BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Evolution Is Not A Valid Scientific Theory

Thanks for accepting. Unfortunately, I'm going to have to point out a problem with your presentation of definitions; to be more specific, the fact that you provided 2. I am only going to be arguing against the scientific validity of only one definition of Evolution, not multiple definitions of Evolution. Neither am I going to argue against the definition of any other word. This is how you defined Evolution: “Evolution consists of changes in the heritable traits of a population of organisms as successive generations replace one another. It is populations of organisms that evolve, not individual organisms.” As I explained in the first round, this definition of Evolution is now final, and any further reference to Evolution in this debate will be defined as such. Let's see if Evolution follows the Scientific Method as explained by the late Richard Feynman, Ph.D, in the video I provided. The first step Doctor Feynman describes is guessing. He makes it clear that this guess should not be too vague, or so general, as to be unfalsifiable. Now your particular phrasing of your definition makes it difficult for me to find a guess or prediction in it, but I'm going to try anyways. The first sentence of your definition is not useful for the purposes of this debate, for it actually references the word Evolution in trying to define it. A definition is useless if it refers to the word it is supposed to define. In the second sentence, I can discern the following prediction that Evolution makes: Populations of organisms evolve, but not individual organisms. Does this prediction live up to the standards that Doctor Feynman described? Remember, he said a guess should be “definite” and not “too vague”. The answer is no. This prediction does not satisfy those criterion: it's very vague and indefinite. There is no definite way to falsify this prediction. To prove wrong a prediction like “populations of organisms evolve,” one would not only have to observe every single population of organisms that ever lived, one would have to wait until they observed every population of organisms that are going to live! Until this is done, one may excuse away the lack of observable, evolving populations by claiming that an evolving population of organisms exists, but we just haven't found it yet. So this aspect of the guess is not falsifiable. Not only that, it's too vague, because without a definition of “evolve,” we have no idea what we are even looking for! The 2nd prediction that Evolution makes is that “individual organisms do not evolve.” This also fails to meet the aforementioned guidelines. There's no clear way to falsify this one, either, other than waiting for a long time, observing a lot of individual organisms, and hoping that we see one evolve. This guess fails to meet the criterion because falsifying it requires proving a negative. I eagerly await my opponent's rebuttals.
Evolution Is Not A Valid Scientific Theory

I accept this challenge, and will be using the following definitions.In defining these terms, both of these definitions come from the National Academy of Sciences.Evolution: "Evolution consists of changes in the heritable traits of a population of organisms as successive generations replace one another. It is populations of organisms that evolve, not individual organisms."I will also note that this extends to "Macroevolution" as defined below, as this I believe will more accurately highlight our differences.Macroevolution: "Large-scale evolution occurring over geologic time that results in the formation of new species and broader taxonomic groups." Source: http://www.nas.edu...;
Evolution Is Not A Valid Scientific Theory

I will not be defining Evolution. My opponent, the honorable TrueScotsman, will provide any definition of Evolution in round 1 that he well pleases. Furthermore, his definition will be final as of the first round, and will be what is meant by all references to Evolution within this debate.I will argue that Evolution (however Con defines it) does not meet the standards for what a valid scientific theory should be. For what a scientific theory should be, I'll be referencing the YouTube video at the right.http://www.youtube.com...
Should law enfocement (poice officers) be armed with deadly weapons

I plan to argue that the law enforcement officials such as police officers should not be routinely armed with lethal weapons. By lethal weapons i mean weapons such as handguns, shotgun, and rifles that are used with the intention of killing a suspect. While in today's society violent crimes committed with these weapons are a very real concern, I feel it is the responsibility of our police force to use advances in modern technology to their advantage and use non lethal weapons to disable suspects. One advantage of this strategy is that there will be a lowered amount of occurrences in which police officers are able to use these weapons to abuse their power and intimidate ordinary everyday citizens. This strategy may also help to keep the police officers themselves safer when involved in a conflict with a suspect. By this i mean that if a suspect knows that the police attempting to arrest him do not have deadly weapons that can be used to kill him the suspect will not feel as threatened and may not feel the need to defend themselves by any means necessary. This may also protect police officers to some degree because when they know that the weapon they are firing is non lethal they will not feel as much hesitation to fire that weapon in order to defend themselves against a suspect. I am not a police officer, nor have i ever been in a conflict where i might need to use a deadly weapon but it is easy to understand how someone may have second thoughts about using a firearm that will kill someone. The use of non lethal weapons by police officers in the United States will also prevent accidental and tragic deaths that could have been avoided. Probably one of the most memorable examples of this is the death of Amadou Diallo. Mr. Diallo was shot 19 times by police officers on the steps outside of his apartment after reaching into his jacket and pulling out his wallet. The lighting outside the apartment building was dim and the officers panicked when Mr. Diallo pulled an object out of his coat. While the officers did act in a way that they were trained too, protecting themselves from the threat of possibly being shot themselves, had they used non lethal weapons such as a high voltage Taser or guns that fire rubber bullets this situation could have easily been diffused and Mr. Diallo likely would still be alive. Some other examples of weapons that could be potentially be used by police officers are firearms that shoot out pepper balls, which are similar to paint balls except that they contain the active irritant that is present in pepper spray, stun grenades, tear gas, scent based weapons known as maldorants, Which create a stench that is extremely unbearable and hard to wash off. While these weapons are currently in use by law enforcement around the globe i feel that they should be used instead of the lethal weapons that police officers use today and increased research and development for these types of weapons will make the world a safer place for people on both sides of the law.
Homosexual Marriage

This will be a short debate discussing whether Homosexual Marriage should or should not be accepted and legalized in the United States. Pro must support the claim that homosexual marriage is positive for society, while Con must explain why it is detrimental to society. I ask that my opponent does not use religion as their main Burden of Proof for their argument. Rules: 1) Use proper grammar and sentence structure. Please look over your arguments before posting them to make sure that you didn't accidentally make a grammatical mistake or use malapropism.2) Do not troll or use insults as your argument.3) Support quantitative and qualitative data with valid sources.
Gay marriage

From the begging of time man and women would marry and reproduce and it has been this way until today. So I ask you this why should there be gay marriage if our ancestors have not been doing it. Wouldn't be the correct thing to do if we follow in our ancestors footsteps and follow there path. It is the only correct thing to do and also gay marriage poses some major disturbances in our community and might make a problem. For example if gay marriage was encouraged in young adults and little kids, then our future will be in a pot hole because if a man and a man married they cant produce children and if a women and a women married they wouldn't produce children either.
Gay marriage

it is better for a child to be with a gay parents than without any parents because they can end committing crimes and going to jail or dropping out of school. statistics sagest that 40 - 50 percent of the kids never finish high school and 66 percent would be homeless in jail or dead. The kid that they adopt dose not have to follow their religions its his choice. You cant be forced to be gay by your parents its a felling you get in your heart for what you really want,and if someone feels that way there should be no law saying that he or she cant its a free country and if they want to be gay they should be allowed to. http://amarillo.com...
Gay marriage

Yes adoption can be an option for gay couples but what about the children who are in a foster home or up for adoption and they get adopted by gay parents, and the child does not like it either because the way it was raised, or religion, or even because of the simple fact that the child does not like it. Also gay parents who adopt should not be teaching the child to be gay or live life like that, but instead it should be the child's decision to be gay, and not the parents. Furthermore gay marriage should be illegal in the U.S. because of the simple fact that it is harmful to the married couple, and to the family and future generations. So I say this would you want you and your children to be gay and to the next generations? Thank you
Cultural and racial interbreeding is not a good thing.

Nationality does not define a nation. A nation, in Biblical terms, is a group of people who all share the same language, culture, history, and ethnicity. And if we all interbred into one race, then we would most likely share one culture and the world would not be diverse at all. And yes, people will be people and do what they want, but that will lead us to be one boring race. Thank you for participating in this debate. And to the audience, please don't be biased, or call me a racist just because I want to keep ALL races, not just white. Audience, I would like to point out that my competitor is using the definition of a "nation" in Biblical terms. I believe that this is an invalid source since billions of people in this world reject the thought of Christianity, including me. Don't call me biased or sacrilegious; it's the truth. I believe that any religions book or teaching is not a reliable source to use for something that's a factual matter. For example, creationism versus evolution. I vote evolution, considering there is hardcore scientific evidence backing it. Now that that's out of the way, I would like to state that the true definition of a nation is, according to dictionary. com, "a large body of people, associated with a particular territory, that is sufficiently conscious of its unity to seek or to possess a government peculiarly its own: The president spoke to the nation about the new tax. " Okay, so if we interbreed, we may become one glob of a race, just simple humans. However, this is just a ridiculous idea because this would take millions of years to happen, and EVERYBODY would have to interbreed. Not everybody interbreeds. In fact, only 15.1% of all new marriages in 2010 are interracial marriages. So, I believe that we should reject your one and only argument, that everybody would become the same, because of the facts I have stated. Because of the rejection of this argument, I believe that I have one this debate. :)
Cultural and racial interbreeding is not a good thing.

Nationality does not define a nation. A nation, in Biblical terms, is a group of people who all share the same language, culture, history, and ethnicity. And if we all interbred into one race, then we would most likely share one culture and the world would not be diverse at all. http://www.youtube.com... And yes, people will be people and do what they want, but that will lead us to be one boring race. Thank you for participating in this debate. And to the audience, please don't be biased, or call me a racist just because I want to keep ALL races, not just white.
Cultural and racial interbreeding is not a good thing.

I see where you're coming from on this one. However, you're forgetting one important thing: nationality. Your assumption is that if we interbreed, we will all morph into one race, one kind, just plain humans. However, we would still have our nationality. We would still be Chinese, Americans, Brazilians, etc. Also, I would like to bring up a new argument. I believe that interbreeding is a good thing because humans deserve to experience new things and breed with who they choose. If a person loves a person of a different race, it is not necessarily a bad thing. We shouldn't restrict interbreeding because it is a bad thing. We should allow it. I understand that isn't necessarily what this debate is about, but, in this case, interbreeding is a good thing. For these reasons, I believe that cultural and racial interbreeding is not a bad thing, or isn't not a good thing.
Cultural and racial interbreeding is not a good thing.

I see where your coming from, but it kills your race, and if continued throughout many generations, we would eventually have just one race and one culture. We would just be humans. We would'nt have Chinese, Polish, German, Brazillian, American, etc. I could possibly agree with interbreeding on a small scale. That is how the Mexicans got started, by mixing Spaniards and the native people.
Cultural and racial interbreeding is not a good thing.

They said that cultural and racial interbreeding kills diversity. I disagree because interbreeding cultures and races only create more diversity. Think of it this way. There are many diverse cultures and races on this planet. When one race has a baby with another race, take a Chinese and an American for example, you have a Chinese-American kid, thus increasing the diversity and variety of culture and races. I believe that cultural and racial interbreeding is a good thin because it creates a more diverse population, as I have stated above. More races mixing with other races just creates a new spectrum of race combinations, therefore resulting in more diversity. For the reasons I have stated, please vote for the con/opposition side of this debate.
MBTI Is Pseudoscience

I found several characteristics of a pseudoscience: “nothing concrete is ever learned”, “the original idea is never abandoned”, and “results cannot be reproduced” [1]. These are the three characteristics I will use to show that MBTI is not a pseudoscience. I. “nothing concrete is ever learned” MBTI is a favorite of high school college counselors and college career counselors. A personality type provides an understanding of your skills and a list of recommended careers. II. “the original idea is never abandoned” PRO's complaints of 'alternative explanations' is exactly why MBTI is a science. Science recognizes the need for complex systems when categorizing. Pseudoscience would claim one way fits all. III. “results cannot be reproduced” “On retest, people come out with three to four type preferences the same 75% to 90% of the time” and the type that changed was typically on the brink the first time around [2]. This shows that results can be reproduced, making MBTI a science. As you can see, MBTI is clearly not a pseudoscience. 1. http://www.quackwatch.com... 2. http://www.myersbriggs.org...
MBTI Is Pseudoscience

Astrology or horoscopes are pseudoscience because they don't provide valid explanations and are easily debunkable. My claim is that Myers-Briggs Type Indicator is better classified under pseudoscience as well, rather than actual science.---MBTI 101:There are 4 cognitive functions and 2 temperaments:COGNITIVE FUNCTIONS:- Thinking (T) (judging)- Feeling (F)(judging)- Sensing (S) (perceiving)- Intuition (N)(perceiving)TEMPERAMENTS:- Extraverted (E)- Introverted (I)INFORMATION FLOW DIRECTION- Judging (J)- Perceiving (P)Each function can have either temperament. So you can have introverted sensing, extraverted feeling, etc.; a total of 8 possibilitiies.MBTI Theory says that there are 16 possible combinations of cognitive function stacks, each stack consisting of the 4 functions listed in descending magnitude of preference, each in one of the 2 temperaments. If a perceiving function is dominant, the other perceiving function is inferior and of opposite temperament. As well, if a judging function is dominant, then the other judging function is inferior and of opposite temperament. The auxilliary function is of opposite temperament of the dominant function. If the dominant function was a percieving function, the auxilliary is a judging function. If the dominant function was a judging function, the auxilliary funcition is a perceiving function. Like the relationship between the dominant and inferior function, the auxilliary and tertiary functions are of opposite temperament but similar information flow direction.Thinking is working with cold hard logic, Feeling is working based on harmony and acceptance. Sensing is perceiving information based on sensory data, Intuition is perceiving based on patterns independent of the sensory data.---And I'm arguing that this is pseudoscience, or the same kind of stuff as astrology. It's a bit better than astrology or horoscopes, because it's based on observational inference, but it does not have the rigor or repeatability needed for science. It is also easy to change explanations for why people behave in certain ways: For exampleAllan, is an ENTJOBSERVATION: he a very goal-oriented person.EXPLANATION: He is very goal oriented because his dominant function, Te, is the desire to build and complete plans and to see them either work and if they don't they should be revised and implemented with priority.OBSERVATION: Allan has been lazy this past week and has not been completing goals.EXPLANATION: Allan is not completing tasks because his inferior function is repressing his dominant function and he has resorted to merely collecting facts instead of utilizing them.ALTERNATE-EXPLANATION: Allan is not been able to acheive his goals because he has not tapped into his Te-Ni loop, and is not gathering enough information to help him acheive his goals.---So it's easy to come up with alternate explanations for when the first explanation fails, a telltale sign of pseudoscience.---Just for fun, I am an INTP. If you want to tell your MBTI Type if you know it, then you can, but you don't have to.If you think that MBTI isn't pseudoscience, I invite you to debate me.
The Teleological argument is failed, and should NEVER BE USED EVER AGAIN.

He has offered no substantial rebuttal to my support for the Teleological Argument, so I extend all of my arguments. I will simply reply to a few of the points he made last round. Pro's only response to the astronomical odds against chance occurring as "the numbers could be higher therefore Design is more likely, as numbers go on forever. " This is irrelevant. It's not simply that the odds are low. If someone bets on a horse at a race track with 10 to 1 odds against, they can justify it by "with great risk comes great reward. " These aren't simply low odds. The odds against evolution happening, and the fine-tuning of the universe being just right are so astronomical as to essentially be nil. It simply could not happen. Since it could not happen by chance or physical necessity, the only remaining alternate is that it happened by design. Pro's next argument is that I said design "seems to be the more plausible explanation. " But remember that according to the argument, we are speaking with high and low probability. We can't prove anything beyond the shadow of a doubt. The Teleological Argument argues that given the astronomically low possibility of chance or physical necessity, the only reasonable alternative is that the universe is the result of design. So simply saying that "things are not always as they appear," while true, is not an argument against the Teleological Argument. Pro has provided no argument against the possibility of design. The conclusion of the Teleological Argument is not illogical. The argument is logically valid. If the three possible explanations are chance, physical necessity, and design, if chance and physical necessity are off the table, then logically the only possibility is design. The conclusion logically follows from its premises. Pro has failed to show that the Teleological Argument is flawed, and he has certainly failed to show that it should never be used again. Even if he did find a flaw with the argument, that doesn't prove that it should never be used again. It would only prove that the flaws should be located, fixed, and then the argument is good to go stronger than last time.
The Teleological argument is failed, and should NEVER BE USED EVER AGAIN.

My main argument is that the Probability of Design has not been established, and therefore we're wrong to assert that it's highly probable that the universe resulted from design. Granted, you've given me probability for Chance and it does seem like a big number, but there still are an innumerable amount of numbers that could be higher than it and therefore making Design more unlikely, as numbers simply go on forever. Since numbers go on forever, I can safely say that it is more likely that it is more likely for the universe to have resulted from Chance.That's why I think that the Teleological argument is flawed, it doesn't provide the probability for design, and therefore it is blindly asserting that it's highly probable that the universe resulted from design.Also, Con has failed to prove that it is more likely for the universe to have resulted from chance. 'Design seems to be the more plausible explanation, when all factors of the state of our universe are taken into account.'He's only said that it seems to be the more plausible explanation, but things are not always what they seem. When looked at simply, the Earth appears to be flat, but due to new evidence, we know that the earth is more of a spherical shape.Not only does Con do this, but he makes an illogical conclusion.'Conclusion -- Therefore, it is highly probable that it was due to design.'This conclusion is an illogical one as he's said before that it SEEMS to be the more plausible, and he's failed to prove that it's either more probable or plausible. His conclusion should have been something more like this:'Conclusion -- Therefore, it seems to me that it's highly probable that it was due to design'Until Con provides the Probability of the Universe resulting from Design, I conclude that the Teleological argument is flawed. A flawed argument does not deserve to be used, and therefore the Teleological argument is flawed, and SHOULD never be used ever again.
The Teleological argument is failed, and should NEVER BE USED EVER AGAIN.

I thought I'd explained this already in Round 1. I'll simply be arguing that the Teleological is flawed. Probability1. The probability of Design has not been established.2. The probability of Chance has not been established.3. The probability of Physical Necessity has not been established.4. Therefore, it is blind to assert that it is highly probable that the universe was designed.Until the three probabilities have been established, I conclude that the Teleological argument is flawed.ChanceJust a thought, and I'll use an anology to express it. If we're betting on a number on a roulette wheel,not matter what number it lands on, it will always be more likely that it won't land on it than it will.I'm interested to hear my opponent's view.