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

Transitional fossils can be found because of micro-evolution, like a animal adabting to its surroundings. Microevolution is still evolution. Macroevolution is microevolution over time. (http://atheism.about.com...) also have a problem with premise two, here's why: Transitional fossils that support MACRO-evolution have not been found.This is untrue. There have been many transitional fossils documenting the evolution of reptiles into birds; in fact, there are so many transitional fossils between reptiles and birds that there are no "gaps" between them. Also, there is a fairly complete set of Reptile-Mammal transitional fossils, as well as fossils documenting how the reptile jaw evolved into the mammalian jaw. There is a large set of primate-human fossils, too. (http://www.talkorigins.org...)I already presented the evidence above in the last round. Speciation can happen without evolution being true unless your saying that only a very small number of living beings have experienced evolution. And again, speciation is only true up to a point. Studies have shown that two different animals will not produce offspring together if they are different, as in a bird and a lizard. This misrepresents my point: the new species which I showed became different and lost the ability to interbreed with the original species, or at least the ability to interbreed and produce fertile offspring with the original species.Justification for P2: I will list two examples of new species. Please note that this is not a----I accidentally copied something over from somewhere else, I think.
Evolution is well supported by scientific evidence

I already disagree with you. Duuuuuuh! I disagree with premise one, here's why: Transitional fossils can be found because of micro-evolution, like a animal adabting to its surroundings. I also have a problem with premise two, here's why: Transitional fossils that support MACRO-evolution have not been found. Sure, transitional fossils have been found in the context of micro-evolution, but not macro. I can only assume that you have been misled, or you have set the argument to your favor, or you are just holding back your real evidence. Premise one bothered me. It REALLY bothered me. Speciation can happen without evolution being true unless your saying that only a very small number of living beings have experienced evolution. And again, speciation is only true up to a point. Studies have shown that two different animals will not produce offspring together if they are different, as in a bird and a lizard. Also, I really need to ask you this. Your justification for P2 is incomplete. it reads as follows. Justification for P2: I will list two examples of new species. Please note that this is not a----Please fill in the blank. Also, I will note that although I am a Christian, I am not supposed to make an argument for religiosity in this debate because I am making a case for the unreliability of evolution. That's all I am going to put here because that's all I have to, or want to. This is about evolution, not religion.
Evolution is well supported by scientific evidence

In this debate, I will attempt to prove that the theory of evolution is supported by scientific evidence. In order to do so, I need to first prove that macroevolution is possible and is happening; then, I need to prove that evolution is indeed responsible, at least partially, for the life we see today. I will do so by presenting evidence such as transitional fossils and speciation.Point 1: Fossil EvidenceEvolution states that the genetic composition of a population changes over time. As organisms change, they leave transitional fossils behind.Premise 1: Transitional fossils can be found only if evolution is true.Premise 2: A lot of transitional fossils have been discovered.Conclusion: Evolution is supported by scientific evidence.Justifying premise 2: There are many transitional fossils which have already been found. There are many transitional fossils between reptiles and birds, reptiles and mammals, and primates and humans; this confirms that evolution is true. [1]The conclusion follows logically from premises 1 and 2.Point 2: Observed Speciation (marcoevolution)Definition of a species: "Related organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring."P1: Speciation should only happen if evolution were to be true.P2: Speciation has been observed.C: Evolution is (likely) true.Justification for P2: I will list two examples of new species. Please note that this is not a 1. GoatsbeardsGoatsbeards, which are wild flowers that have been introduced to America from Europe, have speciated. Initially, three species were introduced from Europe; these three species could not produce fertile offspring when interbreeding, only infertile hybrids, showing that they are separate species. Two new species of goatsbeards later appeared from speciation; they were fertile and produced offspring, even though they appeared like the hybrids.[2]2.Drosophila paulistorum Drosophila paulistorum, which is a type of fruit fly, speciated sometime during the late 50's and the early 60's. Its hybrids with other strains were sterile, showing that it was a new species.Conclusion:Observed macroevolution, as well as transitional fossils, show that the evidence for evolution is strong.SOURCES[1]http://www.talkorigins.org...[2]http://www.talkorigins.org...
Terraria Vs. Minecraft

So, terraria has more content, as more weapons, more blocks, more options, really. Although it is only 2-dimensional, worlds have options from large to small. And players can go across worlds. You can fly with wings or rocket boots, in survival. You can only fly in creative on minecraft. Although there is no creative mode, it is still pretty easy to obtain items. There are obtainable accessories like wings or a star veil. Minecraft has nothing like that. (I still love Minecraft and hope they add that though!) Minecraft has comand blocks, which can do a lot of thing, like teleport. That is a disadvantage to terraria because there is only the Rod of Discord and Teleporter Blocks. There is more crafting area in terraria, as in the different kind of crafting benches, anvils, furnaces, etc. Then there is all the different crafting "areas" I guess I can call them. Like the bone welder or the living wood crafter. Also, a whole new matter, hard mode and like 12 bosses. Although no portals, you have to dig straight down. In the underworld, you can kill the WoF. (Wall of Flesh.) Then the world changes. Solar eclipses start and other events like the Pumpkin and Frost moons with Plantera, Skeletron Prime, Twins, etc. So, terraria is WAY better.
The use of military force is justified to prevent the proliferation of WMD's

I will argue that military force is unjustified under the goal of preventing the proliferation of WMDs. I. PRESENTED DEFINITONS:1. Accepted. While large scale military invasions are indeed a large part of this, smaller more discreet actions by the military such as spec. ops sabotage etc. also should be included as relevant.2. Accepted. My argument shall be from the perspective of nuclear technology development in particular.3. Accepted. "Justified"- Accepted, with the expansion that the societal impact on the world as a whole ought to be considered. While an attack of any kind on a rival nation, political or military, could be considered beneficial to the aggressor nation, if such an action causes disproportionate harm to the victim nation and there was not adequate threat for the aggressor to be compelled to that action, it should still be considered unjustified. Example- Overthrowing the government of a rival nation preemptively because they are known to be uncooperative produces a decrease in danger to the original nation, but if there was not an imminent threat, the resultant political chaos and damage done to the victim nation outweighs that, and as such, the action should NOT be considered justified. In addition, I would like to clarify that I am arguing against the use of force against a legitimate nation seeking nuclear armnament, not individuals or groups such as Al-Qaeda. This is acceptable, I believe, since it is in line with my opponent's given definition 2. II. POINTS OF ARGUMENT:1. Detterence is a justification used by all nations currently in possession of WMDs. Since world superpowers refuse total disarmnament, it is necessary that other nations take the same precautions to assure their safety.2. Since enrichment of Uranium-235 uses the same centrifuge technology as enrichment of Plutonium-238, it would be necessary to suppress the development of nuclear energy and other technology, harming the prospects of developing nations. Similar concerns may be present in other types of weapons technology.3. A preemptive strike on a nation that has not threatened an attack is a dangerous policy that can and would be used by powerful nations to consolidate their own interests.4. Due to the entangled relations of most nations with a WMD holding superpower, aggressive actions toward a non-WMD holding nation would draw the defense of a WMD-holding one regardless. III. COUNTERARGUMENTS:As specified in the conditions, I will not address the points of my opponent in this round. This seems to be an interesting topic and I look forward to a good debate with my opponent.
The use of military force is justified to prevent the proliferation of WMD's

Before the debate, I would like to take the opportunity to thank my future opponent for taking part in this controversial debate. ==============================================================Having said that, I will establish the rules of the debate that my opponent should follow throughout the course of the debate:1) Round 1 should be used for accepting the debate and your position, clarifying definitions, and presenting your contentions/arguments.2) Round 2 should be used for explaining your arguments and rebuttals.3) Round 3 should also be used for explaining your arguments and rebuttals.4) Round 4 should be used for summarizing your case and stating why you think you won this debate.5) If statistics or real world examples are used, please indicate the source (both for the opponent and voter to see).6) The opponent cannot contest the definitions after Round 1 - all definitions must be clarified before presenting arguments. Please ensure that you follow ALL of these rules throughout the course of the debate=============================================Now onto the resolution/topic:"The use of military force is justified to prevent the proliferation of WMD's"Let me start by defining the key terms of the debate:1) Military force - any form of conventional warfare such as but not limited to; airstrikes and surgical insertions. [Note - this does not necessarily involve a full scale military attack]2) Proliferation - countries that previously lacked WMD's but are now coming into possession of WMD's. [Note - this includes creation and trade of WMD's]3) WMD's (Weapons of mass destruction) - Any form of nuclear, biological and chemical weaponry. The term "Justified" is important. I define justified as a net decrease in societal danger. - Understand that justified means that military force is acceptable under certain circumstances. - There is a distinction between military force being good and military force being justified - I argue for the latter. =============================================Let me now present my contentions/arguments:1) The damage caused by military force is far less than the potential damage of WMD's2) Further proliferation increases the risk that non-state actors are able to gain possesion of WMD's3) Increased proliferation increases brinkmanship, which calls for military forceI will discuss these contentions in Round 2. =============================================To the opponent:- Please carefully read the rules and contentions that I have established. - Please keep in mind the 48 hour deadline for the debate. - Please indicate clearly your acceptance and position for this debate.
Blogging is not real communication

what is real communication? well let , me refer back to the definition; communication is to transmit or pass on by speaking or writing. how is posting a message on a blog communication? yes, you can read the blog, however many people take every blog differently, so one person might take a blog post as a friendly one and someone else might take it as a threat. Real communication is conveying a message for them to understand. not posting some random stuff on a blog hoping someone will see it. blogging is not real communication because you cant see their emoticons or body language. communication not computeration. Blog- an online diary; a personal chronological log of thoughts published on a web page; also called a Weblog. So according to the dictionary, when your blogging you're basically just making an online diary.
Blogging is not real communication

Human beings have been using writing to communicate to people for over a millennia, I don't think that because it is not as personal to write, it is no longer communicating. But just because blogging has a smaller percentage of being used does not make it less communication. Niether does it being less of an, "accurate representation" or "truthfully communicating" make it less communicating. People use deception and inaccurately represent themselves all of the time even in person.
Blogging is not real communication

As human beings, our only real method of connection is through authentic communication. Studies show that only 7% of communication is based on the written or verbal word. A whopping 93% is based on nonverbal body language. But, it's only when we can hear a tone of voice or look into someone's eyes that we're able to know when "I'm fine" doesn't mean they're fine at all, anyone can hide behind the text, the e-mail, the Face book post, the blog post or the tweet, projecting any image they want and creating an illusion of their choice. They can be whoever they want to be. In addition, without the ability to receive nonverbal cues, their audiences are none the wiser. This presents an unprecedented paradox. With all the powerful social technologies at our fingertips, we are more disconnected than ever before. Every relevant metric shows that we are interacting at breakneck speed and frequency through social media and blogging. However, are we really communicating? With 93% of our communication context stripped away, we are now attempting to forge relationships and make decisions based on phrases, Abbreviations, snippets and emoticons, which are NOT accurate representations of truthfully communicating. communication not computeration
Blogging is not real communication

Hello Aiphos!Thank you for accepting me in the debate!I will be arguing blogging IS actually communication.Here is my argument~Argument:According to multiple sources:http://dictionary.reference.com...http://www.thefreedictionary.com...https://www.google.com...And specifically shown from one of the above definitions of communication: " 1. The act of communicating; transmission. 2. a. The exchange of thoughts, messages, or information, as by speech, signals, writing, or behavior. b. Interpersonal rapport. 3. communications (used with a sing. or pl. verb) a. The art and technique of using words effectively to impart information or ideas. b. The field of study concerned with the transmission of information by various means, such as print or broadcasting. c. Any of various professions involved with the transmission of information, such as advertising, broadcasting, or journalism. 4. Something communicated; a message. 5. communications A means of communicating, especially: a. A system, such as mail, telephone, or television, for sending and receiving messages. b. A network of routes for sending messages and transporting troops and supplies. 6. communications The technology employed in transmitting messages. 7. Biology The transfer of information from one molecule, cell, or organism to another, as by chemical or electrical signals or by behaviors. 8. Anatomy a. An opening or connecting passage between two structures. b. A joining or connecting of solid fibrous structures, such as tendons and nerves."Blogging (writing on a shared online journal) is qualified as as a form of communication since the ideas, writing, opinions and even possibly speech thanks to videos can be shared with many people, therefore communicating something. Under your definition: "communication is to transmit or pass on by speaking or writing."-You said thatThen blogging is still qualified as "real" bonafide communication because you are actually writing(composing text) in a blog and transmitting it to people on the internet. Even if it is a "personal log of thoughts", it is still published and shared and therefore communicated.I rest my case
Whether or not High School students should get recess.

For the sake of simplicity, sources will not be used in this debate; only logic and reasoning. Arguments: Laziness:School is an institution of learning. The purpose of school is to engage in activities that prepare you for the future, i.e. college, employment and careers. In every single of the aforementioned environments, people are expected to do what is required to succeed in real life. There is no time to be lazy.
Whether or not High School students should get recess.

The fact that us high school kids have to sit for at least 8 hours, and conform to the school leaders idea of being a "good student" , we should be allowed at least 35-45 minutes a day, during school, to go out and enjoy what the Earth has to offer. Your body needs exercise to be able to grow, and blossom appropriately. Therefore, we should all push for free time out of our day to be middle schoolers again.
Test

This hasn't been much of a debate. Let me sum up my opinion to the voters, though, to garner their votes and opinions on the controversial issue of standardized testing. I am against standardized testing because it has had a negative effect on the state of American education. When standardized testing was fully enforced, the US ranked 18th in math. Seven years later, seven years of standardized testing, the US fell to 31st in math. No improvements, whatsoever. Second, testing rushes teachers and students; as an effect, students don't fully understand the subjects. They remember it for a while, and then it fades from memory. What I support is quality education, education that isn't concerned about tests that don't prove any true statistics. I support the removal of standardized testing from our education system. I believe it is a unbeneficial, untruthful way of measuring students' intelligence. I have backed up my claim with facts and statistics from an unbiased website. My opponent only typed one word in this entire debate - 'testing' - which does not even support his pro-testing argument. Voters, I hope this is an easy debate to decide on, no matter which side you truly support.
Atheists need to do more good deeds and should embrace religious humanism

I still argue that we sometimes put a bit too much "faith" in the power of reason. People have all sorts of irrational ideas on vaccines and are afraid to fly but okay to drive even though the latter is more dangerous and that is pointed out to them at least sometimes. If I have to convince someone not to believe man lived with dinosaurs despite the overwhelming evidence how good is education really going to be. Yes like you said some people will always hold-out no matter what approach is taken but is reason the best tact to take generally in this arena. For example, If an atheist organization and I take your point that it is not like a belief group banning together under a common umbrella. If an atheist organization's aim is to bring people away from religion {to reduce the bad side of religion} then merely promoting the use of reason is not going to pick up a lot of people that don't use reason. Do we give up on them or think we can still shift them to a better position within religion and achieve the same aim or better because it might be easier to get bigger numbers shifting within the religion then leaving it. The extremists might not listen to anyone but who are they more likely to even consider talking to, a liberal Christian or atheist? I take your point that the good deeds of atheists will not convince everyone that morality can exist without a God and that plugging secular groups as atheists could hurt rather than help and I was not suggesting they do it like that. I would argue that it would strengthen the moral arguments of atheists though rather than do nothing or make things worse. I would also say it would help with profile having more atheistic organizations getting out there and helping at disaster zones {or it could result in punch-ups which is not good}. I think religious humanism might bring in some people that were on the fence but of course not everyone. In the end I suppose I am arguing that more good deeds be done by atheists which will help rather than hurt the image of atheists and this might get more people viewing atheists in a better light. That in turn can mean being more open to talking with them and reading their works without the bias. Pew research found they are not held in very high regard and this might make it harder for people to say to their family I am atheist or I want to be an atheist. I would say that religion is here to stay and more good could be done having a poster on a bus promoting liberal Christianity instead of say atheism. I think you can shift more people from Christianity {and theists that don't attend church} to liberal Christianity than shifting Christians to atheism or getting rid of religion completely which is not going to happen.
Atheists need to do more good deeds and should embrace religious humanism

Hello, there. I shall accept your challenge. Firstly, I must clarify that atheism represents a lack or absence of belief in the existence of God, so one does not "convert" to atheism. Rather, one sheds and leaves behind their faith in God. While I fully agree with you that mocking and threatening are not the proper way to go about this, this is not how most atheist operate; the most controversial atheist and arguments are the ones that attract the most attention. In fact, I would argue that derogatory mocking and threatening is unreasonable; that not founded in reason, so these methods cannot be treated the same as using reason. Atheism : Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. [1] In an interview with notable atheist, Matt Dillahunty [2][3], he explains how he became an atheist, or lost his faith. The main point can be taken from his testimony is that this reflects that people do not become atheist because atheism is attractive. At best, such an idea as you have presented will make atheism seem more acceptable to society, but it will not "attract" people away from their religion. In order for people to leave their religious beliefs behind, they have to accept that those beliefs are false. Becoming atheist is merely a rejection of one's belief in God, it is not a decision to become atheist. The conclusion of my initial argument is that, while I will agree that it would be good if atheist put forth effort to be more humanistic (that is true of any group), atheism does not attract new atheists by appealing to theists. This is not the best method of increasing their numbers; they still must be primarily reliant on getting theists to review their faith in an objective, rational way. Reason is the best tool in an atheist's arsenal. [1] Oxford Dictionary - http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... [2] Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] Patheos - http://forums.augi.com...