BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Is there proof of Evolution

Firstly, one bird having smaller claws than another don't prove that one is older than the other. Secondly if you look it up there are no missing links between species that have been fownd. Take humans evolving slowly from apes for example. Have you ever noticed that all of the animals drawn on the charts of human evolution have human feet and hands. This is because that of all the ancient human sceletons that have been fownd, only a few fragments have been fownd which isn't enough to test.
Is there proof of Evolution

There is many proofs for evolution. One of the proof is fossil records. http://www.fossilmuseum.net... http://biologos.org... Fossils can show change in animal's bone structures. For an example, some fossil shows some birds that had claws at the tip of their wings. But over time their fossils show that bird's claws slowly disappeared. This may occurred because the bird's way of living didn't need the claws anymore.
Jesus is the Son of God who Died on the Cross

Thanks for the history lesson, Arsenal, but it still proves me point. If you have evidence for something happening, it will generally be reviewed by you peers to be viable or not. Back in the days of Galileo, minds were very closed, any thoughts which could betray any scripture was blasphemous. Despite your claim that the church was grounded in this "scientific" geocentric theory, the fact remains that it found the evidence provided by Galileo to be an affront to God and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The church was not scientific.
Jesus is the Son of God who Died on the Cross

My opponent claims that the teachings of Mohammad (Praise be upon Him), which were directly inspired by Allah, to not be factual information. He is in fact wrong. The Holy Koran holds that Jesus, although he is considered a prophet and great man, is not the son of God. One may only look at the life of Our Prophet (Praise be upon Him) and know that such a man is clearly favored by God. To say that the Christian Bible holds the truth because it was written sooner than the Koran is a falsehood, for both books describe eyewitness accounts, and not the direct writings of the eyewitnesses. This is where the similarities end though, as it is clearly evident that the Holy Koran is inspired directly by Allah, because it clearly states so. It is important to note that the Koran does not elaborate on the life of Jesus because his message was simply part of the greater message Allah sends to us. It matters not how many times he was tempted in the desert, he did not rise from the dead. The only thing that is important is that we receive his message, and that is to love God above all else. The bible does in fact make the apostles look bad at times. This is because the message of the Christian Bible is that humanity is subject to sin. Not once does the bible make reference of any sin to Jesus; to do so would be to undermine his supposed divinity. It is entirely possible and true that the bible was written the way it was to convey the message that humanity is not divine and can commit wrongs. I do not see it as making it realistic to convey some sort of truth. Jesus never rose from the dead. He is not the son of God. The Holy Koran clearly states over and over again that there is only one God and that Mohammad (Praise be upon Him) is his only prophet. To say that your holy book is above another's, without considering the fact that each book has its own claim to the truth, is foolish. Only the Koran is above this as it is clearly written as the True Word of God (Allah).
The Cat deities are better than the Bunny deities

No, if it was the Cat God more would die after that many already died. I meant Bunny so the world would populate again, but hopefully this time actually keeping the balance. "The Bunny Deities are still needed and are more valuable at this time because their prescence keeps the balance in the universe which appeases the Fish Deities." The Fish God has already told the Cat God to plague the humans of disease thus to kill them. He just hasn't hasn't been able to get the Bunny Goddess to stop blessing humans with her gift. " If fertility and reproduction weren't needed right now then the Fish Deities wouldn't have approved of the Bunny Goddess' request to allow mating at all time like the Cat God can kill at any time." That was aproved thousands of years ago, and the humans have so far proven that the Firefox god has been blessing them with his love of war and destruction, not to mention killing the innocent. The Cat God cannot just kill a large amount of anything at one time, or balance will be broken. Without balance the Fish Deities die, causing everything to die. He must act slowly. The Bunny Goddess is used to working fast thus slowly disturbing the balance. "If the Bunny Goddess couldn't allow mating at any time then there would be an inbalance in the universe, causing the Fish Deities to create disturbances in the universe that will take hundreds of years to fix." I believe I've already covered that point. "Without the Bunny Deities the world would be out of balance and in right now a disturbance is not going to help the human race. The Bunny Goddess can fix the overpopulation problem so therefore the Bunny Deities are more valuable at this time than the Cat Deities." I'm not saying to kill the bunny Deities, just that right now their gift is not as important as that of the Cat God causing death, and the Cat Goddess allowing those that live to keep living and make life better.
The Cat deities are better than the Bunny deities

"It's safe to say that fertility isn't wanted as much anymore, and wont be until many more humans die, making them go into a state of panic and reproduction, thus making the Bunny God more valuable." Don't you mean "thus making the Cat God more valuable,"? The Bunny Deities are still needed and are more valuable at this time because their prescence keeps the balance in the universe which appeases the Fish Deities. If fertility and reproduction weren't needed right now then the Fish Deities wouldn't have approved of the Bunny Goddess' request to allow mating at all time like the Cat God can kill at any time. If the Bunny Goddess couldn't allow mating at any time then there would be an inbalance in the universe, causing the Fish Deities to create disturbances in the universe that will take hundreds of years to fix. Without the Bunny Deities the world would be out of balance and in right now a disturbance is not going to help the human race. The Bunny Goddess can fix the overpopulation problem so therefore the Bunny Deities are more valuable at this time than the Cat Deities.
The Cat deities are better than the Bunny deities

The Cat Goddess is better than the Bunny Goddess, because the Cat goddess symbolizes life. Without her nothing could live. The Bunny Goddess is just that of reproduction. Without life you cannot reproduce. The Cat God is of Death while the Bunny God is of fertility. Just looking at humans theres too many, fertility is not really wanted by most humans. Most use things to hinder their fertility, and even kill the unborn. It's safe to say that fertility isn't wanted as much anymore, and wont be until many more humans die, making them go into a state of panic and reproduction, thus making the Bunny God more valuable. It will take years of death and the death of millions of humans for that to happen though. Thus the Cat Deities are more useful at this moment in time, and thus are better now.
The Cat deities are better than the Bunny deities

"So far you are correct." Thanks. "The only reason the Firefox God was asked to cause war is because their are too many humans, and too many of them are threatening the balance of the world. The Fish Goddess knows that those that threaten the balance are more likely to join in war, because it is used to control more, and the more control anything has, the less balanced it is." You mean to say that those who are more likely to reproduce are going to war and dying? If so then the problem with humans being alive without living shouldn't be so much of a problem, and the Bunny Goddess can still continue to bless the humans with her gift without harm. To me this sounds like there is a balance right now. The humans who reproduce to much die in war, the Bunny Goddess blesses the humans and the reproduce other humans who won't reproduce so much, and the Cat Goddess can bless the humans with the gift of life. Without the Bunny Goddess in this cycle there is no balance. "If there is peace now everyone/everything dies. We must attain balance before attaining peace." How? If we have peace right now then the humans will stop their actions and enjoy life, appeasing the Cat Goddess, and causing the Bunny Goddess' gift to be of less value. Until the Firefox God stops the war and destruction, supposedly thinking he is solving the problem, the Bunny Goddess will be needed more than the Cat God. Death is not always the solution, but it appears more convenient to the Fish Deities who would rather watch the humans die than debate about another way to end the human race's problem. Therefore the Bunny Deities are more valuable than the Cat Deities at this time now. Side Note: "human rice." Spell Check is important!
The Cat deities are better than the Bunny deities

"The Bunny Goddess' gift is a wonderful thing, and shouldn't be treated lightly." So far you are correct. "If the Firefox god has been blessing the humans with war and destruction, then the Bunny Goddess needs to continue blessing the humans so the human rice won't die out because of war and destruction." The only reason the Firefox God was asked to cause war is because their are too many humans, and too many of them are threatening the balance of the world. The Fish Goddess knows that those that threaten the balance are more likely to join in war, because it is used to control more, and the more control anything has, the less balanced it is. "The Firefox goddess needs to start blessing the humans with the gift of peace, and at that time the Bunny Goddess will not be needed as much anymore. Until that time happens, the Bunny Deities is still needed and is more valuable at this time than the Cat Deities." If there is peace now everyone/everything dies. We must attain balance before attaining peace. "Even though the Cat Goddess does give life to those, the Bunny Goddess has to create beings in which life can be instilled so the Bunny Goddess is more important than the Cat Goddess as well." If the Bunny Goddess blesses more than the Cat Goddess then people will live without living.
The Cat deities are better than the Bunny deities

The Bunny Goddess' gift is a wonderful thing, and shouldn't be treated lightly. If the Firefox god has been blessing the humans with war and destruction, then the Bunny Goddess needs to continue blessing the humans so the human rice won't die out because of war and destruction. The Firefox goddess needs to start blessing the humans with the gift of peace, and at that time the Bunny Goddess will not be needed as much anymore. Until that time happens, the Bunny Deities is still needed and is more valuable at this time than the Cat Deities. "I'm not saying to kill the bunny Deities, just that right now their gift is not as important as that of the Cat God causing death, and the Cat Goddess allowing those that live to keep living and make life better." I didn't say that the Bunny Deities needed to killed either. I'm just meant that without their blessings and gifts to the humans the world would be out of balance. Even though the Cat Goddess does give life to those, the Bunny Goddess has to create beings in which life can be instilled so the Bunny Goddess is more important than the Cat Goddess as well.
Make up should be banned in school.

Hello sy, In most schools, the issue of makeup falls in the school's dress code. Whether or not makeup should be banned is decided by the school's administration. That being said, I do not see any reasons for makeup to be disallowed entirely. While outlandish uses and outrageous amounts of makeup should be banned on the basis of disturbing the learning environment, I do not believe makeup should be outlawed. Makeup does not usually cause any major issues in school, and most students use it with common sense. In fact, clothing is a much bigger cause of problems than makeup. This is why schools often have a mandatory dress code, but adopt much more liberal views towards makeup. Also, makeup is a way of students to express themselves. This should also be taken into consideration when deciding whether or not to ban makeup entirely. An ideal compromise would be for schools to moderate the use of makeup. For example, schools could disallow outlandish uses of makeup, but they should allow students to use a reasonable amount. What each school sets as reasonable amount is dependent upon their administration. The allowance of makeup can be a privilege, and the school may take it away at any time if a makeup becomes a problematic issue. In short, my points are that: 1. Makeup is usually not an issue in schools and therefore should not be banned entirely. 2. Many students use makeup responsibly and with common sense (therefore it is not an issue). 3. Makeup is a way for students to creatively express themselves. This should be considered when deciding to ban it. 4. As a compromise, schools can make makeup a privilege and remove it from students who abuse it. Thank you for taking the time to start this debate. I am awaiting your reply.
The Relevance of Morality.

Since I have nothing to work on from my opponent I will simply reiterate my point as a formality. I don't think that someone who didn't even debate can logically win. My point is simply this. We all have our own ideas of right and wrong. No matter how sick and twisted they can be, we have them. We also do not have an objectively proven higher power to mandate a set of rules for us. Therefore, there is no objective set of morals and cannot be one. We decide what is best as we have for centuries. Not what is moral as though we could have the knowledge to be able to objectively say we are right, but ideas that help society and the large majority can agree to and abide by. Notice the distinction, we should have ideas but not morals. In this way we stave off division and destruction by rivals who are mandated each by their own absolutes to rid the world of some made up evil (examples of these made up evils, jews, gays, communists, gypsies, Native Americans, all non-Christians, all non-Muslims, et cetera). I implore all to use ideas instead of morals to persuade others, it is much less dangerous and much more fair to all. Vote for me, the only one who debated this topic, good day all.
The Relevance of Morality.

I'll take this part to answer the expected question of, "if there are no morals than what do I believe?" Well I'll tell you. I believe, personally, in utilitarian ethics. We should do what makes the most amount of people happy. As I explained in the comments section this idea makes morals so fluid that they no longer really matter. What is moral is what we decide at the time is moral. That is pretty much how we work now. At one point in the old testament slavery and genocide were pretty much acceptable however eating pork or shellfish was an "abomination", according to Leviticus. My point is not that we should allow murder to run rampant or to allow rape to happen without punishment. That is not what I advocate. What I do advocate is that we distance ourselves from the kind of absolutes that morality advances. As I have stated before in other arguments and possibly this one as well that the use of morality has caused much murder, genocide, oppression, intolerance, et cetera. If we distance ourselves from such absolutes and instead focus on how to best serve our common interests than the world would be a much happier place.
The Relevance of Morality.

This opening statement is bits and pieces from other debates that I used to argue my point: Everyone justifies their own actions. They may use twisted logic such as Hitler who believed that Jews needed to be eradicated because he was heavily influenced by anti-Semites who painted Jews as the reason for Germany's ills. While their logic is flawed they believe themselves to be right. The majority of people obviously disagree with them. However, this does not mean that Hitler was right and it does not mean that he was wrong. It simply means he had a very dangerous idea that he justified and was able to justify to thousands of others (nazis). If we all can't agree on something that means it's not objective, it's subjective therefore, it can't be absolute. Everything is subjective. They are NOT wrong because there is no such thing as wrong. Do you know the term moral relativism? That is what I'm talking about. In my mind what they did is awful, but it is NOT wrong. To say it is wrong would imply that we are working from an objective idea. There is no such thing as objectivity, it is all subjective. While I may think and the majority of the world will think that their action is horrible it doesn't mean it's wrong. There is no such thing as absolutism or objectivity. It is all subjective to one's own feelings and experiences. Right and wrong are in their nature objective terms. They aim at making everyone agree with some idea or cause. They can be used for good or for evil, but are very dangerous terms. For example: Jews and Muslims are wrong for denying the divinity of Jesus. That idea has lead to the deaths of millions of people. Another example: It is wrong to question the (insert authority here). That idea prevalent throughout society has led to oppression, slavery, genocide, et cetera. However I will say I believe that Hitler was despicable in what he did, that I believe that the death penalty is a poor system. I use these terms because I want to express my personal feelings and thus not seem so arrogant as to know what is truly right or wrong. Who knows, perhaps at some point in the future a genetic disease will surface amongst the jews and the only way to save humanity is to kill them. My point is this, we can't judge people as right or wrong because we do not have the knowledge or the agreement amongst our people to do so. Right and wrong are dangerous terms and have been used and continue to be used by many to move towards an armageddon (Ahmadinejad in Iran being amongst them). So, I urge caution in using those terms and emphasize use of terms that show you're personal feelings but do not force others to feel the need to conform around them.
Homosexuals Are An Asset To The Overall Thriving Of The Human Species

1. I did state that decreasing population gives countries problems like lower and employment and a bad economy. I backed it up by a statement by U.N. demographer Joseph Charnie that the statement is in my first round sources (http://ir.stthomas.edu... page 18). This man does population statics and the cause and effect. 2. 98% of all greenhouse gases is water vapor. The hotter the temperature more water vapor is formed causing the Earth to get hotter. That is the main reason for Global Warming when the temperatures rise the water vapor increases. Co2 has a double affect it bounces radiation away from the Earth, but also keeps some of it. But water vapor is what makes it hotter like humidity in an area even if the temperature isn't very high if the humidity is the area feels hot. 3. The United States has more oil than Saudi Arabia. Even though a lot of it is not obtainable yet it will be when we improve our technology. The United States has already made strides in improving green energy. While the United States is not ready to go completely off of fossil fuels it still has over 100 years of oil from Saudi Arabia and even more years from our own resources. These resources can be sold around the world helping in a global fashion. 4. I have a source that shows that the world produces enough food to feed 10 billion people. That means even by 250 when the population is supposed to be 9 billion we could feed the world. 5. While Homosexuals can't have children there are still straight people. In the 2000 U.S. Census Bureau found that homosexual couples constitute less than 1% of American households. That still leaves 99% of household able and are having children. Even though the birth rate has gone down the amount hasn't. With more people able to have children thanks to sperm donators even when a person is unable to have children naturally thanks to medical advancements they can have children. Homosexuals don't change anything. My opponent shows all of the supposed dangers of an overpopulated world, but doesn't show how much homosexuals would change the number. Because it won't people will still have children and the population will increase whether people are homosexual or not. sources http://ir.stthomas.edu... http://www.slate.com... http://www.gallup.com... http://blogs.reuters.com... http://www.huffingtonpost.com... http://www.geocraft.com...
Homosexuals Are An Asset To The Overall Thriving Of The Human Species

We Don't Need population Control 1. Like I stated before when a population is decreasing the country faces many problems. Like lower employment and a bad economy.2. Co2 has been proven not to get the world hotter, but instead it cools the Earth because it bounces the Co2 back into the atmosphere. The largest green house gas is water vapor, no one can stop water vapor unless you want to stop volcanoes and the evaporation cycle. Also the world goes through a cycle of warming and cooling has evident here- 3. If the fear is lack of energy by oil than the world must adampt. Around the world people are becoming less dependement on fossil fuel and turning to green energy. Like solar, wind, water, and nuclear power that countries already have adopted and other countres will when the fossil fuel go down.4. The problem is not food stortages it is the way we spread it out. We grow enough food to feed 10 billion people, but the problem is not supply it is how the food is getting around. So homosexuals have nothing to do with this.5. Homosexuals have nothing to do with birth rate. The birth's have not changed the thing that has changed is the children being born out of wedlock. That has increased by 17% since 1970. What homosexuals acutally do is that they adopt these children and actually help the populaiton growth. Because a child that is fatherless is more likly to commit sucide also they are more likely to get married and have children. If homosexuals raise childen than the fatherless is taken out causing less death from inflicted injury. 6. If we want population control than homosexuality won't help in this. Countries fear depopulation than overpopulaiton, becasue we have the resources for 10 billion people, but we can't survive with less. Sources. http://www.resistthetyranny.com...http://www.huffingtonpost.com...http://listverse.com...http://blogs.reuters.com...http://www.geocraft.com...http://www.photius.com...