BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The winner of this debate is an idiot

If you win this debate, you're an idiot. If I win this debate, I'm an idiot. If neither of us win this debate, we're both idiots. The loser of this debate is also an idiot. The world is full of idiots. You're an idiot, I'm an idiot. We're all idiots. But if you participate in this debate, you are a very huge idiot. Your idiocy rivals that of the cast of Honey BooBoo, Jersey Shore, and Keeping up with the Kardashians. So, do yourself a favour, and do not participate. Definitions: Idiot n Anyone who participates in this debate.
The Hypothesis of Universal Common Ancestry Is Falsified

Note that Cane's sauce is not what's on the debate here. I agree, there is absolutely no room for debate on that point. It tastes awful. Period. I know not all creatures and bacteria were having sex with each other. Please watch your language. Children visit this website. There are asexual beings. They're called angels, and they have nothing to do with the topic at hand so I don't know why you even brought them up. Don't automatically assume UCA is falsified Why not? You admitted just now that: I can't answer the incest question ...which means the billion year interbreeding paradox remains unresolved and UCA is falsified. Thanks for this debate.
The Hypothesis of Universal Common Ancestry Is Falsified

That visual representation is what i'm seeing as a mocking satire. I'm talking about a legite tree of different types of creatures on it as well as bacteria and so on. Note that Cane's sauce is not what's on the debate here. I was making an analogy. -__- really? Your too lazy? Then why did you take the time to ask me for a debate anyways. The tree of life has been explained to you by biological classifications and the fossil records by me. I can't answer the incest question, but I know not all creatures and bacteria were having sex with each other. There are asexual beings. Not the asexual people who have no romantic attraction at all, but the kind that can have sex with itself and reproduce by itself. There are certain species of fish that can do this. Don't automatically assume UCA is falsified until the end of the debate (which you can do now if you haven't been convinced.)
The Hypothesis of Universal Common Ancestry Is Falsified

I would like to see a visual representation from my opponent by the way. I want to see the visual representation of the evidence of lineages with no connections to the original root? (5) If you know of a place called Raising Canes, the place is known for their sauce. You know how when you boil a pot of crawfish, there's a few that are black or blue and when you crack 'em open, they look rotten? If you know of what I'm talking about, imagine crushing up a bunch of those rotten crawfish in a bowl until it's a nice and mushy. That's what Raising Canes' sauce tastes like. (The second recipe is one that my mom learned from the resteraunt in our town. It was basically ketchup, ranch and Tony Chachere's.) I hope it's better than the one they serve at Raising Canes here in the south. It sure sounds delicious though (I love Tony Chachere's!) Josephus was a forgery. Look it up. YOU look it up. I'm too lazy. I would like to point out that my opponent has not mentioned anything about the Gregor Mendel pea plant experiment I would like to point out that my opponent has done a miserable job at rebutting my tree of life argument, and hasn't even attempted to solve the billion year incest paradox. UCA remains falsified. Good luck to my opponent in his next turn. (5) http://www.learner.org...
The Hypothesis of Universal Common Ancestry Is Falsified

You can compare the parent relative branch to the species branch, but the point is you can trace a species' lineage to eventually find the different species, families and other parts of the classifications. Biological Classifications (Kingdom, Phylum, Order, Genus, Family, Species, etc.) is showing what categories an animal belongs to based on their features and structures. I'm going to leave a couple of links to a random Order and a random Class. Start from there and look into members belonging in the group to make distinctions as well as the year span each one appeared in. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... I would like to see a visual representation from my opponent by the way. I want to see the visual representation of the evidence of lineages with no connections to the original root? Yes they are two different trees, but doesn't mean they aren't related at all. Fossils deal with bones and molecules deal with molecules. So the trees are similar, except the ingredients are different. If you know of a place called Raising Canes, the place is known for their sauce. Some people make the sauce differently. Some use a traditional form of ingredients, but others use a more southern approach to make the sauce. Different ingredients, but the outcome is the same. Might be a bad analogy, but I hope you understand what I'm saying. http://www.copykat.com... (The second recipe is one that my mom learned from the resteraunt in our town. It was basically ketchup, ranch and Tony Chachere's.) Your Josephus has been refuted several times. Josephus was a forgery. Look it up. Josephus was also living at least a 100 years after Christ died. You could look up writings by the Jewish Philosopher named Philo. He lived during the times of Christ and didn't write a single word about him. At least people like Aristotle wrote about Socrates. People didn't start talking about Jesus until years after his death. So your Josephus would have clarified your bible on Jesus, but we already know it's a forgery. Human ancestry mixes with horse ancestry and so on. All leading to Universal. I would like to point out that my opponent has not mentioned anything about the Gregor Mendel pea plant experiment when he discovered heredity (genetic makeup) and alleles. So I would advise at least mentioning it or you just admit you don't know what to say to this part of my argument. Cuz that was at least an important part, if not half of my argument.
The Hypothesis of Universal Common Ancestry Is Falsified

I would like to see the molecular and fossil evidence to disprove the tree of life. See my sources. If we can at least show one branch, we know it came from a tree. Nonsense. You're basically saying that if I can trace my lineage back through my parents and grandparents, that alone proves I can trace my lineage back to a bacterium. That's point being contested, and you'll have to do better than assert "we know it came from a tree." It doesn't matter if whales and dolphins share a common ancestor, or if horses evolved from non-horses. That's a branch, not a tree. Another way to learn about these fossils being a part of the tree of life, is the biological classification of other species. Taxonomy is descriptive, not prescriptive. Classifications don't prove UCA anymore than me drawing a tree of life with midgets at the bottom and me at the top prove that I evolved from midgets. Well this is interesting. Phylogenetic analyses does not support tree-thinking. I'll admit I have no clue what these terms are or if I am an expert in any of them. Phylogenetic analysis is the study of genealogical relationships between organisms. When my study said that phylogenetic analyses don't support tree-thinking, it meant that the lineages of organisms don't all connect to the same root. If UCA were true, all lineages would connect at the same root. But they don't, so UCA is falsified. Can you explain what Independent Data is? Independent data is data derived independently from other data. For example, scientists constructed a family tree based on fossil data. They also constructed a family tree based on molecular data. This resulted in 2 different family trees, each one independent of the other. If someone were to construct a single tree based on both molecular and fossil evidence, the tree would be dependent on both the fossil and also the molecular evidence. You wouldn't be able to say the tree was independent of the molecular data, or the fossil data, since it was dependent on both of them. Another example would be if I said Jesus existed, and as proof I quoted the Bible. You might demand that I provide independent data to confirm Jesus' existence. To provide independent data, I would have to cite a different source that wasn't the Bible, such as the historian Josephus, saying Jesus existed. Alright after the refuting, I'm going to make my presentation now. You haven't actually done any refuting. You've got to rebut my point about inconsistencies between fossil and molecular trees, and the billion-year inbreeding problem. We can also prove Common Ancestry with humans. It doesn't matter. I'm not arguing against Human Common Ancestry. I'm arguing against Universal Common Ancestry. My opponent has not refuted either one of my points. UCA is still falsified.
The Hypothesis of Universal Common Ancestry Is Falsified

Thanks for accepting, but I'll define words as I please, thank you very much. If there was a probem with my definition of UCA, I should have been informed in the comments before accepting, as I instructed before you clicked the accept button.On to my arguments.According to evolutionary biologist Eric Bapteste(2), We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality. By the tree of life, Bapteste is referring to UCA. Not only is there no evidence at all of UCA, molecular and fossil evidence disprove it. According to an article published in BMC Evolutionary Biology(4), Tree-thinking, the explanation of evolutionary events in the context of a tree, has inspired many philosophers and evolutionists. If UCA were true, the history of life could be explained by a tree of life, where a single root represents the Universal Common Ancestor, and phylogenetic analyses (analyses of lineages) would confirm the tree. However, the article ends up making the following blunt conclusion: [P]hylogenetic analyses do not support tree-thinking. According to an article published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS), Molecular estimates of divergence times are[...] much more ancient than suggested by the fossil record[...] DNA and protein age estimates of land plants, fungi, and animal phyla possibly appeared several hundred million years (Myr) older than indicated by paleontology. This means that deriving a tree of life from molecular data resuts in a tree that branches off earlier (or lower) than a tree derived from fossil evidence. If UCA were true, trees of life derived from independent data would agree. However, they do not. It is possible to reconcile these discrepancies by positing that the devil rearranged the fossils in order to confuse the academic community. He is, after all, a very mischievous little rascal (or so I've heard). The other possibility is UCA is false. I think we can agree this is the more likely of the two explanations. The fact that fossil and molecular evidence produce conflicting trees is not the only reason UCA is falsified. There's also the fact that UCA entails a lot of inbreeding for over a billion years. There's no way that would have worked out. When populations inbreed for long periods of time, they go extinct. They don't start a tree of life, evolve wings and fly. UCA is falsified by molecular and fossil phylogenetic data, as well as the inbreeding problem. Good luck to my opponent in his rebuttals. (2) http://www.telegraph.co.uk... (3) http://www.pnas.org... (4) http://www.biomedcentral.com...
The Hypothesis of Universal Common Ancestry Is Falsified

I will be arguing that the hypothesis of Universal Common Ancestry (UCA) is falsified. According to the journal Nature, UCA posits that all extant terrestrial organisms share a common genetic heritage, each being the genealogical descendant of a single species from the distant past.(1) However, I am defining UCA as the hypothesis that all known organisms, both living and extinct, terrestrial and non-terrestrial, are the genealogical descendant of a single organism.Please use the comment section for discussion regarding the terms of this debate before accepting. First round is for acceptance only. I welcome ChristianPunk to this debate!(1) http://www.nature.com...
Tradition is not an obstacle in progress

Since my opponent has forfeited round 2, I will be brief. I hope to see Pro back for round 3 where I will expand.While Pro mentions festivals and programs, a look at the definition of tradition shows that we are dealing with much more than that. I will not be arguing against the continuation of traditions like Christmas or the Chinese lantern festival. Rather we will look at the stubborn resistance to change, even when it is fairly obvious harm is being done.For example, we could look at certain traditions that are simply dangerous, such as college hazings, the running of the bulls, use of real christmas trees which are fire hazard, or the Onbashira festival in Tokyo.I look forward to my opponents arguments.
Duke vs. UNC

Burden of Proof is shared. I am pro Duke university not UNC. The opponent must prove somehow that UNC is better than Duke in a head to head debate. Round 1 for acceptance Round 2 initial arguments Round 3 Rebuttals and Summary Con agrees to the following definition of "better" Better: "Higher and tougher standards of academics as well as athletics." I invite anyone to try and argue but good luck disputing a NCAA championship.
Duke vs. UNC

You can't argue with wins. And Coach K of Duke University has the most wins in NCAA men's basketball history. If that's not enough Duke has won another NCAA championship this year over Wisconsin who was said to be too big, too fast, and too strong. The white boys from Duke did it again. In Duke university history they have a grand total of 16 NCAA championships with 5 coming from boys basketball. Duke and UNC are a part of the Atlantic Coastal Conference or the ACC where they are arch rivals. In all 26 sports offered by Duke they have won a whopping 119 ACC championships, the most in the conference. Now don't even get me started in academics. Each Duke applicant must have a GPA of 3.75 minimum and at least a 2100 on their SAT. I'm sure you've heard of the academic scandal with UNC. The average reading level for UNC's men's basketball team was at a 5th grade reading level while majoring in basket weaving and yoga. While the white boys from Duke go on to be heart and lung surgeons, the black boys from UNC end up being drug dealers and gang members. Take your pick.
Why US should not have dropped the bomb

Okay, so you said that we should've fought them. That would result in far more US casualties, and continue to drag the war on, the bombs were necessary to save lives. Second, dropping them on major population centers was the only way to get Japan to surrender. Third, the Japanese were stated that they would not surrender after the first bomb. If we didn't drop the second, then countless more Russian, American, and Japanese lives would be lost.
Why US should not have dropped the bomb

The U.S should not have bombed Japan because I feel that it was an easy way out. The US should have fought them instead of bombing them. I also feel that they should not have bombed Japan because they killed many of innocent civilians. The third reason why I think the US should not have bombed Japan is because Japan was already getting ready to surrender, it would not have been long before they surrendered but Truman decided to drop another bomb.
Prisons should focus on rehabilitating criminals

Hello and thank you for viewing this debate. First round is for acceptance, but the pro can make arguments if s/he chooses. This debate is about the United States prisons. Also, the pro is trying to prove that prisons should be mainly rehabilitative, not just that they should use a little rehabilitation. Rehabilitation is defined as the restoration of someone to a useful place in society. Because prisons do not currently focus on rehabilitation, the Burden of Proof is mainly on the pro, but I will be making some of my own arguments as well. If you want to challenge anything said here, do so in the comments before accepting. If you accept it is assumed that you agree to everything stated above.
Marvel vs DC: DC wins

In this debate, I will be Pro for DC and my opponent(whoever accepts) will be Con for Marvel. My opponent and I will each choose 4 non-overpowered characters(Galactus, Anti-monitor,etc are not allowed) from our universes. Each round we will choose one of our characters and pit them against one of our opponents. I will announce my characters after someone accepts. Good luck and thank you for accepting!
God is evil

God's omniscience easily negates your entire argument. Let me explain further... //Why does God allow evil things to happen?// ...because He intended for it to happen. //*Being all-knowing, God does knowingly create people who will be sinners, *but knowledge and control are different. God created us with the gift of free will - the ability to willfully choose Him or reject Him. We choose to sin - to reject God - through willful disobedience. This rejection is a void in God's plan for us.// *Why would a supposedly good God 'knowingly create people who will be sinners', people that He ultimately knows are doomed to suffer? Foreknowledge shows malicious intent. *No, 'knowledge and control' are not different, not in this case. God's foreknowledge controls the outcome of his will. *'free will' is not free will if it comes with a price or consequence. God gives us free will, but, if we use it to go against His will, we're doomed. This is not free will, it's evil control. *'...God's plan for us.' His plan that would ultimately doom most of his creation. *'What is evil and where did it come from?' Evil came from God. God is all-knowing, and he knowingly created evil. *'...these things do not happen because God is Evil but because Satan is evil...' God, with omniscience wholly knew and intended for the existence of Satan. Therefore, the origin of evil Satan can be traced directly back to God. *'God gave his son Jesus to be killed by the people he put on this earth to save them for doing so. If he never did anything but that, that would be okay because that is all we need to save us from hell.' Another demonstration of God's evil intentions. He sent his son as a sacrificial blood sacrifice to suffer and die on a cross as a way of atoning for sins that God Himself created. To save people from a torturous hell that He made. Conclusion: Another attribute of God is 'Eternal' , something I did not bring up in R2. I will provide my thoughts on it here. When we think about an 'Eternal God" we are confronted with a paradox. It does not follow logically that an eternal God would create time and anything else that would contradict with anything eternal. When 'Perfection', 'omniscience'' and '*eternality" are combined, a question arises. Why would a God with those attributes create anything? A God such as this would just exist. However, according to the Bible, God creates everything the opposite of Himself. Just look at the entirety of his creation. Everything here dies. There is nothing that can live without something else dying. What a sad and tragic creation it is. If you could see the underground of a rain forest in accelerated motion. You would see the roots of every plant battling with each other for food, water and resources. As do the animals that inhabit the rain forest. The rain forest I described is a paradigm of every system the world conforms to, and God created the parameters that would rule its existance. A God with the aforementioned qualities that intended the world to be this way, is evil.* http://www.merriam-webster.com...
God is evil

=======Resolution======= 'God is evil "~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ //Note: Please read through the debate format before accepting.// I will be Pro/For ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Definitions: God = The Judeo-Christian God as described in the Bible. Evil = morally bad: profoundly immoral or wrong. harmful: deliberately causing great harm, pain, or upset. malicious: characterized by a desire to cause hurt or harm. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Rounds: 1.) R1 is for acceptance and/or any definitions my opponent would like to revise. 2.) R2 is for argumetation. 3.) R3 is for rebuttals/conclusion. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Rules: 1.) The Bible will treated as the Word of God. 2.) Only the Bible can be used as a reference. 3.) If my opponent claims Bible vereses were taken 'out of context" Con must provide contextual clarity. 4.) debate will be respectful. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~//Note: I know this topic has been debated time and time again, but I have never actually debated it myself. For the purpose of this debate I will contend that "God" as defined, exists. In the hope of making this debate somewhat challenging and passionate, I urge any Christian to take up the challenge. As Christians truly believe God is perfectly loving. Please, no devil's advocates.//
Today's media feeds on sensation not on substance

My opponent is missing the point I have made. I each round thus far, I have held the position that media feeds on BOTH sensation and substance. Every article I have posted has fed on both sensation and substance. My opponent has been unable to provide an example where sensation and NOT substance feed media. I have shown several instances where media DOES in fact feed on substance, as well as sensation. Thus, I have shown the resolution to be false, ergo...
Today's media feeds on sensation not on substance

I would appreciate what my opponent said about MEDIA , but can he give me one major example of any news where the media is just feeding feeding on substance and not on sensation and i dont think he will find any such news.. In the end i would like to say that media in today's world is just feeding on sensation and not on substance and those peopple are enjoying it one way..... i want to again ask my opponent can media feed on just substance and without any sensation?????
Today's media feeds on sensation not on substance

First, It's a dishonor to the many poeple who work in media to claim that "they don't think about the people on whom they are making news." These people are still human, and there is no way to simply get rid of our empathy, our sympathy, or other such feelings. I will admit that the media does not hold the well-being of their subjects in the highest regard. HOWEVER, this has absolutely no bearing on the topic resolution: "Today's media feeds on sensation not on substance." I challenged my opponent to provide even one instance of a news story that does not have any substance. She did not meet this challenge last round, and there is a very good reason for that, ladies and gents. News stories without substance do not work. Today's media, while it does feed on sensation, also feeds on substance. Let's check the front of CNN again, to stay consistent. "Corpses piling up as Myanmar misery deepens" While the title is surely sensational, it is clear upon seeing this that the story simply could not exist without substance. This is a story about the real struggles of real people; you can't get much more substance than that.
Today's media feeds on sensation not on substance

I contend that the media feeds on both. While it may directly be most interested in sensation [that which will get people to watch the news], much of this indeed has substance. In fact, there is nothing that has sensation that does not also have substance. Take, for example, the news article on the front page of CNN: http://www.cnn.com... This is an article about the devestation a cyclone has caused in Myanmar. That's certainly sensational... but it's certainly substance as well. Or what about this: http://www.cnn.com... Surely "Clinton fights on as focus turns to superdelegates" has some sort of substance? The media would completely fail without substance. I challenge my opponent to give me one major news story that has no substance. It cannot be done, because the media feeds on both substance and sensation simultaneously, and so I must negate "Today's media feeds on sensation not on substance."