BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Black people will slowly turn into a sub-species.

My opponent argues that black people will slowly turn into a sub-species because of what he describes as evolution. Nevermind the blatant racism clearly visible in his argument and his belief in white supremacy, but let's focus on how my opponent says that "black people will devolve into Homo-Africanis. This does not mean they will be gay Africans, but rather they will become a new species of ape."My opponent believes that African Americans alone will devolve. This would be true if all African Americans were both isolated in one area (to isolate and cultivate mutations in genes through inbreeding) and if there was a dramatic change in these people's environment which requires them to adapt to maintain homeostasis. Additionally, evolution is a slow process that may take approximately millions of years. My opponent failed to incorporate any reasoning into his argument, but it is blatantly clear that his only "reasoning" is his belief in white supremacy, as shown by his previous debates where he advocates using black prisoners as slaves.Because nations such as the United States are both very populous and mixed in races, it is virtually impossible for African Americans to cultivate mutations so much so to devolve into a sub-species. I await my opponent to bring up realistic evidence and reasoning, rather than enforce his ideas with ridiculous poppycock.
Black people will slowly turn into a sub-species.

All humans are currently Homo-Sapiens. It is my belief that black people will devolve (depending on how you look at it) into Homo-Africanis. This does not mean they will be gay Africans, but rather they will become a new species of ape. This has a lot to do with natural selection taking place in Africa, where many people are dying from lack of food. Therefore those that can survive while only eating very little will live to pass on their genes. This will make any gene that benefits survival on low amounts of energy recessive. Thus leading to a change in the population and causing, over many thousands of years, a visible and biological change in the African population. Don't use the race card on me, because I'm not racist. I'm just a realist.
Should Trump be President

Trump is fully committed to our allies and they know it. Cite: Gady 16, Glaser 1/25/17, and Santoro and Warden 16 He may take a significantly more hawkish line toward China than Beijing expects. Although Japan and South Korea will be respectfully asked to do more, there is no question of Trump"s commitment to America"s Asian alliances as bedrocks of stability in the region. Status quo strategic ambiguity make proliferation more likely because Asian allies are losing trust in the US nuclear umbrella. Without a significant change in policy, proliferation will escalate to an arms race and eventually to Nuclear War- Extinction. Trump is the only way to maintain stability in our alliances and ensure world peace. God Bless America & MAGA!
Should Trump be President

As 2016 approaches, Republicans are salivating over the hopes and dreams that Hillary Clinton will be defeated by someone the Republicans select to run against her. Per usual, the Republican side of the aisle is a hot mess. They have candidates on top of candidates, sitting on top of candidates. They have everyone from pastors to celebrities looking to run for POTUS; it"s like Gary Coleman and pornographic actresses running against Arnold in California. It stands out as a huge joke. The craziest punchline, however, is actually in one of the Republicans" most serious presidential prospects: Donald Trump. let"s examine some reasons why Donald Trump would be a horrific president and actually harm America indefinitely. Trump is a racist person
Homework is a Waste of Time

The problem is that the majority of the teachers think that its enough that you did the homework and they assume that you are ready, so they go faster and you start confusing because you have many subjects in the bimester, this has happened in Instituto Thomas Jefferson two years in a row. So there you to the 'real' world being all confused because of all the things that you have to do and you don't have time, congratulations you have been kicked out of your house and now you're starving. Also the teachers don't care for more or less hours of school, because if you do the homework 6 hours of school, they don't leave homework, 6 hours of school because beside your education they only care about when will they get paid to feed their families and just be normal. You said it yourself nothing in excess is good , in this case 'work'
Homework is a Waste of Time

the problem is that the majority of the teachers think that its enough that you did the homework" So you are expecting even more work? After all, you are saying that maybe homework isn't enough. And for your argument of teachers don't care for more or less hours of school. I strongly believe that everybody wants to have an specific schedule and I think that most of teachers wish to spend their extra time with their families. This obviously means that they DO care t it there "are more or less hours of school" Also, I know teachers that work for the passion of teaching children not just for getting paid. They go to college years of their life, just for the pleasure of trying to teach something new to a children. In many cases they will need certain tools to have a full understanding by the classmate, and on of those tools is the HOMEWORK. So, let's stop being lazy for a while and start thinking of the actual benefits of Homework. We need to start focusing on the right thing for us not in the easiest one.
Homework is a Waste of Time

It is well known by psychologists (especially the one of Instituto Thomas Jefferson), and second of all the goal of going to school is to learn and be prepared for the rule world. Many teachers mark that as primary goal at schooling nit just putting zeros. And also, I didn't said that procrastinating was bad or anything like that but it can lead you to do illicit activities. Remember, nothing in excess is good. In my opinion it is very important that we have Homework so we can save many school hours and be better students and therefore better prepared beings in life. After all if we didn't do homework our time at school will increase, would you like less summer vacations or something like that?
Homework is a Waste of Time

It is a fact that In a normal class you learn about 20% of the information presented. It is necessary that kids have homework to reinforce those knowledge and teachings that they had earlier in the classroom. If not the teacher would spend more time in next class reinforcing the knowledge that they should had reinforced. And, well let's deal with it, an average kid stays all afternoon procrastinating, they should have a goal in the afternoon. Some people may say that procrastinating leads to experimentation in drugs, violence and even pornography. So the question here, What do you prefer? Some extra time procrastinating that may lead you to illicit activities and have more time at school or try to have a goal in your noon and learn more and more each day. Lets go to a greater future not to a worse one!
Biblical Creationism is Unscientific and False

Unfortunately, You started this debate, So unless you want to look like a fool, I would answer all the questions I ask, In detail. Frankly, I am not sure that you can, But, Just humor me. . . I am talking about something that was created from completely nothing. Nothing man has ever created came from a new substance, They all came from substances that existed prior (try to prove that wrong, I dare you. ) So, This debate, The computer you are using to type it on, All came from materials that somehow "occurred" the way you put it. Actually, I am not getting off topic. I am establishing the fact that you are saying creation is not possible but you should also bring up the fact that since all other ideas that man has come up with regarding the origin of man are all unproven. NONE of this can be proven, But that does not mean we do not exist. The fallacy of your argument is that man is basically just a whim. My question to you is, You say that creation is not real, Well, Give me evidence to support that. Use the human body for instance, How did that come to pass if not for creation. You make the statement that creation does not exist, Then how did your body develop? I am providing examples of things that I would like to bring up that creationists hold very important. Tell me how human cells developed if not for creation? You can't. Instead, Do this simple math problem for me, 0+0=0 That is a simple math word problem that says nothing with nothing equals nothing. Therefore, To accept the theory of evolution, We would have to change our entire math curricula that we teach our children in school. We can't add anything we want to equal anything we want it to, Simple math does not work that way. You say that creation is not real, Yet I see that you were not ready to defend that statement and respond to my questions, That is why you say they are off topic. However, If you want to prove your point you will have to answer my questions, Otherwise, Your initial statement goes without ammunition.
Biblical Creationism is Unscientific and False

The debate subject is on creationism being false, Not whether or not something can come from nothing or any of the other straw man arguments you shot at me. Please stick to the subject and quit misdirecting. I will not respond to your misdirects again, So please get back on subject. 1) Do you deny evolution entirely? If so, Why? Besides "blah blah blah rants and misdirects/subject changes". Give me actual scientific reasons, Please. Evolution had no explosion. I have no idea what you're referring to. How did it start? I don't know, Possibly abiogenesis, Possibly something else. I don't know. Neither do you. You said the most ignorant thing a human can do is engage in circular reasoning, Yet you answer a cosmic mystery with a bigger mystery. God did it! Who made God? It's circular by definition. As for your 2nd law of thermodynamics argument: how do you know our universe didn't come from a multiverse? How do you know that it's not eternal? If God can be eternal, Why can't the universe? You said everything must have a cause. How do you know? This is impossible to prove. I'm just warning you before you venture down that rabbit hole. You asked for something that comes from nothing - how about a virtual particle? How about this debate? I'm working hard to produce something from nothing :)
Biblical Creationism is Unscientific and False

Well Killshot, You wanted a debate, So, You are going to get one. My question to you is, How can you make sense out of nothing? That is what evolution is, Making sense (something) our of nothing. At least, Creationism presents an "idea" that God created things. You can go back as far as you want with evolution, But what created the explosion? What created the compounds that caused the explosion? Then, What made up the substances that made the compounds that caused the explosion? (CIRCULAR REASONING) The most ignorant thing a human can do is engage in circular reasoning, Because there is no end, Hence the term circular reasoning. At least creation has a beginning, That God always was. Unlike evolution which can not explain the beginning, (that it was created to explain in the first place). You want some examples? You got them. According to the law of Conservation of mass, Energy and matter cannot be created or destroyed. Therefore, Either mass, Energy, And matter must have either always existed or must have been put in place by a being. Which one makes more sense Creation: 1. In the beginning there was nothing. 2. Something cannot come out of nothing. Evolution: 1. Every event must have a cause and the cause must be an event before it. 2. There must be a beginning, However, It is unknown. => The beginning has no cause for being present, Hence there was no beginning hence there is no world. I am really wondering if you are searching for the truth, Or are just bored out of your mind? The science of today believes that not only can things 'come from nowhere' at the sub-atomic level but that it is happening all the time. However, I say, Show me the proof today that things come from nowhere, And I will change my mind as to the origin of mankind. Can YOU scientifically demonstrate something that came form nothing and prove it? Challenge. . .
Biblical Creationism is Unscientific and False

I don't even know what to do with this. I wish someone more serious accepted the debate. You’re statements are entirely unfounded and absurdly wrong. The Bible has some historical accounts, So what? Like Matt Dillahunty famously quotes "Just because NY is real, It doesn't prove Spiderman existed". I'm not saying creationism is a hoax, I'm saying it's false. There is a difference. Your assertion about Darwin on his deathbed confession is a long debunked Christian apologist lie. Not only is it untrue, It's dishonest and intellectually weak. Even if it were true, It would not render evolution false regardless. If something is true it will either stand or fall on its own. There are not authorities in science. I can and will say creationism is not possible. It requires magic and magic isn't real. Prove me wrong. You want examples for everyone to see, Sure: 1) God speaks things into existence 2) God creates light before stars 3) Talking snakes and curses 4) Genesis cannot get the timelines correct between 1 and 2 5) All life shares a common ancestor, There are no archetypes I'll just stop here. Your turn.
Biblical Creationism is Unscientific and False

Okay, First of all, There is no proof that God is real, Let's just get that out there for everyone. OUT IN THE OPEN. However, There have been many things in the Bible that have been proven to be true. The Bible is a history book, That is just what it is. By saying that creation is a hoax, You are calling the oldest history book known to man a liar, Which puts you above the God that you do not believe exists. So, Basically, You are taking a lot of responsibility on yourself. What's more, Evolution is more un-provable than creation, Being that it was dreamed up by a man that apologized to society on his death-bed for bringing such lies into the world. What you cannot say, Is that creation is not possible, You would be stepping WAY into the realm of God on that one. I do not plan to win this debate, Just to put some thoughts out there for everyone to reflect on. If you want to make the statement that creationism is false, Provide some examples for all to see then let's debate.
Biblical Creationism is Unscientific and False

Biblical creationism is unscientific on many levels, But most importantly, It does not use the scientific method. It makes bold unfounded assertions about reality that we know to be untrue (age of the universe, Age of earth, Use of magic, Origins of biology, Etc). Creationism makes no testable or verifiable predictions, And it holds no weight against peer review. Not only is creationism false and ignorant, But it is not even categorically a hypothesis, As it has no grounding evidence from which it's based on. From here, I'll leave the floor open to my opponent.
Biblical Creationism is Unscientific and False

Well, Next time you create an argument, Be prepared to defend it. You expected to get somebody dumb, Or someone who would just back down. I was not that person. Have a controversial topic and you will get debated on the entire topic, Not what you pick and choose. You did not expect someone to come out swinging, You expected a dumb, Non-put together, Sorry excuse for a debate. That is not what you got. This is not a chat cite, It is a debate cite. Want a friendly chat, Go to social media.
studying is not the only way to get rich

I hope this goes well. Pro didn't lay down rules for terms or anything. Because of this, I will state definitions of terms that will be used. Salary - average earnings per year FROM A JOB College degree - a degree of college, bachelor's or higher Seeing as Pro has already posted some type of argument, I will choose to rebut his points and make my own arguments in this round. Pro is against those that think "studying or collage degree [sic] is the only way to earn a good salary. " These people are correct. To earn a good salary, one must have better experience with their job and a better understanding of the pressure of a workplace. These are most commonly earned with a college degree. The US Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that those with professional degrees earn more than three times those without a college degree. For those with less than a high school degree, the average weekly salary is just over half that of the average person. Also, the unemployment rate of those without a college degree is easily higher than that of a college graduate. Without a high school diploma, the average unemployment rate is an astounding 11%. Compare this to the 2.3% rate of those with professional degrees, and you can clearly see that a college degree allows an individual to earn more money and have a more secure job. Source: . http://www.bls.gov...
Using earth derived quantum evidence for cosmic-origin theory

Physicists now base their models of Cosmology on earth-based quantum obervations. In formulating a model like the "Big Bang," they assume that the origin of forces in the Cosmos follow the same patterns as our familiar earthbound phenomena. This is to propose a new way of thinking about cosmic origins, based on the concept that forces more-ethereal than earthbound quantum forces are what underlie the origin of forces in the beginning, in Space, and that we should stop relying on earthbound quantum data ("quantum empiricism") in that area of theory. I propose that Space came first. (Just because our inertial-world senses perceive apparent "solidity" around us does not mean that the elemental building blocks and elemental forces underlying "solid" bodies are truly "solid matter.") -I propose that in the very beginning, elemental spatial points were oscillating symmetrically in space in all directions., due to an inherent self-compatibility of Space. Eventually, this oscillation led to oscillatory fatigue, such that adjacent spatial points fell toward each other in a curving "Yin and Yang" fashion. Then, re-equilibration of the point-pairs (reversibility would be a necessary feature of any such process) with the original oscillatory setting brought about an interaction between unlike point-entities, breaking perfect spatial symmetry, and leading to directional (energic type) elemental, etheric, forces - a universal ether medium. These etheric forces, being derived from a curvational ("Yin Yang") process and an oscillational process, would be curvational and pulsational, or vibrational. Being pulsational and curvational, these elemental forces would develop "nodes" which would serve as points of resonance between etheric energy units. -This model implies there is only one true form of energy, which is elemental, vibrational, and resonational. Larger energy units, such as electrons, are built up from the resonances of the elemental units. The quantum-order effects physicists find here on Earth, such as spin, vectors, and so on, are merely superimposed "peudo" energy effects belonging to the larger energy units, but but the true energy process belongs to the elemental units which came from all the points of Space. I submit that any other model for the origin of cosmic systems would have led to chaos, not uniform, orderly, organization of systems like atoms, planets, and so on.
Using earth derived quantum evidence for cosmic-origin theory

I intend to keep my final response short, as there does not appear to be much to address. Con has again attempted to explain his theory, and continues to simply attempt to use woo. My opponent has failed to present his theory in any way that can be coherently understood, even by someone currently engaged in cosmology projects. "Ying and yang disturbance", "focal anamoly", "first-causal space", "uniform elemental ether", all of these are nonsensical terms without quantative or coherent description. Con also admits to being unable to provide a mathematical formulation in any way for his hypothesis, and admits that we possess no way of "measuring or quantifying etheric phenomena". Based on this, con's theory can safely be dismisses a pseudoscientific notions until a rigorous, testable, understandable hypothesis can be presented. Con also continues to misunderstand modern cosmology by again simply asserting - even after my explanation of how the evidence is gathered and why it is classical in nature - that they use quantum derived data. Con then also fails again to actually support his initial assertion that quantum mechanical observations are only accurate around the planet Earth. Which means that even if con was correct in his idea the modern cosmology is reliant on quantum mechanics (it isn't), he still has no ground to stand on. Finally, con simply asserts that his theory could also explain all the phenomenon that currently vindicates modern cosmology and general relativity. Given tha con has admitted he cannot provide any form of mathematical model which would create any predictions, this is obviously just another unfounded assertion. ConclusionIn short, this has been a disappointing debate. Con has failed to provide a single argument as to why quantum mechanics is not valid outside Earth's gravity well. Con has failed to deal with observational evidence of QM working as predicted over extragalactic distances. Con has failed to point out any problems in modern cosmological models. Con has failed to produce a coherent alternative model to modern cosmology. In short, con has made pages of assertions, and no substantative arguments, and his disagreement with the entire field of scientific experts betrays a lack of any formal education on the issue or understanding of modern cosmology.
Seals are Better Than Cars

Seals are not anything, but cute little animals that provide nothing for society except maybe food. As of cars though they are reliable because they are able to transport us to places. If we didn't have cars in the world today it wouldn't be the same and it would effect us badly. Seals on the other hand are useless to the world and wouldn't matter if they were to be extinct. You based your argument on the fact that seals are cuter than cars. I don't think it would matter if your car was not 'cute' it would do, because if you needed to get somewhere far away I don't think you would want to walk. That would be tiring and laziness is high in the world today so you rely on your CAR. Seals would not be able to do that obviously, all they can do is flap there arms and do tricks. I will say some cars are very ugly, but again that does not matter and there are many sexy cars. BOOOM.