the back of God as he passed by Moses while in the cleft of the mountain, and spoke with God face to face. [1]of the Prophet Isaiah who was mocked for warning of the coming destruction of Jerusalem at the hand of King Nebuchadnezer of Babylon in 586 B.C. [2]of the Prophet Jeremiah who was scorned, beaten, imprisoned, and left for dead for the same. [4]of King Nebuchadnezer of Babylon, who God rebuked and later restored. [5]of numerous eye-witnesses of Christ and work of the Holy Spirit in the early church, as investigated and compiled by the Greek physician Luke. [3]of my Uncle, who grew up in the infamous Artane Boy's School in Dublin, Ireland. He travelled every continent but South America and Antarctica searching for truth. He tried Islam, Catholism, Budhism, Hinduism, and only found truth in Christianity.of the martyrs of Foxes Book of Martyrs, who held to thier testimony even through torture and even to death. [6]of myself, who has seen God change hearts, including my own.Our testimonies agree, and add up to an overwhelming body of evidence.1 Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Numbers2 The Book of Isaiah3 The Gospel According to Luke, Luke 1:1-4, The Acts of the Apostles (Book of Acts)4 The Book of Jeremiah5 Daniel ch. 46 http://www.ccel.org...
No evidence a god exists

My opponent's account is no longer active. Why, I am unaware. My opponent challenged me to provide evidence for the existence of a god. I did so by presenting witness testimony, which is evidence in court. My opponent countered that I must prove the Bible is accurate for testimony to be considered evidence. Evidence does not have to be declared believable by the prosecution before the defense presents it, otherwise no defendant could ever win. I am disappointed that my opponent did not bother to look up terms (proof, evidence) before using them. I met the challenge and effectively countered his point.
No evidence a god exists

My opponent asked for a single piece of evidence."I challenge anyone to provide a single piece of evidence for the existence of a god."I provided testimony, which fits the definition of evidence. My opponent does not understand the difference between proof and evidence. Evidence builds up to proof. Evidence can be proof, but doesn't have to be."Some witness testimony could be described as anecdotal evidence, such as individual stories of harassment as part of a class action lawsuit."[1]Even if the testimony I presented is anecdotal evidence, it is evidence, which is what my opponent demanded. He never specified scientific evidence until the third round. I have won the debate by presenting evidence of God."Testimony must normally state facts perceived by the witnesses' use of their own senses, as distinguished from their opinions, inferences, impressions, and conclusions drawn from the facts."The testimony that I presented are facts percieved by the witnesses use of thier own senses. Jesus spoke to John, Luke interviewed eye-witnesses and family members. Moses spoke with God face to face. Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Nebuchadnezer spoke with and saw signs from God. They are not opinions just because you don't believe the testimony. The events they percieved with thier senses happened. Even if you don't believe they saw and heard what they say they did, thier actions afterward support thier accounts. All held to thier stories even to death. An opinion would be speculation on something that they couldn't even prove to themselves. Being that they saw the events with thier own eyes, that was proof enough to them that they could give testimony of the events, which is evidence. There is no speculation in the testimony I gave, it is presented as fact. My opponent does not seem to understand the definition of opinion, either.1 http://en.wikipedia.org...
No evidence a god exists

Faith- 1. Confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another'sability. 2. Belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that thehypothesis would be substantiated by fact. "I have presented evidence that would be accepted in court, that is, witness testimony." This is false. Courts require scientific evidence for evidence and may use eye witness testimony sometimes in order to make the court pick their side. If we were in court, you may use testimony but than you would need to prove a god exists with scientific evidence since you haven't provided any evidence. Anecdotal evidence (http://dictionary.reference.com...) Main Entry: anecdotal evidence Part of Speech: n Definition: non-scientific observations or studies, which do not provide proof but may assist research efforts My opponent says: "If I preach, that does not mean I didn't provide evidence." I told my opponent I would consider the bible if he presented justification for the bible yet provided no evidence. My opponent also says testimony is evidence when testimony is just anecdotal evidence. By my opponent's logic, if someone said they were kidnapped by aliens and provided no evidence and just provided testimony, than by my opponent's argument, that would count as evidence. A court needs scientific evidence in order to be convinced. Generally speaking, the law of evidence in both civil and criminal cases confines the testimony of witnesses to statements of concrete facts within their own observation, knowledge, and recollection. Testimony must normally state facts perceived by the witnesses' use of their own senses, as distinguished from their opinions, inferences, impressions, and conclusions drawn from the facts. Opinion testimony that is based on facts is usually considered incompetent and inadmissible, if the fact finders are as well qualified as the witness to draw conclusions from the facts. (legaldictionary.com) The courts say in order for a testimony to be true, it must agree with what the scientific evidence is showing, my opponent just used opinion testimony. Christians have the burden of proof and my opponent has not met it. To summarize my opponent's argument: You can say whatever you want and tell whatever you want and that it evidence. He ignores scientific evidence and claims this is proof a god exists when no solid evidence has been met. The courts say testimony is ok as long as you have scientific evidence backing what you're saying which my opponent has not included. My opponent has not provided a single piece of evidence a god exists.
No evidence a god exists

All you did was preach. You first must provide justification for the bible and give reasons why someone should believe what the bible says. You provided a testimony about your family member trying every religion and Christianity happens to be the right one. The reason your arguments so far don't work is because a person of any religion could quote part of their holy text and say they tried every religion but theirs only worked so that's proof of the god of their religion. There are martyrs of Christianity and martyrs of Islam so this doesn't work. This may be evidence for you, but it's not evidence a god exists.
Would our founding fathers of America approve of current government

"allows the government to change as society changes". I don't see a government with constantly changing laws is a good government. If laws are made to be changed at will, why make it at the first place. Laws are not there for convenience, but for order. The founding father would want a smaller government, not a government that resembles the controlling British parliament. In America, we value liberty, what that means is free from government intervention. As for health care, we should encourage self sufficiency and not government free hand outs. Every one has to work for their living.
Would our founding fathers of America approve of current government

Hello, happy to be debating this round. My position, for this resolution, will be that the Founding Fathers of the United States, that is, people like George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison, would approve of the current government of the United States writ large, as viewed through the lens of American Constitutional law. I cannot defend every possible objection, of course, but I think through this round I will demonstrate that, on the macro level, the Founding Fathers would accept the current system of governance. I look forward very much to this debate and to Con's arguments. Let the debate begin!