BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
You do not know what the word God signifies yet you continue to demand 'proof'

This is a hole that is completely of your own making, MagicAintReal. Allow me to present your work to you.You start a debate: 'Life On Earth Was Created By God' where you take the Con position.Then You ' defined god using the Google definition:god - the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.'Your argument within this debate states thatMagicAintReal :'Life on earth most likely originated by way of abiogenesis.'which you describe asMagicAintReal: Abiogenesis is the fact that organic compounds can come from inorganic compounds.I ask you: Is 'abiogenesis.' a 'being', MagicAintReal?You replyMagicAintReal: 'No, theories are not beings. They are constructs. While constructs may be contingent on beings, they need not be beings themselves. Energy I agree exists, but it's not a being, because "being" in the definitions implies creation ability; energy doesn't create it exists and adds work to matter.'Now you say thatMagicAintReal: 'So, I do know what god signifies. Usually, it signifies an agent in the creation of the universe. It can also mean a supreme, or superior thing that exists.'Let me get this straight. God signifies an agent in the creation of the universe. OK!Life on earth most likely originated by way of abiogenesis. OK!God definition includes reference to 'the supreme being creator.' OK!Abiogenesis is a theory and not a being. OK!Does this mean that abiogenesis is the cause of creation but that it is not a being because it is a theory but that you want proof for a God who is a being who did cause creation.??You are 'all over the shop' on this and you prove this by embarking on your debate with a haphazard notion of what the word god actually signifies within your own cerebral space. You couldn't care less what god arrived at your door. You were ready for them all . You state:*Definitions can be changed in the comments section, before posting your first argument, as long as Pro and Con both agree.You had accepted the above definition already even though you hadn't a clue what it entailed. IMHO
You do not know what the word God signifies yet you continue to demand 'proof'

The resolution is that, I don't know what the word "god" signifies, yet I continue to demand proof. I agree that I continue to demand proof of god, but I reject that I don't know what the word "god" signifies. If anyone were to check the debate in reference, one could see that I provided a significance, or definition, of god. . http://www.debate.org... I defined god using the Google definition: god - the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being. . https://www.google.com... Also, god can have many definitions depending on who you ask, so for the debate I had instigated, I was willing to let my opponent define god in their image. Also, I can demand proof of any truth claim, that is to say, in my debate, the claim was that not only god created life, but that god himself is the creator of the universe. These are truth claims, and as such, demand proof, regardless of the defined constituents. So, I do know what god signifies. Usually, it signifies an agent in the creation of the universe. It can also mean a supreme, or superior thing that exists. In some aspects, god can be a superhuman or some kind of spirit. Pro claims: "When asked what your definition of God was about, you were unable to explain it. " My response: False. Not only was a definition provided for god, but I wasn't even asked about my definition of god. I was asked about my definition of "being. " Because the debate had already been accepted, my provided definitions of god were agreed on by my opponent, and these questions being asked by Pro were outside of the debate; I didn't really feel the need to elaborate on one word in one part of one of my definitions. Pro continues to complain: "How can a person ask for proof about something that they themselves have not considered and referenced. " My response: Because the proof is about life creation which, in my profession as a science teacher, is something I have referenced and considered. Regardless, I referenced google's definition of god. I have considered this definition. I can demand proof, because "god" is being used to make a truth claim about reality. Truth claims require proof. So, Pro's question, "What is/is not a being, MagicAintReal? " is irrelevant to the resolution that "I do not know what the word god signifies. " Pro conflates the word "being" with the word "god. " I don't know what the word "god" signifies? Check my sources.
You do not know what the word God signifies yet you continue to demand 'proof'

This is a direct challenge to you MagicAintReal. You started a debate 'Life On Earth Was Created By God'You asked for acceptance of this definitiongod - the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being. You installed yourself in the Con position of this debate and argued from science on this subject. When asked what your definition of God was about, you were unable to explain it.How can a person ask for proof about something that they themselves have not considered and referenced.What is/is not a being, MagicAintReal ?
You do not know what the word God signifies yet you continue to demand 'proof'

I was not being condescending at all, quite the contrary; I truly believe you remember the facts that refute your beliefs. The principles of science are simple, and that's why I became a science guy. What sounds like clunky verbiage is actually simple observations of reality, down to the quantum level. I've made a career out of taking otherwise complex concepts and simplifying them for students with short attention spans. Along with educating, I am also here to reason and debate, and I have engaged all of your ridiculous questions; your questions are objectively ridiculous given their post hoc value. Chance does not have creative potential; chance doesn't create because it is a construct of mathematical probabilities. Abiogenesis has EXPLANATORY potential not CREATIVE potential; do not conflate. Who would have thought a google definition would inspire such revolt? I know what the word god signifies...resolution rejected.
You do not know what the word God signifies yet you continue to demand 'proof'

MagicAintReal states: 'Pro, you got me all wrong.I'm a teacher; I wish to educate people on basic principles of science that actually aren't complicated, though they sound as such. These principles are proven useful in god debates, because some of these people have seriously never encountered this information before and truly believe that it doesn't exist; I'm about showing them that.'At last some clarity on this impasse. Your noble intention was to teach through debate. This explains why you cared little as to what God knocked on your door. Is it me or is the attitude as expressed in the above quote, 'slightly condescending'. The principles of science are not 'simple' in any way, shape or form unless you wish to preach your version of same. I will not pursue this further. I am not hear to teach, I am here to reason and debate. You did not engage with any of my questions at any time.You did not set any real parameters for the descriptive noun 'being' except to describe it as something that must have 'creative potential' . Is 'chance' a being? Has it creative potential. Surely your 'abiogenesis.' possesses creative potential. You insist that this is not a being. Why? What aspect of being is it without within your elaboration of same?I thank you for your participation on this debate thread. I would accuse you of 'littering' with your generic God thread thingy, except for the fact that your intentions were to 'help'. I accept this declaration as truth. Good Luck
The 1990s was the best decade of the 20th century.

Round Three: movies/television/theater/entertainment When it comes to television, the 90's can be considered somewhat of a Golden Age. Sitcoms (situational comedy), cartoons, and programs designed for teenagers were extremely popular throughout the decade. A fine example of a classic 90's sitcom would have to be Friends. The plot of friends revolved around a group of friends who lived in New York City. Friends continued to be produced throughout the decade until its cancellation in 2004. It received high ratings from both critics and fans. Nickelodeon was the number one children's network throughout the decade. Shows like Rugrats, Rocko's Modern Life, and The Ren and Stimpy Show dominated the decade. Nickelodeon's highest ratings were during the 90's. Even today, 90's Nick shows are the standard to which every other cartoon/children's program is judged. Demand for 90s "nicktoons" is so high that Viacom is considering devoting an entire channel to them that will almost identically resemble the lineup of the 1990s. Shows like Beverly Hills 90210 and Saved by the Bell were the stepping stone between cartoons and sitcoms. Many teens watched (and became obsessed) with such shows. Many T.V. shows came to represent the innocence of the decade when compared to the "skanky" 80s. The entertainment of the 1920s would have to be strictly limited to radio and sports. Even though radio was a relatively "hip" thing in the 20's it doesn't even compare to 90's television. Sports was okay in the 20s, but eXtreme sports and hockey became popular in the 90s and became the staple of Generation X.
The 1990s was the best decade of the 20th century.

People started acting more independent, the flappers were a big part of that. A flapper is a name given to the fashionable, pleasure-seeking young women of the time. The archetypal flapper look was tomboyish and flamboyant: short bobbed hair; knee-length, fringed skirts; long, draping necklaces; and rolled stockings. Although few women actually fit this image, it was used widely in journalism and advertising to represent the rebelliousness of the period. The traditional bastions of American morality lamented these developments, and especially criticized the new dances and college students' proclivity for drinking and smoking. These critics, however, soon found themselves facing much larger opposition as the older generations began to adopt some of the socially liberated practices of their children. Literature flourished with authors like F. Scott Fitzgerald and Ernest Hemingway. Despite being called the lost generation they still managed to put out highly touted works such as "The Great Gatsby" and "The Sun Also Rises". The crime that comes along with the speakeasies may seem bad, but it was a popular recreational place for many people and they were just precursors for the ever popular bars and nightclubs. It happened when the Eighteenth Amendment, which made it illegal to manufacture, sell, or transport alcoholic beverages, went into effect in January 1920. Enforcement of prohibition, however, was sporadic and underfunded and faced opposition in many states and cities, especially northern cities, where many prohibition laws were repealed. Given this lax enforcement, many Americans viewed prohibition as something of a joke. Bootleggers smuggled liquor from the West Indies and Canada, while speakeasies in every city provided alcohol illegally.
The 1990s was the best decade of the 20th century.

Okay Round 1: Culture Culture-the values and morals a society holds. For the sake of this debate, let's just say that culture is just basically an overview of what happened in this decade. Let's also try to keep our discussions US-based, except for Round 4. The Culture of the 1990s: Let's start with something that we all know about today, the internet. The internet was first used in 1994. The invention of the internet in the 1990s allowed many Americans to do many more things than they could of done in the 1920s. Americans could now talk to someone in Denmark, listen to music, have more references than the world's largest library, shop, and play without ever leaving their desks. This lead to a culture explosion with people from all around the world now having the ability to exchange ideas and beliefs in seconds. The effects of such a great utility are still being felt today. In the 1990s, Generation X starting to enter adulthood. Generation X was born between 1964 and 1981. Generation X was a very "in your face" generation and they were open to various new ideas. For example, mostly do to shifting social attitudes in 1990 the World Health Organization removed homosexuality from its list of diseases. The 1990s were also a period of family morals. The divorce rate declined and stabilized from its 1980s highs and church attendance increased. Now for my attack of 1920s culture... The 1920s the only decade with prohibition. Prohibition lead to strong levels of organized crime (Al Capone, The Mob, etc). So, since the culture of the 1920s was plagued by crime, then I think that its safe to say that the tolerant, informative, and relativity peaceful 1990s outshine the '20s in regards to culture.
The 1990s was the best decade of the 20th century.

Let's begin with how this is going to work. I, PRO, believe that the 1990s, when compared to any other decade in the 20th century, outshines it in every single way, and is, therefore, the best decade of the 20th century My opponent will have to prove otherwise. In round two, my opponent and I will argue over the subject of culture, in round three we will argue over movies/television/theater/entertainment, in round four we will argue about the subject of politics/international relations/economics, and in the last round we will argue over the subject of music. Sound good?
Abortion (Should it be legal)

Con drops his entire case and changes his approach, now attempting to demonstrate that an embryo *does* meet two of my possible criteria for personhood -- reasoning and self-awareness. However, all he does is give bare assertions... he provides no sources to back up his claims. In reality, the fetus does not undergo sufficient neurological development to possess self-awareness until the 24th week of pregnancy [1], and reasoning does not come about until long after birth... It's clear that Con is blatantly wrong in his claims, and that fetuses do *not* meet any of the criteria for personhood. Therefore, abortion is morally permissible and should remain legal. The resolution is affirmed. [1] http://www.nature.com...
Abortion (Should it be legal)

I wish to re simplify the core issue. Abortion is defined as: Biology. the arrested development of an embryo..at a more or less early stage. All I must prove is that that an embryo deserves to live, regardless of a mother's wishes. In effect, I must prove that the embryo is self aware. The Embryo is alive, can feel pain, ad can react to loud noises (These are a few examples.) It is only self aware with intelligence. An embryo can have it's intelligence measured, but every embryo is intelligent. Human intelligence is why humans are superior to animals. Humans are set apart because they can change their environment and circumstances, something animals are not capable of. My opponents grants that fetuses are human, and they have intelligence, then the combination of those facts produced them as humanly intelligent and self aware. This means that an embryo is humanly capable and therefore deserves to be acknowledged as life at birth. Resolution is disproved. BoP now rests with Pro.
Abortion (Should it be legal)

Con claims that DNA can give a being moral significance, but his logic is nonsensical. What exactly is meant by "being an individual"? A lot of things are "individuals" -- a tree, a bacterium, a rock. Having the property of oneness (i.e. the definition of individual) has no link whatsoever to morality. Con for some reason seems to believe that Dictionary.Com is the ultimate authority on ethics. We are discussing personhood in a philosophical sense, which is different from how the word may be used in everyday life. The possible criteria for personhood which I put forth are the characteristics which fundamentally distinguish human beings from the rest of the inanimate universe, and have been proposed by numerous ethical philosophers throughout the ages. All of Con's arguments presuppose that a fetus is a person, but his genetics-based criterion is completely meaningless. My criterion have a far stronger ethical basis and they falsify that presupposition. The resolution is affirmed.
Abortion (Should it be legal)

The first mistake in pro's defense is that he defines DNA as a meaningless string of atoms. DNA is the genetic code that makes a being an individual, without it no one could be an individual. Moral significance is derived from being an individual, and DNA is fundamental to this. Pro also incorrectly defines personhood. Dictionary.com's definitions are: the state or fact of being a person and the state or fact of being an individual and this leads back to my earlier statement, that an individual has different characteristics than any other being. This leads to the question: is it right to kill a human life because the parents did not intend to create it? No! How many parent would kill their born child because they had regrets? The most important point to make is that every person deserves a chance to succeed and become more than they are, and this is denied by abortion. The mother does not get to decide if a child can live or not, because it isn't just between a women and her body.
Abortion (Should it be legal)

Con's fundamental approach to the issue is wrong; "human" is merely a biological classification based on DNA. However, DNA is just a meaningless string of atoms, so having a certain genotype is not enough to grant an organism any sort of moral significance. It is the *characteristics* of human beings which distinguish them from the rest of the amoral universe and grant them ethical relevance. The most common characteristics which are named as being as being the prerequisites for personhood are: 1. Consciousness / Self-Awareness 2. Reasoning 3. Self-motivated activity 4. Ability to feel pain Within the first several weeks of conception, a human fetus possesses *none* of these characteristics, and therefore it cannot reasonably be considered a morally significant person with any sort of "right to life". Thus, abortion does not involve rights violations, and the government does not have any reason to make it illegal. The resolution is affirmed.
Abortion (Should it be legal)

Abortion is fundamentally wrong. The first major error in the logic of pro-choice is that a person is not a choice, their a human. If a mother could choose to kill their child because they did not wish to become pregnant, we might as well allow parents to kill their grown children because they dislike having their kids around. A fetus isn't a potential human, their a human with potential. It is not reasonable to deny a child the right to live because their parents don't want them. Abortion also can cause anywhere from diarrhea to death in the mother who aborted. 1.21 children are not given the chance to live because of abortion yearly in the U.S. Choose to let kids live, not to let the choices of a pro-death (synonym for pro-choice) mother govern their lives.
white people are going extinct

Pro has entirely failed to prove the global population decline of white people, much less the critical scale that would signify 'extinction'. My argument that extinction can't apply if the offspring of white people live on stands unrefuted. The variables of migration and mortality make it impossible to draw any clear conclusions from the population growth chart. J.D. Watson discovered the molecular structure of DNA but was not an expert in population genetics. One leading expert in this field is Cavalli, who "challenges the assumption that there are significant genetic differences between human races, and indeed, the idea that 'race' has any useful biological meaning at all". [1] Pro's racist ranting lacks logic. Thanks.
white people are going extinct

Concl.: a) Map of replacement level, all the white nations are covered by blue (below replacement). American whites in the same condition b) Growth: http://en.wikipedia.org... Note the below zero (purple) values of Eastern Europe!! In that areas, there are less whites than in the past Western Europe/America's mass immigration hides the fall of the white population there, even so: http://en.wikipedia.org... expected to go down to only 7 % of the world by 2050 If the trend continues, it will reach a critical point. "Homo Sapiens" is a species, not a subspecies, but J.D. Watson "father of DNA" was called racist for pointing out the large genetic difference between races
white people are going extinct

German =/= global. I'm not aware of any "all white countries". To establish population decline, you would have to show that there are less whites in the world now than at some point in the past. I don't believe Pro can do this. 1. If Pro can prove that the decline exists, he would also need to prove that it will become "critical" in the future for the resolution to be valid. 2. Pro obviously ignored my sources last round. "The term race is often used in taxonomy as a synonym for subspecies. In this sense human races are said not to exist, as taxonomically all humans are classified as the subspecies Homo sapiens" [1] "race is a folk taxonomy rather than a scientific classification" [3]. Please respond to my other points.
white people are going extinct

OK, you were the one bringing up statistics of birth deaths in fertile countries, I already proved that birth deaths dont really affect population growth, Africa is the best example of that can I prove global decline of whites? Yes. See article "Germany is dying", all white countries below replacement level (wikipedia map) Fallacies by my opponent: 1. Decline =/= decline beyond repair Ignores the fact that if the decline continues, eventually it will reach a critical level. So far there is no indication that the white population will bounce back somewhere in the future 2. Race is not a scientific taxon wikipedia: In biology, a race is any inbreeding group, including TAXONomic subgroups such as subspecies
white people are going extinct

Decline =/= decline beyond repair, for which there is no evidence. Becoming a minority =/= decline, can you prove global decline of whites? Infant mortality is very relevant, statistics about birth rates don't matter much if most of the babies die. Hypothetical projections of African population growth have nothing to do with "extinction" of whites. Race is not a scientific taxon, all modern humans belong to the homo sapiens taxon [1] [2]. The concept of race is folk taxonomy [3]. As long as white people can continue to reproduce (which we can do with any race), thereby affecting the eco-system, your definition of extinction does not apply. If Arabs and Turks are the threat, why the focus on Africa? Sources in comments.
white people are going extinct

- Fallacies of my opponent: 1. Population decline =/= extinction What is extinction if not population decline beyond repair?? 2. infant mortality, etc CY- besides the point. African population is still growing quickly wikipedia: Africa pop. 2008: 973 m Africa pop. 2050: 1,766 m 3. Not race wars they had all the elements of one: mass populations transfer, ethnic cleansing, total war, including the infamous March to the Sea of Sherman 4. definition of extinction applies to species extinction can involve any taxon 5. whites are genocides The greatest genocides where the mongols and muslims (arabs and turks), including recent events like the greek ethnic cleansing, kurdic ethnic cleansing, armenian genocide, slavery of blacks