BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Evolution

Ok... Thanks for the opening statement. C1: modern examples One example is the flu. It evolves often to outmaneuver (or try to) human immunity. The avian flu evolves rapidly. (1) viruses all evolve quickly, and acquire genetic variation. (1) One example. Influenza has many generic changes every flu season, and evolves every year. (2) Now I will use HIV. HIV is one of the fastest evolving entities known to man. (3) It evolves so quikley it evolves out of our treatments (3) 3 examples. There are current examples of evolution in humans. (3) with some humans moving to higher altitudes othere generations are evolving with higher altitude tolerance. (3) There are also brain size evolutions among humans found in 2006 & 7. (4) C2: early proof Fossil record changes (5) Chemical similarities in life forms (5) Geographic distributaion among species (5) Genetic changes from generation to generation (5) Good? I will cp the next part: " Species have the ability to produce more offspring than is necessary to replace themselves (superfecundity) There is a finite pool of resources that is smaller than necessary to allow all offspring to survive Natural populations are of constant size (over the long term) Individuals within a species vary in many characteristics Much of that variation is heritable" (6) That was the early evidence. See. 6 source for rest. C3: empirical evidence Common decent is one argument for evolution, and Darwin and others prove it, in Darwin, 1872 pp 312-317 he explains this theory. (7) Also a more recent person, Gould 2002. Their thesis and conclusions say everything is geologically linked. Although evolution is a theory, we are arguing probability, BOP probably fairly even. Overwhelming evidence supports this theory though. (8) Fossil evidence; Fossil evidence has clearly shown life had changed overtime. Each fossil has clues on the evolutionary process. There are clues at the cellular level, and the physical level. (9) Time and space: Land mass positions are not absolute, and the changes in land positions hint towards evolution due to certian genetic similarities between 2 different beasts. (10) "Establishing chronologies, both relative and absolute, and geographic change over time are essential for viewing the motion picture that is the history of life on Earth." (10) Developmental Homologies; Snakes have legged ancestors. (11) But snakes evolved to no legged creatures. Evolution example. (11) Also baleen whales have toothed ansestors, another example I evolving. (11) =conclusion= Based of of probability evolution is correct, vote pro! I await your response. http://evolution.berkeley.edu... (1) http://www.livescience.com... (2) http://evolution.berkeley.edu... (3) http://www.lurj.org... (4) http://anthro.palomar.edu... (5) http://www.emunix.emich.edu... (6) http://www.talkorigins.org... (7) http://evolution.berkeley.edu... (8) http://evolution.berkeley.edu... (9) http://evolution.berkeley.edu... (10) http:/http://evolution.berkeley.edu... (11)
Abiogenesis Is Possible

Round-3 was supposed to be a rebuttal to the first argument. My main argument was the probability argument. In order to refute my argument, you’ll have to show me exactly where I went wrong. What you have done was to provide another alternative probability calculation (Your version of it). You have never showed me where I went wrong in my calculations. Well, to be fair, you did provide a response to the right hand left hand assumption as well as the peptide non-peptide assumption. But that’s a funny story J. The whole purpose of these assumptions was to give a probability of the creation of a 32 long protein, given a set of amino acids. When I considered my assumptions, I concluded to a probability of 1.08 x 10^-19. After Pro’s refute of my assumptions, he concludes a probability of 4.29 x 10^40!! That’s contradicting the first rule of probabilities (A probability has to be between 0 and 1). So I will assume it was an honest mistake and that he meant 4.29 x 10^-40. If that’s the case, then that is much much much smaller than what I have portrayed (1.08 x 10^-19). This makes me very very happy. Do you see how this is funny?!! Pro refutes my assumptions and then concludes to a probability that agrees more with my views!! That is funny… At least for me J. Regarding the rest of your calculations, I don’t have to refute it because it doesn’t speak to my original argument. In this round, I’m only allowed to defend my argument, not attack a new argument that pro gives. So to make this simple, my argument hasn’t been touched as I have explained. And therefore, I have nothing to defend. I don’t need to defend the factual numbers I relied on. I don’t even need to defend the rational deduction method I used in my calculations, because none of those were attacked. Oh yeah, I almost forgot. Pro mentioned that “one simply cannot be accurate probability calculations for something as inherently complex as biological abiogenesis”. That is totally true. It is too complex to calculate it accurately. I mentioned that!! However, we can be too generous with the numbers (or cutting Abiogenesis some slack) to the extent that we are sure the probability we calculated is much bigger than what it actually is.Peace
Abiogenesis Is Possible

You have aked to debate this, so here is the challenge.Full ResolutionAbiogenesis is possible.BoP is on pro.DefinitionsAbiogenesis: "The supposed development of living organisms from nonliving matter."[1]Possible: "Capable of happening, existing, or being true without contradicting proven facts, laws, or circumstances."[2]Rules1. The first round is for acceptance.2. A forfeit or concession is not allowed.3. No semantics, trolling, or lawyering.4. All arguments and sources 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.Voters, in the case of the breaking of any of these rules by either debater, all seven points in voting should be given to the other person.Debate StructureRound 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Presenting all arguments (no rebuttals by con)Round 3: Refutation of opponent's arguments (no new arguments)Round 4: Defending your original arguments and conclusion (no new arguments)Sources[1]: http://www.thefreedictionary.com...[2]: http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
The legalization of Marijuana in the United States would benefit all Americans.

"Bill is a small business owner. He owns a real estate business in Kansas. Now, he's having trouble, because people aren't moving to Kansas. People are moving away from the mid-west. Now, as people get jobs to grow Marijuana, they will most likely move out towards the bigger cities, as there will be a bigger market, and they will have the money to go there. That will lead to a lot of empty houses in Kansas, driving the property value way down. Not so good for Bill. " Don't worry voters, Bill will be fine. People are actually moving to the mid-west to grow Marijuana. Saying that "as people get jobs to grow Marijuana, they will most likely move out towards the bigger cities" is completely far fetched. Nobody would grow Marijuana in a big city for the lack of soil, fertile or dry, period. There would not be enough soil in the cities to grow Marijuana. People would move to Kansas to start in the Marijuana business, and they would ultimately buy land from Bill, therefore promoting the real estate business. And you say that they will move towards the bigger cities, but Kansas has big cities also. Just consider Wichita. Over 355,000 people live in Wichita. Big enough to call it a bigGER city? I think so.
The legalization of Marijuana in the United States would benefit all Americans.

Thank you for your very quick response! Sorry it took me so long to get back, I had some things to finish up. I see what you're trying to say, but I feel like that's a big claim. It will help people with glaucoma, people who want to use marijuana for recreation, and people who would get a job. But to say that legalizing a drug would save the economy is a bit far-fetched. Once again, I'm not arguing that it won't benefit a lot of people, I'm arguing that it won't benefit EVERYONE. That means I only need to find one American who it won't benefit. Bill is a small business owner. He owns a real estate business in Kansas. Now, he's having trouble, because people aren't moving to Kansas. People are moving away from the mid-west. Now, as people get jobs to grow Marijuana, they will most likely move out towards the bigger cities, as there will be a bigger market, and they will have the money to go there. That will lead to a lot of empty houses in Kansas, driving the property value way down. Not so good for Bill. There you go. Resolution negated. Vote CON. I am looking forward to your response!
The legalization of Marijuana in the United States would benefit all Americans.

I shouldn't need to make this very long. Next would be, "Now, the resolution is that the legalization of Marijuana would benefit ALL Americans. Now, I do support legalizing cannabis because I feel that the benefits outweigh the risks. But saying that it would benefit every single American seems like a stretch to me. " How the legalization of Marijuana would benefit all Americans is mainly by opening somewhere close to 200,000 new jobs (factory workers, farmers, cooperate jobs, etc. ), and it would promote a strong economy. It WOULD also benefit people with Glaucoma though.
The legalization of Marijuana in the United States would benefit all Americans.

Now, the resolution is that the legalization of Marijuana would benefit ALL Americans. Now, I do support legalizing cannabis because I feel that the benefits outweigh the risks. But saying that it would benefit every single American seems like a stretch to me. I feel like Marijuana would benefit people with Glaucoma and people who want to smoke Marijuana for recreation. I am neither. It might soothe my conscience if Marijuana was legalized, but that's about it. I feel like it's comparable to tobacco being legal, although tobacco is more dangerous than cannabis. I would consider myself to be worse off since tobacco is legal. I don't smoke (I would be MUCH worse off if I did, though), but I don't really appreciate second-hand smoke either. It is hurting the air quality, and so I am not benefited from tobacco being legal. I am looking forward to your next argument!
The legalization of Marijuana in the United States would benefit all Americans.

"I would like to debate this topic again. This is one of my favorite topics, and in my last debate over this topic, my opponent only posted one round. " The legalization of Marijuana in the United States would benefit all Americans. 1. The distribution/use of alcohol is FAR more dangerous than the distribution/use of Marijuana. 2. The alcohol industries and tobacco industries have both flourished in any economy, why wouldn't the Marijuana industry flourish? 3. Marijuana is already being distributed all over the United States, why not use it to help the economy? 4. There are an average of 0 Marijuana related deaths in the United States every year, however, there are 435,000 tobacco related deaths each year plus and additional 85,000 alcohol related deaths each year. This is 520,000 more deaths, on average, a year than deaths resulting from the use of Marijuana. 5. Not everybody would have to use Marijuana or buy Marijuana related products for the industry to flourish. The tobacco and alcohol industries flourish, and neither can boast 100% of American's behind them. 6. The Marijuana industry would employ at least 200,000 Americans. I know this because we have already seen this trend in the tobacco industry. (. http://www.corpwatch.org...) These are just some of my main points.
The Master and Margarita is the Best Russian Novel of the 20th Century

Anyone actually interested may say so in the comments. By 'the Master and Margarita', I am referring to the fictional novel written by Mikhail Bulgakov between 1928-1940, and eventually published in 1966. In addition things that will judged and apply to the term 'best' will be the and the overall storyline [.IE how it starts, what happens, how it develops and how it concludes] and theme. As well as the characters involved and the historical context that it was written. Moreover, the success of the book and how its endured will most certainly apply. Con will have to argue that it is not the best Russian Novel of the 20th Century and/or argue for another [Russian] novel in that period that they consider better--which is preferable. **Debate Structure** -Round one acceptance and any opening statements. -Round two arguments. -Round three defence on arguments and rebuttals. -Round four further rebuttals to each case and closing arguments. **Rules** -No semantics. -Con *must* accept the debate as it is and there must be no attempt to change/alter the resolution. For example Con cannot argue things along the lines of 'it's too subjective' to conclude what is the *best* Russian novel of the 20th century, if they do attempt to do this, I WIN. Con's task is to refer to the literature only and provide a case revolving exclusively around that. There will be a ten day voting period with a select a winner system.
The US government should define what a religion is not.

Once again, my opponent has forfeited his/her round. I shall use the final round to persuade voters to vote for me: - Neutral on GRAMMAR and SOURCES. -However my opponent has forfeited 2 rounds which means he/she did not see this debate through to the end. Hence I appeal to voters to vote for me on the point of CONDUCT. I also ask voters to vote for me on the point of CONVINCING ARGUMENTS since the forfeiting of my opponent shows that he/she was persuaded by my arguments. :)
The US government should define what a religion is not.

I accept this debate What does the US government gain from establishing this definition? If anything it will only bring about controversy to a country already hated so much by the world. Establishing a definition of religion will bring controversy because there may be people who consider themselves religious but they do not fit to the US government's definition of religion and may be defined as atheists or agnostics which the people might hate. This is just a general hypothetical response, before I can do any proper rebuttals however, I need my opponent to specify exactly what should be the 'government's definition of religion' and I ask him/her to do so. My opponent stated that "A group of people who believe in the eradication or subjugation of another group of people because they believe differently is not a religion." What does eradication or another group have to do with religion? I ask my opponent to clarify and specify what is exactly being said here.
universal healthcare

from your "moral" argument, you believe that healthcare should be rationed based on how much money you make. i would venture to say that most people would disagree with that idea because it would mean that some billionaire should receive better care than a kid from a middle class family that had no control over what economic class they were born into. you claim that obesity is the reason that the U.S. spends more on healthcare. one of the reasons that other countries like Canada have lower obesity rates is because they have universal healthcare. their greater emphasis on health for their citizens and preventative care contributes to a healthier lifestyle. we also have a higher infant mortality rate than many other countries, even though we spend the most on healthcare. im not saying that we should have the highest life expectancy and lowest infant mortality rate just because we spend a massive amount more on healthcare than other countries, there are always other factors involved but its not right that we are so far behind. you would think that if we are spending 90% more on healthcare than many industrialized nations, that we wouldn't be ranked 37th in the world on healthcare for our citizens. i don't think you can completely rule out the fact that a lot of it is the result of everyone having quality coverage in countries with universal healthcare, while many Americans don't. you bring up the cost growth rate in countries with universal healthcare. Americas slowed cost growth rate isn't surprising because we are in a recession and people have less money to spend on their health but you must remember that an increasing healthcare expenditure is normal and if the cost growth slows, that is a bad sign that people are becoming less able to afford care they need in America. increased healthcare spending in countries with universal healthcare isn't always an entirely bad thing because that means people are receiving care they need. no system is perfect, and there will always be complaints but if canadas health system is ranked higher than ours, then that goes to show how much better our system could be with universal healthcare because we have way more money than Canada. you claim that hospitals lose money on medicare. the cost of health services and drugs in America is higher than it is in countries that have universal healthcare, this is the other problem with non govt run healthcare. hospitals charge much more for services in America than in other countries, because universal healthcare drives down the cost of services and goods. this is an example of how universal healthcare helps eliminate greed out of the equation, not only for coverage, but also for care providers. i think we've all heard the stories of hospitals charging $100 for a rag that was used, there is a Washington post article that goes into this subject, titled "Why an MRI costs $1,080 in America and $280 in France". i have responded to your claims, now please address the rest of my points that i made in round one.
Can God create a rock so big he can't lift it, or can he not create the rock? answer is yes...

I believe I have understood the main contentions of my opponent's case, but some of the wording seems a bit illogical. However, I accept this debate merely based on the fact that the paradox presented by this premise is a fallacious one. My opponent claims that the answer is yes, but to do so with utter certainty requires assumptions that she cannot reasonably make. My opponent must, for instance, know of a God. Further, this God must be omnipotent. Further still, according to my opponents case, despite His omnipotence He is bound by the human understanding of the laws of logic. All of these things must be arbitrarily accepted to even begin to consider the validity of my opponent's conclusion of "yes". This is, however, not the case. This paradox is unanswerable because the parts of it are undefinable (objectively). Therefore, my opponent's premise is false in that it provides an answer to a paradox that cannot exist with any objective validity.
Can God create a rock so big he can't lift it, or can he not create the rock? answer is yes...

I'm not sure if I entirely understand the content of my opponent's previous round, but I believe I grasp the main idea. Ultimately, the problem with this debate is that my opponent advocates that this paradox is answerable, and that it is answerable in the affirmative. Whether or not my opponent intended to enter into a theological debate is irrelevant to the fact that it follows by necessity from the resolution and is ultimately the key weakness in her case. Because the only way my opponent's conclusion could be validated would be through knowledge that is necessarily unknowable, her argument is invalid.
Can God create a rock so big he can't lift it, or can he not create the rock? answer is yes...

that you for pointing out all the hidden assumptions. it is a shame we differ on where we would like the debate to go. i stand by my resolution not to engage these issues in this debate. it's not like con and i haven't engaged in 'does God exist' type debates before, so it's not like im trying to compeltely avoid the issue. im not just into debating that stuff, and given my focus is clearly not gearted towards that stuff, i dont feel all that bad about not tackling it. again, if voters want to penalize me for not taking the, admittedly valid, approach offered by con, so be it.
Can God create a rock so big he can't lift it, or can he not create the rock? answer is yes...

As Pro hasn't offered a direct concession I cannot treat her previous statement as such. Indeed, this debate might have been more interesting if Pro had mandated that certain assumptions be made by both sides as starting points in this debate. However, that is not the case, as is indicated by the fact that she provides an answer to the paradox within the resolution. To that I offer the contention that that answer is unattainable without accepting certain unknowable concepts (such as omnipotent sentient force, etc.,). I would hope that this debate does not end so quickly, but will understand if it does.
Can God create a rock so big he can't lift it, or can he not create the rock? answer is yes...

well, i admit there are a lot of impied assmptions one must make when taking this debate. most people approach it as in "if God as the unlimited does exist..." and then they argue about it. i respect con's points, but this is not the direction i wanted the debate to go, so will not proceed further with it. these are other debates for different times. if ya all want to vote against me for it, so be it.
The No Child Left Behind program hinders the more capable.

What is left to say? My opponent has folded under the weight of my argument. The allegations made against the NCLB program were inconsistent - my opponent claimed that no standardized testing made schools lower their standards, but then complained about standardized tests and how schools only teach the material that's on the tests. All the information in the curriculum is taught regardless. The more capable students will know this information before the test, and will do well. It is ridiculous to assume that the school should teach at the pace of the fastest kids. The public school system is made for everyman, not for the elite. This is true with and without NCLB. IF you're unsatisfied with the learning pace, find a private or charter school that fits your needs. For instance, from 4th grade until 8th grade, I went to a Montessori school. Since it was also a charter school, it was free. Montessori schools are built around the idea that everyone should learn at their own pace. Thus, I was able to learn far more there than I would have in a traditional school. This is what my opponent expects of the Public School System, but it simply would not happen, with or without No Child Left Behind. No Child Left Behind only hurts the taxpayers. It does nothing but help students, by providing better teachers and other financial benefits, like a better library or something. So yeah. My opponent forfeited, so that's it.