BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Evolution is backed by scientific evidence

Ok, so I guess this is kind of a summary now, the final round. You say, and I think you are right, that design is a last resort in [contemporary] science, and this is why biologists must have a bias against design. This is the contemporary thinking, but let's be clear: This is ideology, not science. It's bad thinking in any field to pre-decide what explanations you will allow. So we find that intelligent design is not rejected because it fails to explain the evidence, but because of an ideological stance. I can't agree that "small RNA knots were the first lifeforms" is a hypothesis. A hypothesis is a proposed explanation of evidence, but in this case there isn't even any evidence to explain. It's pure speculation. There's nothing wrong with speculation, as long as we're clear that pure speculation is what's commonly known as "wild guess". I guess I would summarize my position as this: 1) Intelligent design explains all the evidence nicely. Design is a well known phenomenon and what we know of it makes it a likely candidate for the origin(s) of life. It's hardly necessary to defend the basic concept since life so obviously 'works' as something that was designed on purpose. The similarities between the species are explained by design re-use; it points to a single designer. 2) Evolution fails because the proposed mechanisms are grossly inadequate. In the crime dramas, they say a suspect must have Means, Motive, and Opportunity. In a crude analogy, evolution has the motive (survival) and the opportunity (long ages), but not the means. It's like a suspect in a strangling case who hated the victim and has no alibi for the time of crime. But this suspect lost both arms in Afghanistan, so he doesn't have the means to have strangled the victim. So, thanks for a civil debate, W3. It's been real!
Evolution is backed by scientific evidence

The reason that biologists must keep in mind that things are without design is because it is a last resort in science. God is an unnecessary addition to most theories - in almost every case, there is a simpler one that is secular.Regarding your claim that DNA is a precondition for evolution: there are several hypotheses explaining how DNA may potentially have come about. Scientists recently found a way that RNA could be created using what is currently believed to be the conditions of the early earth, and hypothesize that small RNA knots were the first lifeforms. It's just a hypothesis, though.I see ne reason not to inductively reason from evolving viruses and bacteria that major changes could happen.On imperfection - being able to remove certain parts is indeed not imperfection. I was comparing them to certain vestigial organs.Speaking of which, further examples of vestigial organs:
Evolution is backed by scientific evidence

I will argue for evolution; Con argues for Creationism.There are several facts that back up the theory of evolution.1. FossilsThere is a clear and documented progression of fossils throughout the fossil record, including hundreds of fossils of transitional species like Ambulocetus natans(pakicetid to whale) and Homo habilis(Gorilla-like ape to human).2. Microevolutionary experimentsThere have been experiments in which new species are created in a lab - in fact, several have been done with flies. New species can develop in small, isolated populations of flies after several years.If (as is very likely) life on earth has been aroud for billions of years, it is probable that evolution happened on a larger scale.3. ImperfectionThe human body has several "vestigial" organs - organs with no clear purpose. The wisdom teeth, tailbone, and some ligaments are examples.Also, there are several examples of "bad design" such as the fact that images are reflected on the retina upside-down and that the brain is more emotion-driven than reason-driven.
Farnce is in colonization of Malie for mines of Gold and uranuim.

"Burkina Faso, Niger, Nigeria and Togo over the weekend pledged to quickly send some 500 troops each to help Mali's war effort.this support my claim that France control africans countries."In my last rebuttal, I already explained why this line of argument is entirely irrelevant, and you continued it? Again, we are not arguing about France controlling African countries, we are arguing about France being in colonization of Mali for gold and uranuim mines.Pro has failed to either post relevant arguments or address mine -- extend my arguments.
Farnce is in colonization of Malie for mines of Gold and uranuim.

“i don't your argument about gold !” I don’t -see- your argument about gold? Is that what you’re asking? I told you why I don’t have an argument against your gold argument: I don’t have one. I too think France is using Mali for its gold supply. “you believe everything you hear ? they said "small supply of uranium" and you believed that ? you have no idea about corruption in Africa” I have given evidence to support my claims. Even if I have no idea of the corruption in Mali (not Africa because that was not part of the resolution), my arguments could still be valid. Trying to discredit my argument through a personal attack is called Ad Hominem, which is a logical fallacy. I warn you that generalised and/or unsupported rebuttals will not suffice as counter-arguments. If there are problems with my sources, please point them out. “most africans countries are controlled by France” This is not relevant to the resolution. I ask again: please only post content relevant to the argument.
Farnce is in colonization of Malie for mines of Gold and uranuim.

I’ll start with a counter-argument: According to your resolution, your latter argument is not relevant Your resolution is “Farnce is in colonization of Malie for mines of Gold and uranuim,” not what will happen because of this. You first have to affirm the resolution before you can make further claims which require the resolution to be affirmed. Therefore, according to your resolution, your latter argument is irrelevant. Please keep your arguments relevant to your resolution. My argument: Mali has an extremely small supply of uranium Mali fails to register as a world leading uranium resource[1], being, at the most, 1% of the world’s production. Mali also fails to have uranium production that is worthy of note (i.e. doesn’t appear here in these statistics about uranium production[2]. So what exactly is Mali’s supply of uranium? According to Consultancy Africa [3], “Several companies in Mali are currently carrying out uranium exploration in the Falea and Gao regions, where the uranium potential is estimated to be 5,200 tonnes”. Take this into consideration: the world had 5.3 million tonnes recoverable by the end of 2011[1]. Especially if you consider that France uses 10500 tonnes of uranium each year[4], it seems like a lot of effort for little reward. Why would France be interested in Mali’s supply of uranium when it barely has any? [1] http://www.world-nuclear.org... [2] http://www.world-nuclear.org... [3] http://www.consultancyafrica.com... [4] http://www.world-nuclear.org... I actually think France colonising Mali for their gold, but since your resolution claimed both gold and uranium, I only have to dismiss one in order to dismiss the resolution. Your turn.
Farnce is in colonization of Malie for mines of Gold and uranuim.

http://en.wikipedia.org... 2006 Statistics , Malie is in position 8 of countries producers of gold . when rebels took the control, France didn't say anything because it support them to have gold and uranium..., islamists want 1 thing , to apply the law of islam , Fance start war . In January 2012, an armed conflict broke out in northern Mali, which Tuareg rebels took control by April and declared the secession of a new state, Azawad.[10] There was then a full scale military coup by the Mali military in March[11] and fighting between Tuareg and Islamist rebels, the latter of whom later seized most of northern Mali. In response to Islamist gains, the French military launched Op"ration Serval in Janurary 2013, intervening in the conflict.[12]
The rapper DMX is a good moral role model to the world's youth

It's good to see my opponent return to the debate however he has made some outlandish claims:"DMX is an authority on religion, culture, and lastly, morality." How is a rapper, who has been arrested several times for numerous different crimes an authority on anything other than how to behave like a public nuisance (and maybe how to be a rapper)? He also provides song lyrics to prove his case, why doesn't really show how DMX is a good moral role model, just that he can right music. However part of the song has to be censored, which means that he must be using fowl language which is not something that young people should be emulating. Pro has also not offered any rebuttal to my points from the last round meaning that they still stand unrefuted and accepted.
The rapper DMX is a good moral role model to the world's youth

DMX is an authority on religion, culture, and lastly, morality. "And I'm gonna be the one behind just to keep you on your toes I be your extra eyes and hold you down around your foes I be your extra gun you need me let me know For my dogs I be the first to **** it back and let it go They do it for the dough me I do it for the love You my ***** to the death so I treat you like my blood If push comes to shove and they try to send you back to the street I give my last to put you back on your feet, feel me" [1] DMX fights for his dogs, and his dogs fight for him. He's one altruistic mofo. Back to Con. [1] http://www.lyrics007.com...
The rapper DMX is a good moral role model to the world's youth

I will keep this brief, I don't want to put a lot of effort in if my opponent is not going to return to the debate. Earl Simmons, otherwise known as DMX is a terrible role model for today's youth. I think it's pretty obvious that a man convicted of cocaine possession, driving without a license, possession of a weapon, drink driving, animal cruelty and theft is not a person that you want to idolise or imitate. Now my opponent may claim that DMX is a good role model because of his conversion to faith. But this just adds even more reason why he should not be looked upon as a good moral example by the worlds youth. The message that this sends to young people is that it doesn't matter if you break the law several times and live a life of crime, without any regard for the rest of society, as long as you then decide to start preaching afterwards. If this a good message? Do we really want to tell people that they can do whatever they like and then if they decide to study the bible we forget about all the bad things they have done? The youth of the world are going to grow up to be our next leaders, and humanity definitely needs them to lead us in a new direction, away from the life that we have been living for so long, a life away from violence and crime and begin to start working together to save planet earth. If young people were to idolise DMX and imitate his actions and beliefs, then we would not be able to achieve anything as a society other than higher crime rates and anarchy. Over to pro, and I hope he returns for the next round.
Libertarians have it right on drugs- legalise them!

blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
Libertarians have it right on drugs- legalise them!

- Most likely the dangerous side effects will be minimized while the addictive nature magnified. + This is untrue. In Amsterdam, they legalised soft drugs and are on a campaign to leagalise hard ones as well. The lifetime drug usage rate there is 17% compared to 37% here. Drug legalisation drops usage. - This of course at the expense of research for cures for cancer and AIDS. + Cures for AIDS and cancer would still continue because there is tons of money and glory in those too. Look at other nations that have legalised drugs. - Soon, all young and middle aged Americans will become addicted to these new entertainment on pills. + Can I see some substantial. .. anything? - When the Religious Right begins to muster resistance to the drug consumption fad, Pfizer will unleash their new drugged goons to slip little bits of modified heroin and morphine into the drinking water of priests and pastors nationwide. And before you know it, our spiritual leaders will also become mindless servants of the Drug Companies. With the Spiritual Faith gone from America, eternal darkness will descend upon our nation. Our people would fall prey to the horrible dangers of homosexuality and protected sex. Crimes will skyrocket as morality loses value in our spirtless society. + Religion is huge in Amsterdam. The CIA World Factboko says that 31% of them are Catholic and other religions. No drug company can/will drug every priest of every religion. Imagine if the public found out that a company drugs priests. .. No company will run the risk. - As Crimes and drug use continue to rise + Crime lowers as a result of legailsation. There will be more free cops, the prisons will be undercrowded andwill stop the parole system, the homicide rate will lower significantly, the crime rate will generally lower. In Amsterdam, the incarceration rate is 7 times lower, the homicide rate is 5 times lower, and crime spending is 130 million euros less annually. - The Indians will then rise up, taking advantage of our weakness. + No. Thsnk you for reading this ridiculous debate.
Libertarians have it right on drugs- legalise them!

If putting crack and cocaine on the streets, tomorrow, America would be swimming with tax money and our police officers would be now all of a sudden be free to bring an end to murder, rape, and theft. In fact, if it wasn't for our war against crack and cocaine, instead of 625 thousand violent criminal arrests, we might have 900 thousand or 1.5 million violent criminal arrests. And I agree ... at least in part. Without our war on crime we might indeed have 1.5 million violent criminal arrests.... Let's take a look at this world with legalized drug use: With drugs legal, it'll be immediately picked up by powerful pharmaceuticals such as Pfizer. And with vigorous advertisements it should be no difficulty to market "recreational" drugs as a fun vacation that's out of this world. With drugs much more addictive than nicotine, carefully manufactured perhaps to be addictive, they become overwhelmingly popular and before long millions and millions of Americans nationwide become addicted. But that is only the beginning. As I mentioned before, these drugs will undergo the most careful scrutiny of the billion dollar pharmaceutical industry. Most likely the dangerous side effects will be minimized while the addictive nature magnified. This of course at the expense of research for cures for cancer and AIDS. Soon, all young and middle aged Americans will become addicted to these new entertainment on pills. They will become slaves to the pharmaceutical industry. When the Religious Right begins to muster resistance to the drug consumption fad, Pfizer will unleash their new drugged goons to slip little bits of modified heroin and morphine into the drinking water of priests and pastors nationwide. And before you know it, our spiritual leaders will also become mindless servants of the Drug Companies. With the Spiritual Faith gone from America, eternal darkness will descend upon our nation. Our people would fall prey to the horrible dangers of homosexuality and protected sex. Crimes will skyrocket as morality loses value in our spirtless society. As Crimes and drug use continue to rise, the tax money from drug sales will evaporate as gross domestic product declines. Drug users will become too busy stoned or getting stoned to work the 60 hour workweeks America is so accustomed to. We will fall from the world's mightiest nation to nothinig but a shriveled husk of what we once were. The Indians will then rise up, taking advantage of our weakness. They will spill forth from their reservations and equipped with their flint hatchets they will hack their way down the desolate wall street, reclaiming the Island of Manhattan. And America as we know it will then be no more. The white people will disappear and once again America will be inhabited by the Reds.
Libertarians have it right on drugs- legalise them!

In 1997, Charles Manson, America's most notorious convicted mass murderer, was caught dealing drugs in California's Corcoran State Prison. Locked in a steel cage, watched by armed guards, and subject to random drug testing and strip searches, Manson was still able to build a flourishing narcotics business. It makes you wonder: If the government can't even keep drugs out of prison, how can it keep them out of an entire nation? The simple answer is: It can't. Not for the lack of effort. In 2001, the federal government spent $18 billion fighting the War on Drugs. More than 19,000 state and local police officers work full-time on drug cases. Despite all of this money and firepower, 82% of high school seniors say that getting marijuana is "fairly" or "very" easy--a number that hasn't budged in 20 years. But the War on Drugs isn't just a failure. It's also a threat to your safety. In 2000, for example, 734,497 Americans were arrested on marijuana-related charges. That same year, only 625,243 violent criminals were arrested for murder, rape, robbery, or aggravated assault (according to FBI figures). In other words, the War on Drugs is making your family less safe because police spend their time arresting marijuana smokers instead of apprehending brutal thugs. We spent trillions on the War on Drugs this year alone. That money could be going to education or something else productive. We could tax drugs. That would be a tremendous amount of money. trials are very lengthy. If there were less caess, then trials would be quicker. We guarantee seedy trials but
Homosexuality is not a choice and is ok.

While reproduction is the end goal of all life, the idea that anything which does not directly lead to procreation is somehow unnatural or wrong is untrue. Were this the case, everything from winking to sign language would be unnatural. The idea that body parts have one fixed function, and that any other use of said body part is wrong is a discredit to the human body and human ingenuity. Is communicating with one's hands, or sign language, wrong in some way? Of course not! But it nonetheless is a "misuse" of the hands; that is not what hands were "intended" for. There is no greater intent of any body function. they have evolved for certain reasons, sure, but this does not mean they are exclusively meant for that; that would imply intention other than a functional organism behind evolution, which is simply unfounded. Also, the sex drive, be it homo or heterosexual, is an urge similar to/ connected to the urge to procreate, so by this logic suppressing homosexuality is just as unnatural. The nature of human life has changed in the past few centuries however. Homosexuality in the modern world in no way impairs the ability to nurture a child. And in the modern world where one can either simply adopt, or if it specifically needs to be your genetics and lineage to count, then you could use a method such as artificial insemination of a surrogate mother. While there was a time in which homosexuality would have been harmful to the individual's procreative ability, it has no effect on the ability to procreate in the modern world. Even on just the base level of procreation, which is not all there is to life (despite being the end goal instinctively speaking), there is no significant danger to this goal as proposed by homosexuality. In short, homosexuality is not a choice, but a natural urge on par with that of procreation. It also does not mitigate the ability to pass on your genes and procreate, but instead just changes the manner in which to do so.
Homosexuality is not a choice and is ok.

Homosexuality is natural. There is extensive scientific documentation that most animals engage in bisexual acts, and that some engage in homosexual acts, including raising young and staying monogamous with a same-sex partner. So the idea that it is in some way unnatural is unsubstantiated. All Great Apes (the group of primates that humans fall into) have been documented as having some kind of homosexual relations. And the idea that homosexuality spreads disease faster than heterosexuality, while not without basis, is not the epidemic it is thought to be. In bi and lesbian women, STI rates are comparable to straight women, if not lower. While for men there is an up tick in STI rates, this is more likely due to other factors, such as the tendency of homosexual men to be more promiscuous or to have unprotected sex, due to poor education on homosexual health. These statistics were also shifted by the AIDS epidemic. In short, if one takes the proper precautions such as condoms and STI checks, there is no documented reason for homosexuality to be more dangerous than heterosexuality. As for the thought that homosexuality is a choice, I have a question. (I am aware this bit is hardly scientifically supported evidence, but it rings true none the less.) Is being straight a choice? I am under the assumption that you are straight yourself, and if so, when did you chose not to be gay? The idea that it is a choice means that everyone has made that choice. Also, why would anyone choose to be gay? If it were truly a choice, no one would willingly choose to be discriminated against and ostracized if they could just choose not to be. Sources- "Sexual risk factors among self-identified lesbians, bisexual women, and heterosexual women accessing primary care settings." https://www.primates.com... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...