BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Atheism is not a religion.

It seems my opponent has forfeited, so I'll use this round to reinforce my case. I extend all of my arguments.If Atheism is a religion...then bald is a hair color.then health is a disease.then pedestrians should be ticketed for driving their cars too far under the speed limit.then what's the opposite of religion and what would you call someone who has no religion?then bears are still Catholic, and the Pope still craps in the woods.then cremation is a fashion statement and 0 is a quantity.then absence is presence and you can never be lonely for anyone ever again because they are always with you.then does that mean Christians have 2 religions since they also don't believe in all of the other gods?then transparent is a color.then abstinence is a form of sex.then the Taliban is a Goodwill Organizationthen a blank DVD is a movie and a blank word document is an essay (try telling that to a teacher).then being a nonsmoker is a smoking habit.then unemployment is a career.[4]SummaryAtheists don’t have imaginary friends, so they don’t build places to worship to appease them; they don’t create objects to appease their imaginary friends, nor do they create elaborate rituals with those objects that serve absolutely no function. Atheism is not a religion, it’s just an identification of people who do not have imaginary friends.Sources[1] http://www.etymonline.com...[2] http://www.etymonline.com...[3] http://www.iep.utm.edu...[4] http://atheism.about.com...;
Atheism is not a religion.

I don't. My opponent needs to understand that in order to debate properly, he must form a resolution and clearly define his terms. If he doesn't then what's the purpose of the debate. Religion is a very vague term and clearly my opponent has structured the debate in order for it to be semantical as he failed to define this crucial term. Since he hasn't, I'll teach him a valuable lesson in debate by defining it for him. Religion: A positive claim about the origin of the universe. Atheism: A positive claim that the universe originated of its own accord without the help of any supernatural power commonly referred to as God. This interpretation of religion has been upheld by numerous court cases: the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has ruled that Wisconsin prison officials violated an inmate's rights because they did not treat atheism as a religion. "Atheism is [the inmate's] religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being," the Seventh Circuit declared. [1] Sources: . http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com...
Atheism is not a religion.

Resolution: Atheism is not a religion.Rules: (1) Debater must have typing experience and internet access.(2) Place your arguments and sources inside the debate(3) Structure the debate in a readable, coherent fashion.(4) No semantics, trolling, or lawyering.(5) Must insert one witty quote per round.Rounds: (1) Acceptance + Internet High Five(2) Main Argument (3) Rebuttal to opponent's main argument (4) Response to rebuttal + closing arguments + voting issues (one paragraph)"DOGMA: A lie imperiously reiterated and authoritatively injected into the mind of one or more persons who believe they believe what some one else believes." -Ambrose Bierce"The difference between religions and cults is determined by how much real estate is owned." -Frank ZappaI accept this debate which I have thusly created and challenge those of rhetorical wizardry to a verbal duel. With my hand elevated and ready for forearm pronation, I slap yours in a ritualistic manner. Good luck to whomever accepts, and may the Gods smile upon you during this debate.Kittens!
Social sciences value

To begin with, we must define social sciences by taking a look at the multiple disciplines of social science: 1. Anthropology 2. Communication studies 3.Economics 4.Education 5.Geography 6.History 7.Law 8.Linguistics 9.Political science 10.Psychology 11.Sociology Con makes a blanket assertion that all social sciences have no application in the real world. Therefore, I only need to argue for a couple of the disciplines of social science to disprove this. Economics: One of the cornerstones of civilization. If the economy is a mess like it is in the United States, wouldn't it be useful to have people who are experts in economics to help piece things back together. The economy affects almost everyone in the world in one way or another so economics is applicable to the real world. I don't really need to provide any other evidence as it is Con that makes this blanket assertion that all social sciences don't have value. https://en.wikipedia.org...
The Beatles are the most influential band in history.

Although this debate is finished I thought I would good give my final thoughts. Yes Queen is a terrific band, but we were debating who was a more influential band. From the support given by both sides I'd say it is quite clear that The Beatles are the most influential band in history. Just incase this point is still not clear lets take one last look at a point yet brought up, the Beatles mark on society. The Beatles changed society forever. From the way the talked to the way they dress the Beatles managed to be the first ones doing it. Just think of the amount of kids named Michelle. Or the amount of hair cuts done just to make it look similar to that of the Beatles. And of course my personal favorite the nehru jacket. The Beatles changed society and music for the rest of time. Thank you for debating, I truly enjoyed our time spent.
The Beatles are the most influential band in history.

It's not necessarily true to say without the British Invasion Queen wouldn't have formed. Perhaps their success in America would've come later in their career, but even if The Beatles never formed or came to America, Queen still could've formed. It's safe to say the Invasion deinitely supported their formation, but wasn't certainly the cause. The Beatles were definitely an incredible and successful band. However, their music, while well sold, is very simple pop. Queen's music itself is complex and innovative. Their songs have been likened to that of mini-musicals, with their hit "Bohemian Rhapsody (1975)" has six acts, or sections. It begins with an intro, then ballad, then guitar solo, then opera, then heavy metal, ending with an outro. In one song they were able to incorporate so many different types and styles of music, flowing together seemlessly. Throughout their career, they have has eighteen number one albums and eighteen number one singles. In 2002, Bohemian Rhapsody was even voted, in the United Kingdom, the favorite hit of all time. It can even be said Queen created their own genre: theatrical rock. The various "acts" in Bohemian Rhapsody were basically unheard of in rock music before they put a stamp on it. Though they have a plethora of well known songs, like the previously mentioned "Bohemian Rhapsody", "We Will Rock You" and "We Are The Champions" are just a few world-wide knwon monstrous songs. "We Will Rock You" has become the most played song in sporting events ever. It doesn't need to be complex. The song is alsmot all accapella and stomping, with a short guitar solo at the end. When you're as good as Queen, that's all you need to create one of the most cherished and most played songs of all time. Not only are they stellar on album, but arguably even better live. They have ten number one selling DVD's showcasing the critical reception of their live performances. Their performace at 1985's Live Aid is often deemed the greatest live rock performance of all time. The Beatles were one of the most important musical acts in world history. They were able to branch over to America and became superstars. However, Queen created music unimaginable to most, becoming the greatest rock band of all time.
Tax evasion is not morally wrong at all.

Just because you don't like the government doesnt mean you can evade tax. This is stupid. If you live in a village that has never seen a police officer, Interacted with government and never used a road, I can argue for this. But if you used ANY government strucutres means that you are a hypocrite. How come you use things other people make and you get protected with guns while you just say that you will not pay for it. Corrupt politicians are likely very rare actually. In russia it isnt rare but it is not in hell. Tax evasion is bad. It is illegal. It is wrong. You can't leach off the government. Violence (in the US) has not been used. Prison time and fines are used. Tax Evasion is WRONG. If you think not, I will take your device that you are using to write and not give anything back. Wrong? Your arguments are communistic, Which is STUPID.
Tax evasion is not morally wrong at all.

The world is being ruled by a class of wealthy people who get whatever they want from our corporatist crony capitalist countries that are just filled up with corrupt politicians. In today's society, If you don't like the government your being ruled by, You shouldn't violently forced to pay for it. The fact that they have to threaten people with violence to pay tax, Is pathetic and just helps distinguish the fact that they are corrupt and are not liked by almost anyone except those who benefit from the corruption.
Evolution: Gaps + Gaps

.. .My opponent hasn't rebutted my "overlaying of different taxonomies" evidence in this round, and he hasn't rebutted my "psychological atavism" argument either. So I extend both arguments. Now, how much times do I have to state this: fossils aren't the only evidence proving evolution. Yes, it's the main and core ideal of our argument concerning evolution, but I pointed out further evidence. As for chromosome 2, that youtube video cannot prove it incorrect. Further evidence for chromosome 2 includes:The presence of a vestigial centromere. Normally a chromosome has just one centromere, but in chromosome 2 there are remnants of a second centromere. [8]The presence of vestigial telomeres. These are normally found only at the ends of a chromosome, but in chromosome 2 there are additional telomere sequences in the middle. [9]Chromosome 2 presents very strong evidence in favour of the common descent of humans and other apes. According to researcher J. W. IJdo, "We conclude that the locus cloned in cosmids c8.1 and c29B is the relic of an ancient telomere-telomere fusion and marks the point at which two ancestral ape chromosomes fused to give rise to human chromosome 2. " [9]In conclusion because of my two unrefuted arguments combined with my strong case of chromosome two, it seems obvious that I am the winner. Vote Con. [8] . http://link.springer.com...[9] . http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
Evolution: Gaps + Gaps

I'm sorry. Last round I said Darwinian evolution isn't supported. I forgot an important word in there. I meant to say, "Darwinian evolution isn't fully supported". But this does not mean it isn't true. While there may be some types of wacky exclusion of his theory, his theory is generally proved correct by the intriguing fossils of the "cross-bread" of one species to another, creating our current species. What can further prove this is the fact that there are more than one hundred transitional fossils in the human species itself! And plus, many traits are shared by the common ancestor of a few species. For example, only mammals have hair, only sea species have gills, and these common traits make it possible for scientists to categorize all living things into genus, family, species, etc. Now, down to the Straw-man, my opponent's biggest mistake yet. I spotted it earlier and wasn't quite sure it was there. But I examined it again and saw it. "The problem with human judgement is that it tends to see things that are there even if they're not really there. " This exactly is what Pro did wrong. He says "Con claims that macro-evolution is a theory and a fact". What? ? I never said this? I never talked about macro-evolution, I said evolution in general. I never even mentioned Darwin! It is because the lack of micro-evolution, I suppose con has conceded that part of the argument. Actually, I lied. :P My opponent's Straw-man isn't his biggest mistake. His real biggest mistake is the fact that he knows absolutely nothing about macro vs micro evolution. I was going to point it out earlier, but since I'm nice, I was saving this argument for this round. So, what is micro-evolution, and what is macro-evolution? Well, according to . http://evolution.berkeley.edu..., "Microevolution happens on a small scale (within a single population), while macroevolution happens on a scale that transcends the boundaries of a single species. " This shows that my opponent has no idea whatsoever what macro and micro evolution are. Furthermore, my opponent has no idea what a biology theory is! While a scientific theory is what he says it is in the first round, biology theories are basically rules that bound the world that can be used to predict future events! Other examples of biology theories are the cell theory, the gravity theory, and the Interpolation theory. These are all proven by so much evidence and experiments that new evidence only refines it a little bit, as said by . http://www.nas.edu....As you can all see my opponent is a mere noob (zero elo, hello? ) with zero knowledge on this topic disguising himself using very flimsy evidence. (no offense. ) Case countered.
Evolution: Gaps + Gaps

Judging by Patrick Matthes's theory, I really don't see any studies confirming his prediction. I suppose Matthes made an assumption that the supposed mass extinction led to evolution. However, it does not explain how the unoccupied field created new divergence of life nor backed up with any empirical evidence if I'm not mistaken. Since you claim there is evidence for it, you would need to cite sources to justify that claim. Speaking of Matthes's theory, Gould created the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium to explain away why the fossils showed no links. The theory predicts that all living groups go into what is called stasis for long periods of time when suddenly they evolve very quickly and go back to stasis again for a very long time. This theory is accepted by some scientists, but highly controversial to gradual evolutionists including the famous atheist Richard Dawkins. Having two theories in this debate will clearly take us nowhere. My opponent claims that I call transitional fossils non-existent: Actually, I never called them non-existent. I was just pointing out that the evidence to justify Darwinian evolution is very lacking and should therefore, not be considered a fact. Transitional fossils in wikipedia: The problem with the transitional fossils you cited is that they are ambiguous and therefore, easily deceptive. Our minds are great at detecting patterns, even if they're not related. The problem with human judgement is that it tends to see things that are there even if they're not really there. It is a psychological process called confirmation bias. The fact that those fossils supposedly contain very few traits and that life is extremely complex shows just how easy it can be to mistake something. There are even paleontologists that disagree with the transitional fossils really being transitional. So to answer your question, no it can't be considered evidence for evolution. It can be considered evidence of its existence but definitely not evolution. Your turn, con.
Evolution: Gaps + Gaps

http://phys.org...Yes, what you say is true. Darwinian evolution isn't supported. However, the new evolution theory by Patrick Matthes is more supported, as seen in the source above. Matthew stresses that mass extinctions were crucial to the process of evolution: "...all living things must have reduced existence so much, that an unoccupied field would be formed for new diverging ramifications of life... these remnants, in the course of time moulding and accommodating ... to the change in circumstances." This makes sense, because natural selection cuts down the beings who cannot live because they are unable to live through a disaster, and the ones that do live are eventually stronger.If evolution really happens through a catashrophic event, how can they be recorded? It is incredibly painstaking and nearly impossible to record something so dangerous that wipes out an entire species that doesn't wipe out the recorder.Furthermore, the last quote is a logical fallacy. My opponent is hinting that "if transitions aren't recorded, then they didn't exist" (because if the transitions didn't exist, they can't be recorded). The converse is not necessarily true for reasons stated above. In addition, I will give evidence of evolution/transition. Please see this wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org.... Is that not enough evidence availible to support the theory of evolution? Even human evolution alone has many many fossils that support the theory that animals become generally, more and more powerful and adaptable as natural selection goes on. This wikipedia page clearly shows that humans have went through evolution, supporting the theory: http://en.wikipedia.org....Onto you, pro.
Evolution: Gaps + Gaps

Just to avoid the ambiguity here, I would first like to clarify the terminology for evolution. There are two types of evolution: micro-evolution & macro-evolution. Micro-evolution involves genetic changes within the species inheritance spectrum whereas macro-evolution involves genetic changes outside the inheritance spectrum. The former and the latter can best be described as the 'apple-orange' analogy. When an apple is red or green, we call that micro-evolution because the apple is still an apple: just similar appearances. This is quite equivalent with the horse fossil record. They're both big/small and different in appearance, but still considered to be in the horse inheritance. On the other hand, macro-evolution involves increases of genetic information outside the species inheritance spectrum. Just like the apple-orange analogy: the apple would evolve into an orange after millions of years. The principle of the apple evolving into an orange is known as macro-evolution. In this argument I will be focusing on macro-evolution (not micro) because that's what Darwin's theory predicts. Darwin predicted that there should be many modifications of species gradually evolving into an entirely new class of species (like fish turning into mammal) after millions and millions of years. Con claims that macro-evolution is a theory and a fact. However, what Con fails to realize is that evolution is not supported by the fossil record given that there are links missing and that genetics oppose it. For example, different species to >missing links< to horse. This problem is accepted by atheist such as Richard Dawkins and paleontologists. Here are their response: "We find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolution history" (The Blind Watchmaker, p. 229). Prof. Richard Dawkins of Oxford University, "This regular absence of transitional forms is not confined to mammals, but is an almost universal phenomenon, as has long been noted by paleontologists. It is true of almost all orders of all classes of animals...and it is apparently also true of analogous categories of plants" (Tempo and Mode in Evolution, p. 105). "It is thus possible to claim that such transitions are not recorded because they did not exist" (The Meaning of Evolution, p. 231). - The world famous evolutionist and paleontologist Dr. Gaylord Simpson A279; As you can see, macro or Darwinian evolution is really not supported by scientific evidence and therefore, not a fact. The concept that a mammal can evolve into a fish or bird has yet to be identified. I will let my opponent Con refute my arguments.
Evolution: Gaps + Gaps

I suppose round one is for acceptance but pro has not said anything about rules concerning the rounds themselves. Thus I will accept and say my opening statement, saving my big broad information for later. So, normally, a theory is a conclusion based on little evidence. However, the scientific theory is quite different-- It refers to an understandable explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. There are some theories that are so supported by facts, they most likely cannot be turned over by any new evidence. The theory of evolution is one of them. It is because it is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that it is a theory. An incredible one, too. However, many parts of the theory are still subject to change, although in very small ways, it can still change, as new technologies are invented to enable observations and experiments that were not possible before. It is because of its ever-changing nature that it is a theory, not some never-to-be-changed statement.In conclusion evolution is a theory and a fact.http://www.nas.edu...;
Evolution: Gaps + Gaps

Evolution, despite what others claim, is not a scientific theory. A scientific theory is nothing but a hypothesis that has been widely supported by experimental evidence from independent researchers. Evolution, on the other hand, does not satisfy this statement. Now before I proceed, I will let my Con make his case: You must: (a) oppose my argument (b) no copying/pasting or trolling (c) provide reasons/evidence to the table Good luck.