BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Darwin's Theory of Changing Species

Thank you for reposting the video. I did watch it and thank you for checking out those sites. I want to clarify something which you may not know. We do see a change in species. We have fossil records and DNA evidence of the common ancestor of a species. The definition of a species is "the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species." A bobcat and a cheetah are two different species. They are both of the same family Felidae. Cheetahs are the Acinonyx jubatus species and bobcats are of the lynx rufus species. These animals are unable to mate but do have a common ancestor. Sometime in the distance past these animal"s common ancestors changed enough that it created two different species. Now you may say that"s great but what about the difference between say a horse and a bird. I am not sure if you have ever seen Darwin"s tree of life. The roots are the common ancestor and eventually through time and changes animals branch off from each other more and more. Animals that were once very similar become more and more branch off from each other. This process takes millions of years it does not happen quickly. The was something in the video that said we were not there so how can we know. That"s true we were not there but it"s more like a crime scene. Yes, we weren"t there for the crime but it doesn"t mean we can"t figure out what happened or, at least, what most likely happened. "Organisms have changed significantly over time. In rocks more than 1 billion years old, only fossils of single-celled organisms are found. Moving to rocks that are about 550 million years old, fossils of simple, multicellular animals can be found. At 500 million years ago, ancient fish without jawbones surface; and at 400 million years ago, fish with jaws are found. Gradually, new animals appear: amphibians at 350 million years ago, reptiles at 300 million years ago, mammals at 230 million years ago, and birds at 150 million years ago.1 As the rocks become more and more recent, the fossils look increasingly like the animals we observe today." Found at http://biologos.org... We see a development of species and like the tree more and more diversity and species develop as more and changes occur creating more and more branches. Again these changes are small and take a great deal of time. We never see one day a frog turning in to a wolf but like a flip book is a gradual change one step at a time that gives us the broader picture. Now frogs and wolves are very different but going back far enough in the family tree they do have common ancestors. We never see alien DNA our DNA is very similar depending on how close they are to use on the ancestral tree. Just like with our families we have DNA closer to our parents than say someone in china. Is there one thing I can point to that gives you a definitive answer no there is no smoking gun. It is evidence gathered from many fields of study biology, genetics, paleontologists and others.
Darwin's Theory of Changing Species

Although I appreciate those sites, after deeply reading each one, I found that none of them changed species. The articles you presented were filled with information but not one showed the change that we are here to discuss. By proving no reasonable evidence for this case we can assume there is no evidence. If I believed in Darwin's changing of species this argument would astonish me. In fact at once I did believe in Darwin's changing species but when I did research myself I was stunned that there is actually no evidence. I talked to my professors and they explained that species did change. Then I asked, But did they change species? They both were dumbfounded and asked me to leave. At that point of time I released that the internet, and my professors both had no evidence on this subject. I was baffled and upset that the changing of species is taught as truth in elementary through your collage years. Darwin was an intelligent man but he had unreasonable ideas about the way things evolved. I do agree that species can vary but yet again they do not change. Throughout countless hours I have found no evidence for Darwin's changing their. Thank you once again for your time and effort on this subject. Here is the video once again: Here is the video again. https://youtu.be...
Darwin's Theory of Changing Species

In the past people believed that species did not change but remain the same throughout time. However, ideas change based on new evidence and ideas. Small changes with in species is absolutely undeniable. We know this by observation of animals in nature and through breeding of animals such as dogs or horse for example. Through the breeding of animals, we can create a certain trait in an animal. If we want them large or small, a certain color or even a certain temperament. This is a very proven method. Now in nature we find this to accrue in the fact of which traits help the animal to survive. For example, say an animal is in a cold environment. The animals that have a heavier fur coat will be able to thrive better than an animal with a very thin coat. That animal will also be able to reproduce more and have a better chance of keeping its off spring alive. Before you know it in that area there will be a lot of heavy fur coated animals. Not only that but a given area can only support a certain number of any given species which mean that that species must compete not only to eat but to reproduce in order to live causing only the best of the best to continue to live on. This is what we call microevolution. We can see these changes in our own life time and cannot be denied that it does occur. The other part of evolution is macroevolution which comes from the main part of Darwin"s theory which is "common descent". Common descent basically says that all biological life on earth comes from a comman ancestor. There is so much evidence for this is is difficult to name it all here. I will list below a few places where you can read about some of this evidence. Also just a note I tried to watch the video but the link was not written correctly. Please post it again. http://www.livescience.com... http://www.dummies.com... https://www.khanacademy.org... the origin of species by Charles Darwin http://humanorigins.si.edu...
Darwin's Theory of Changing Species

I do agree that if Darwin's theory is incorrect then creationism is automatically correct is a different issue altogether. Also Thank you for taking your time to accept my challenge. It seems obvious to everyone today that species change. In fact, the variety within each created kind is sometimes mind-boggling. But changing species wasn"t so obvious 150 years ago. In fact, the prevailing view was called "fixity of species""the belief that each species was created in the same form we find today. Where did this belief come from? Before the time of Charles Darwin, a false idea had crept into the church"the belief in the "fixity" or "immutability" of species. According to this view, each species was created in precisely the same form that we find it today. In his famous book, On the Origin of Species, first published in 1859, Darwin set out to demolish this widespread view. Saying species changed. At first people denied this idea, but soon excepted it because religion had nothing to do with it...or does it? Since their has never been evidence on the changing of spices it would take a matter of faith to believe Darwin's evolution. The definition of "science" from the Merriam Webster dictionary states "knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation" Thus with no evidence or observations to prove the changing of species Darwin's evolution is not science. This video is by an interviewer who seeks truth and has no opinion of his own. This video shows that even the intelligent philosophers and professors at colleges have no examples of any evidence of Darwin's theory of the changing of species. Unfortunately They all were surprised by their own words and released the massive hole in their own thinking. <https://youtu.be...;
Darwin's Theory of Changing Species

I accept your challenge to debate the validity of Darwin"s theory of evolution and if that said theory has sufficient evidence to support it. First of all, I noticed in your round 1 statement you said that you take the side of a creationist. Here I presume we are debating the validity of Darwin"s theory not whether or not evolution is wrong and creationism is right. Even if in the course of the debate you were to prove Darwin"s theory wrong that does not automatically prove creationism correct. That is a different debate entirely. So I ask that we refrain our arguments to the evidence or lack thereof, of the theory of evolution to prove if it is an actual occurring event in nature.
The FCC should substantially increase its investment in the National Broadcast plan

Definition - I agree with the terms set. Contention 1 - After each claim I have made I have cited a specific book or website that my opponent may look at and read upon, it is the fault of the Con for refusing to look at this information and thus, not allow for his education to be increased. But moving on to the more important issue which is that of the Con's argument that there is no internal link to minorities having a 'voice' in radio. With increased broadband, we are allowing for minorities to hear and see more of world around them, increasing their education of what is happening and allowing them to set up their own radio shows and even blogs. Yes, the idea is far fetched, but we as an american people, have the moral obligation to help those who feel as though they are being excluded from society, it is this unification that we fight for in enacting this plan. Contention 2 - Extend my education argument from above and cross apply it to the one made in this contention. Extend my second piece of Vikki Katz evidence, which if my opponent had read would explain how the Pro plan would functionally work, allowing for minorities to voice their opinions. But even if you don't buy this link then you must look at the larger picture which my opponent has failed to do. I defend the gesture that is proposed by helping the minority community, if we give them the gift of a voice, then we are reaching out our hand and saying to them "You are one of us, we are one." In this world, we are able to mend the wounds that have been created by racist ideals on both sides.But to elaborate on my opponents confusion based on the overall Solvency of this case, which is that allowing minorities a voice in radio and broadcasting allows them the ability to tell the world of their struggles and allow for the general public to emphasize with them, it is from this that we help the wounds of racism in our country.
The FCC should substantially increase its investment in the National Broadcast plan

===Definitions===The National Broadband Plan is "a FCC (Federal Communications Commission) plan which deals with improving broadband Internet access throughout the United States."[1]Should will be defined to mean that a sufficient reason has been provided which makes taking a particular course of action either necessary or optimal. To substantially increase investment will mean to provide considerably greater time, money, or energy into the NBP.===Refutation of Pro===Contention I. Voice to MinoritiesThe first contention which my opponent argues is that with the downgrading of the National Broadband Plan, minorities are given less of a "voice". Not only has my opponent not provided warrant for this claim, but neither has my opponent either provided empirical evidence that downgrading of the NBP would disproportionately affect minorities nor has he provided ample reasoning as to why increasing Internet access would give minorities more of a voice in news and Tv. All increased Internet access means is just that, access to the Internet. It doesn't mean that minorities are given more control of the content of Tv or radio. All it means it that they have more access to viewing the Tv and radio which my opponent claims is so corrupt and racist.Contention II. Perpetuation of RacismThe next contention forwarded by my opponent lies in the presumption that if minorities are not given more of a voice in radio and Tv, then racism will therefore be perpetuated. Of course, my opponent has in no way provided warrant for the contention that contemporary radio and Tv are "corrupt with racist ideas" besides an off site article which he didn't so much as even summarize.Also, given that my opponent is defending a specific plan of action to fix the alleged problem, he possesses a burden to show how exactly his plan would do that. Nothing in my opponent's argument actually shows this though. While having a larger voice is ambiguously positive, it doesn't sufficiently show why racist ideas would be lessened. Surely there are numerous examples of people supporting racist ideas regardless of the racists personal race (there are racist Hispanics, African Americans, Whites, etc.) and so just integrating different races into radio and Tv will not necessarily fix the problem. If it would my opponent has not shown why.Not only do more inclusion of minorities in radio and Tv not necessitate less racism being perpetuated, but my opponent has not actually elaborated on what he means by minorities sending "their radio and TV news" and how exactly this related to the downgrading of the NBP. The NBP aims at increasing access to the Internet. What about this would give minorities more "voice" in radio and Tv (the meaning of my refutation of C1).===Sources===[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...(United_States)
The FCC should substantially increase its investment in the National Broadcast plan

Broadband is decreasing now, claimed to help the economy bla bla bla, (Vikki S. Katz, Matthew D. Matsaganis, and Sandra J. ball-Rokeach, Ph.D., University of Southern California, ETHNIC MEDIA AS PARTNERS FOR INCREASING BROADBAND ADOPTION AND SOCIAL INCLUSION, Published 2012. PDF pg. 79-102.) but it means that minoritys which depend on cheap public broadband will not be able to send their radio and TV news at all. But it also means that because most people get their news from public TV and radio which is corrupt with racist ideas (Chucks Amajor, Mark Sanders, DeRonnie Pitts, http://www.stanford.edu..., )in turn influences just about everyone which is the reason racism hangs on in America. By increasing broadband we give the local minoritys a voice, and that will help aleaviate peoples thoughts about violent minorities. The best and only way to help mend the wounds that have been made is to give these minorities a voice, (Vikki Katz, ETHNIC MEDIA AS PARTNERS FOR INCREASING BROADBAND ADOPTION AND SOCIAL INCLUSION, Published 2012. PDF pg. 79-102) While many might make the argument that the reason for the decrease in radio broadcasts is because much of news these days has shifted over to the internet, the system is strained and doesn't access everyone, what must be done is invest in radio broadcasts to solve, (Darrell M. http://dspace.cigilibrary.org...)
Students should be allowed to wear hats in school.

Hello. Now, let me first state my personal opinion on this issue: I agree with you that the arguments "hats can hide drugs and other weapons" is ridiculous. I also agree that the whole "distraction" excuse is dumb as well. However, there is one main reason why students cannot wear head gear inside of schools:Head gear makes it much harder to identify students on security recordings. If a student who is wearing a hat does something that is considered unlawful within a school zone, and he/she has a hat on, it can make it extremely difficult to find out who that students is using security recordings.This reason makes sense to me; I believe that it is justified. I mean, if you consider other garments of clothing - shirts, pants, shoes, etc. - none of these obscure a student's face from the view of security cameras. The simple point of this rule is for protection. Now, how does this benefit the school as a whole? Let's say that a student wearing a hat - or hood - steals a girl's purse in the vicinity of a security camera. That student's face may be extremely recognizable if he/she did not have on head gear. Your claims that hats are a way of self-expression may sound cool, but there are other ways of expressing yourself. You could wear a cool jacket, or perhaps some cool shoes. I'm just throwing out examples. You get the picture. The problem with allowing students to wear hats is a controversial one, but it a policy that is designed to better school safety. It is a policy that aims to make sure every student is safe, and that every student is recognizable on security recordings. Self-expression may be great, but you need to ask yourself which is more important: safety or self-expression? This may be the 20th century, but security remains crucial to our schools; wearing hats will obscure this security.
Students should be allowed to wear hats in school.

Students (like myself) SHOULD be allowed to wear hats in school facilities and buildings during instruction time. This is the 21st century, I believe fashion is ever changing and that if I want to accessorize my outfit I should be not only allowed to do so but encouraged. Headwear is stylish and fun, and could be the perfect addition to anyone's clothing choices. No one's style choices and creativity should be suppressed. People often use the argument: "wearing hats indoors is disrespectful", well that is an opinion and if one person has the opinion that wearing the color orange on the second Thursday of each month if on an odd numbered day is disrespectful does that mean it shouldn't be allowed? No. That is just one person's opinion. And then the argument: "hats could be distracting to the other students", is often given. Well, so is the wearing of bright neon colors, but highlighter orange pants are not banned in my student handbook. I could also be distracted by my teacher's attractiveness but she was still hired. Why? Because she is still a great teacher. I could be distracted by what is happening outside in English class, but does that mean it should be illegal for fire trucks to blast their sirens when they go past the busy road in front of my high school? No. Because that is just stupid. Life has many distractions, but banning them will not solve all of these problems. After that the argument: "hats could hide weapons and drugs", is made, and to this I say, oh please. Give me a break! So could a purse! Or a bookbag! Or your pants! Does this mean we should ban purses and make girls carry their tampons, pads, and other personal items? No. Should we ban bookbags and make students carry their books, binders, notebooks, folders, and pencils to and from class to class and to and from home to school? No. Should we ban pants? No. As you can see these arguments are made by personal opinions and outdated beliefs. No one should be deprived of their choice of headwear!
Why cities tend to be liberal

Having lived half my life in the city and the other half rural, I think I have a perspective some here may not. Education is not a factor, despite Libs claiming it is. Cities have many services, and safety nets. People become reliant on others for everything. Transportation such as public or car pools, car repairs at a shop, speedier emergency response. They often wonder why stores like Tractor Supply CO exist. Gardening is a luxury, and raising chickens is illegal. Food pantries if you are short on food. Quick loan scam shops if you are short on cash. ETC Rural people, have to have their car towed for miles if it breaks down, so most know some degree of car repair. It might be a long wait in the cold on a two lane road without shoulders. They grow gardens, can food, hunt to make up for food shortages, They are used to relying on themselves and not others. Liberals rely on the government for everything, just like people in the city rely on others for everything. Conservatives lean more to personal responsibility, rather than nanny governments.
Religion? Opium? No Difference

Greetings, I look forward to our debate. One thing I would like to point out before I get started is that you say that "gray areas" are "not welcome", and yet, the debate title is quite vague. I will have to assume it was an oversight and hope we can both stick to facts and logic, and not emotional arguments in our debate.The first thing you will have to do here is to provide some evidence to your claim that religion is indeed the cause of "racism, censorship, and slavery". I will cede "divine right", as that is a bit redundant, however, I will also point out that including this in your group of things which religion is the "cause of", and which "people will have to continue to endure" (implying that as long as religion exists, these things will exist) because of, it kind of pokes a hole in your theory right away, as divine right is practically non-existent any longer, and yet religion still exists. "Do you truly believe the pros outweigh the cons?"Yes, I do. In fact, I would go as far as to say that recent archaeological finds show that society as we know it probably would never have existed were it not for religious beliefs. As Charles C. Mann states, "We used to think agriculture gave rise to cities and later to writing, art, and religion. Now the world"s oldest temple suggests the urge to worship sparked civilization." [1] So the question becomes somewhat moot: Would all of these bad things exist without religion? Well, would we even be here to talk about these things were it not for religion? Perhaps we would still be nomads who survived by hunting and gathering. There is no control group for reality!"Is comfort truly more important than logic?"This is unfortunately a loaded question. It implies both that religion is comfortable and that logic is entirely discarded by the adherents of religion. Speaking just for myself and many people I know, our religion is hardly always 'comfortable'. It is in fact quite challenging to keep at it (for example, as an Eastern Orthodox, I am basically a vegan for half of the year through keeping to the fast days), but we do because we believe in it. Also, I was not raised in my religion. I was raised by agnostic parents, and converted in my 30s after much deliberation and study of history, philosophy, and theology. You could say I used logic to arrive at the doorstep of religion. I do intend to use anecdotal evidence such as this once I am responding to your specific claims, I just wanted to give my initial objection in the opening round.I will refrain from making any specific arguments in the opening round about the good done by religion, as I want to first see what it is I need to respond to after you provide evidence for the claims made in yours.Source[1] http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com...
Religion? Opium? No Difference

Sure, religions bring people together and are full of GOOD reasons to exist... but they are also the cause of many vices mankind has faced: Racism, Censorship, Slavery, Divine Right, etc. that countless people have had to endure and will continue to endure because religion will always persist? Do you truly believe the pros outweigh the cons? Is comfort truly more important than logic? Gray area in this argument, as in all arguments, is not welcome.
Zoos do more harm than good.

the sad fact is, that when animals are kept in zoos, more the half the time the animals are living in poor conditions, unlike their natural habitat, this delegation things that the zoos cause more harm then good because they erase the instinct or survival of an animal once bread inside a zoo, after a while the animal will have to depend on humans, for food and shelter.. if the animals were to be freed, the animals would surly die within a short period if time this delegation is strongly with the point that zoos do more harm the good