BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Earth is currently going through a global warming phase.

My oppoenent's source (http://www.epa.gov...) states "The annual mean air temperature of a city with 1 million people or more can be 1.8–5.4°F (1–3°C) warmer than its surroundings. In the evening, the difference can be as high as 22°F (12°C)"Thus the difference according to his sources can be as high as 22°F, not 5.4°F as he claims. My opponent asked for a source to where I got the surfacestation pictures Marysville, CA Lovelock, NV and Tahoe City, CA http://scottthong.wordpress.com...They are not the only ones that are contaminated either, here is a map to prove it; This is the difference between a good site and a bad site. http://www.surfacestations.org...I will also like to point out that 2 of the 3 charts my opponent used is 11 years out of date, and the other chart used is 6 years out of date.The 2 that are 11 years out of date emphisises the El Nino of the late 90's, while the one that is 6 years out of date ignores the recent dip shown in my charts.This is typical of all charts presented by Global Warming Alarmists. They either crop the dates, or cook the books. Notice how my opponent's UAH chart stops in 2005. If continued it would show a drop, after 07. If you look ay Tree ring Data from 1982-2006, you would see a decline in temperature after the year 2000, and again after 2005. Illustration 1. An example of dating via tree rings. The trunk shown schematically on the right was cut down in 2006.Its trunk shows alternating light rings, showing rapid spring and summer growth, and dark rings forming during the slow winter growth. The rings are dated consecutively and show that the tree was planted in 1989. In 2003 the tree grew only slightly and the light ring is narrow; thus, too, in the years 1994-1996. The tree on the left was found on the ground, but comparing the thickness of rings to those of the tree on the right shows the sane three thin rings. Based on this correlation we can determine when the second tree was planted and when it was cut down (1982-2000) and the continued notation of better and worse years backwards in time. http://daatemet.org...Thus my opponent's charts are cropped, and does not paint an accurate picture. Further more the surface-readings are false, and corrupted. All the credable Data points to a cooling climate, not a warming one.
The Earth is currently going through a global warming phase.

Last year NASA said, "According to scientists’ models of Earth’s orbit and orientation toward the Sun indicate that our world should be just beginning to enter a new period of cooling — perhaps the next ice age…"The report also said; “The Sun is the primary forcing of Earth’s climate system. Sunlight warms our world. Sunlight drives atmospheric and oceanic circulation patterns. Sunlight powers the process of photosynthesis that plants need to grow. Sunlight causes convection which carries warmth and water vapor up into the sky where clouds form and bring rain. In short, the Sun drives almost every aspect of our world’s climate system and makes possible life as we know it.” and“Other important forcings of Earth’s climate system include such “variables” as clouds, airborne particulate matter, and surface brightness. Each of these varying features of Earth’s environment has the capacity to exceed the warming influence of greenhouse gases and cause our world to cool.”http://tucsoncitizen.com... According to many scientists, Earth is in a current "cold mode" and will see temperatures fall over the next 30 years as the world enters a "mini ice age."They say;"A significant share of the warming we saw from 1980 to 2000 and at earlier periods in the 20th Century was due to these cycles – perhaps as much as 50 per cent. They have now gone into reverse, so winters like this one will become much more likely. Summers will also probably be cooler, and all this may well last two decades or longer. The extreme retreats that we have seen in glaciers and sea ice will come to a halt. For the time being, global warming has paused, and there may well be some cooling.”http://digitaljournal.com... Global Warming Alarmists focus on Surface Temperature readings, which are highly inaccurate because they are subject to the Heat Island Effect.The Heat Island Effect is the tendency of urban and suburban areas to be warmer than adjacent rural areas. In the United States, such built environments are 2 to 10°F warmer-a function of less vegetation, reduced airflow, and large areas of roofs, asphalt, concrete, and paved surfaces that absorb the sun’s heat.http://www.sierraclubgreenhome.com...Here are some pictures of the Stations Global Warming Alarmists use to monitor Surface Temperatures. Not the best locations. To avoid the Heat Island Effect it's best to use Weather Balloons or Satellites. If you look at readings from Weather Balloons, and Satellites, you see that the temperature changes are not that unusual. You can also see that the the Earth is starting to cool down.
The Earth is currently going through a global warming phase.

Definitions. "Global warming phase" – a time period of decent length (compared to a human lifespan) where the average global temperature increases. Over the course of this phase, average temperatures may fluctuate up and down, but the statistical trend is upward (example seen here [1]). In order to qualify, one must be able to extrapolate from the data that the average temperature will continue to increase over the next several decades (pending no action taken to prevent the current trend). So cherry picking data points to say "100 million years ago, it was warmer than now, so we are on a cooling trend" would need to be able to be shown as statistically accurate (i.e. not just two data points). The BoP will be on me show the warming, while my opponent needs to either show cooling, or refute all evidence of warming. Standard rules apply. No semantics, etc. My opponent is free to begin in R1, or pass and allow me to begin in R2. Thank you. [1] http://www.debate.org...
Gay marriage

Introduction___________________________________________________Before I do anything on this debate, I would like Pro to know that all my opinions expressed on my profile are perfectly legitimate and in accordance with my freedom of expression. Any offense that I have caused is duly noted, but I will not be making changes to my opinion to suit yourself.My case for round 1 will be addressing the post by my oponent in the first round. Since she claims to be religious, my opening arguments will deal with religious matters concerning gay marriage. In the second round I will post secular arguments.Non-secular case___________________________________________________ My rebuttals and arguments are melded together due to the small character limit.Does love excuse gay marriage?I will address this point in my next round, but for now, I'll use this example:If someone wants something, does that make it ok? No, if that person wants something that causes harm to someone other than themselves, it is not ok. Next round I will demonstrate why gay marriage will soon be able to be labbelled a crime against humanity. I bet you have never seen the argument before.Christians cannot support gay marriage: I ask my opponent to justify her belief in light of the following scriptures:“For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.”—Romans 1:26-27 (NKJV) “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor theives, nor covertous, nor drunkerds, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.”—1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (NKJV) “Knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine,”—1 Timothy 1:9-10 (NKJV)Conclusion___________________________________________________The bible clearly prohibits gay marriage. You cannot be a christian while saying that the bible is wrong. I would like to note a quote from my opponent: "I believe God made each and everyone of us perfectly in his eyes and if he chose for someone to be gay then that's his perfect vision of that person." This statement is flawed. It presupposes that there is no such thing as the ability to do something wrong. There is, and God made us in His image with the ability to distinguish between that which is morrally right and wrong. This is not an excuse to justify a christian supporting gay marriage.Next round I will present the next half of my case: The secular argument against gay marriage.
Gay marriage

Why are gays so bad? You said you're opposed to this subject because "it's bad enough having gays around". Those who are gay or lesbian are people just like you and me with feelings. They are part of society whether you like it or not. Love is love whether it's between two people of the opposite sex or two people of the same sex. It's not you in the relationship, so you don't have to deal with the decisions they make. Personally I am straight, but I find what you said offensive considering I do have gay friends. Truthfully they are no different then you and me except for their sexual orientation. If for some reason it disgusts you seeing them together look away, it's as simple as that. You have no right to hate on them for their choices of which do not affect you. I believe God made each and everyone of us perfectly in his eyes and if he chose for someone to be gay then that's his perfect vision of that person. God makes no mistakes. He also wishes for every single one of his children to be treated with kindness and equality. So next time you see a gay couple please reconsider judging them negatively, after all it's God's place to judge his children not yours.
Evolution is an incorrect theory

Allow me to respond with mine: Opponent's Contention One and Three: Mutations. My opponent appears to have reverted back to his round two argument about how these mutations were bad or neutral. I did not deny this; I merely demonstrated how this represents genetic mutation and nothing more. I showed how these E-Coli cells were lab grown and developed and tested on etc. .. in the lab. Not in the wild. So this goes back to my original point of how when something that has been tested on by unnatural causes and has its environment changed very quickly by unnatural causes one would expect an organism to die off or have negative experiences. My opponent has ignored my refute. Please note, I'm not saying that mutations are always helpful - they're not - but to say, as my opponent has, that mutations are *always* bad or neutral is just wrong; particularly when the research is clearly on the mutations themselves, not on the *lab* mutations effectiveness in the *wild*. Opponent's Contention 2: He has dropped the argument and (implicitly) conceded it. At this point, my opponent has still not made any comment on my contention one; we should assume he has conceded that, too. Opponent's Refute 4 (my contention two): Transitional Fossils. My opponent doesn't really quote mine, but he uses the word "look" in a casual way. Normally, "look" is what something appears to look like to us (often at first glance); however this article and scientists use the word "look" in a different way to get it across to the public more easily. I don't think they would have expected such nit-picking at the time, but that is why I'm refuting it. They would only use the word "look" after cross checking, peer reviewing, predictable compatibility, observing as objectively as possible, etc. .. Scientists wouldn't use "look" in the sense of "oh that looks like x and y; therefore it's a cross and/or transitional form! " If scientists did that; I grantee the world would be rather different for the negative. My opponent also appears to expect us to have millions of transitional fossils. This appears to be an appeal to ignorance, as well as ignorance to the formation of fossils. We shouldn't have many transitional forms due to the conditions that fossils need to form. My opponent appears to conclude that: "We haven't found any = we never will because there are none. " This is not logical. = Side note: Bias. My opponent and I have both stated to drop this. No one concedes for this debate. I would like to thank my opponent for participating in this enjoyable and entertaining debate. I also thank the voters for taking their time to read this through. Until next time, everyone! J
Evolution is an incorrect theory

Thank you for the post, I will start right away. 1. & 3.- Mutations and Evolution- ( I will be combining arguments one and three as they will aid each other) I did not put any direct examples here last post since I cannot prove all mutations wrong. However, I will use E-coli as an example now. As I have shown with the Sickle Cell mutation, mutations that can be seen as helpful are usually hurtful. This comes up many times in evidence for evolution as many supporters of the theory tend to stretch the truth. You can look up many different examples of this (Ernst Haeckel's embryo drawings still being used in text books). The same occurred with the E-coli experiment. Below is an article explaining how the E-coli in the experiment either gained nothing or were hurt. http://www.evolutionnews.org... 2. I agree that this topic got side tracked, so I will no longer be continuing this one. 4. Transitional fossils (namely the Tiktaalik)- http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu... Here is an article discussing why this fossil is a breakthrough with evolution. I will like to quote one sentence from this webpage. "Tiktaalik has a mix of fish and amphibian traits", also, "Tiktaalik looks like a cross between the primitive fish it lived amongst and the first four-legged animals...". These quotes point out a major problem with evolution. Just because this fossils looks like two animals, does not mean it evolved into either one of them. The only evidence that this animal is connected to either land or sea animals is how it looks and a few features. This, however, is not really what I was implying in my last post. Between the first cell and the us, eyes had to be half formed. Their are fossils that have this quality. As with the Tiktaalik, it had fully functional legs and gills (from what we have observed in fossils), so where are the animals with half legs and half gills. There are none. 5. Biased- I will only be stating that all humans are biased towards their beliefs. This is why many creationist lie for their cause and many evolutionists lie for their cause. This post I have provided articles that are either or neither side and one from an evolution website. I will not be carrying this argument on farther. I await your reply.
Evolution is an incorrect theory

Thank you for your post. 1. New information caused by mutation- As I have stated, all information needed to make up your body must have come from mutations along the way. However, we see now that mutations only rearrange the information already present in the DNA. That's why many cases of any type of mutation is talking about deformities or problems people must live with no due to mutations. As I have stated, even "good" mutations have awful outcomes. 2. Good and bad- you say good and bad are opinions and nothing more. I thought you would agree with the fact that a harmful outcome is bad. By an evolutionary standpoint, it would be making a human less likely to live with a mutations such as sickle cell mutation. So, whether good or bad, it makes it difficult for that animal to reproduce and live a normal life. I'm pretty sure we can agree that is not the outcome hoped for with mutations. 3. Mutations- you state that it should be expected for something to die when changes occur quickly. However, think of this A. E. coli lives in the wild normally. B. The lab E. coli had no changes done to it. C. This implies that it is normal E. coli, which should do fine in nature. D. However, they mutated in a way that seemed helpful. E. But when released, the E. coli died off when it should have survived. Mutations, by evolution standards, should be a help to the organism it effects to be useful in later generations. So a mutations that helps in one way, but kills the organism in its natural domain has no place in evolution. 4. Transitional fossils- perhaps I didn't make myself clear. Their are no half evolved limbs in fossils, as it is expected to be. But everything in modern times comes fully evolved in events such as the Cambrian explosion. 5. Biased- are you implying that your websites, that attempt to show off evidence for evolution is not biased? It would be a difficult task to find a website that has no biased in either evolution or creationism. That's just how it is. There are many websites to back me up and many to back you up, so everything is fine.
Evolution is an incorrect theory

Thank you for your argument. 1. Information- I didn't think that information had to be defined, but I will now to advoid confusion. Information tells cells how to do different jobs. Information makes each of your body parts to do a special job. So somewhere along an evolutionary trail, new information had to be added so new things could be produced. The cell that evolution proposes we came from did not know how to produce hair, so something had to give it information how to. 2. Good and Bad- you have stated that good and bad are opinions, I go against this. I do believe the majority of people can agree on good and bad. If I say to someone, " hey, want to be completely immune to malaria? Only downfall is that your suffer in pain for your whole life." I think we would all say no due to common sense. If a mutation does mainly a bad thing, and it just happens to produce a good side-effect, it is not good. As it stands, mutations that do a good thing is like this. 3. Adding information- the examples you have given are all dual sided. I will just give the first one as an example right now. The first example described a experiment to house E. coli cells for several generations to see what is produced. The cells did thrive very well based on changes that occurred to them. However, the experiment is misleading. If you look up the Exact Same Experiment, you will find that when released into nature, the "good changes" went away or actually hurt them. The experiments you have given just shows how quickly things adapt and they usually go wrong later on. 4. Fossil records- you state rather openly that fossil records support evolution. I say otherwise. One of the biggest things that goes against your statement is the lack of transitional fossils. The majority of fossils just show up without a transitional. Their is no fossil with a half evolved eyes, legs, lungs, bones, ect. These things all come along during events such as the Cambian Explosion or other such events. 5. Transitional fossils- this one goes with the last one. You have stated that these two animals, one amphibian one fish, are so similar that a bridge between them must exist. However, all your saying is that since they are similar, we will assume they evolved. However, no transitional fossil between them. There is no fossil with half-leg half-fin growth. But this is where they claim the legs come from. http://www.answersingenesis.org... http://www.answersingenesis.org... http://www.truthinscience.org.uk... http://www.genesispark.org... http://www.bestbiblescience.org...
Evolution is an incorrect theory

I will now get into the basics. Already you have stated that micro evolution and macro evolution is different, that enough small changes causes bigger changes. Now, allow me to give you this: The majority of the time when micro evolution is used, it refers to the changes caused by natural selection alone. Macro evolution refers to the large changes causes by natural selection and mutations in the DNA. So two questions come to mind with this statement: 1. Can natural selection cause large enough changes over time to create the diversity in life as we know it and 2. can mutations cause the diversity if natural selection can't Obviously, we have two parts to evolution. Natural selection and mutations. I will look at these individually. 1. Natural Selection- By definition, natural selection are small changes and adaptations that happens to a species so it can continue to live. 2. Mutations- Mutations are tiny mess-ups in the DNA of a single animal that may or may not be affect the animal, or be passed on to the next generation. First off, lets get something right here. The theory of evolution states that all plants and animals came from a single celled organism. Although it is true that small changes do happen all the time, just to say that these will eventually become big ones is missing the point. The point is that natural selection is not able to add information. Information is the most important thing in this debate as, without it, nothing new is made. So mutations have to be able to add enough information over time to create muscles, blood, cartilage, bone, and everything else you have in your body. So micro evolution and macro evolution are two different things. Micro evolution is natural selection, which changes information your body already has, and macro evolution is adding information to eventually make something new. I'm feel now that I have put in my opinion about your warning, I will now go on. 1. Good mutations- There are no good mutations in existence that have been found. Many mutations that are good, tend to be good for bad reasons. The Sickle Cell mutation causes immunity to malaria, but it does that because it distorts your blood cells. But even more than that, good mutation doesn't just imply a helpful effect, but also a mutation that adds information instead of changing the DNA already there. No mutation can even claim to add information.
Evolution is an incorrect theory

I will not post any debate on round one, rather I will refute my opponents arguments after my opponent makes the case in round 2. However, my opponent mentioned macroevolution. However, this sounds like it is dangerously close to what creationists such as Kent Hovind have put forward. You never hear scientists and (to be more specific) biologists talk about "macroevolution" only "evolution". This idea that there are two types is a fallacy - all macroevolution will occur through microevolution if you give it enough time. Kent Hovind, Ray Comfort, Ken Ham etc. .. have all demonstrated their evident lack of understanding of the scientific method and have used various fallacies. I would like my opponent to note that this is not an argument, merely a warning that so called "macroevolution" is not "another form" of evolution - there is only evolution that many creationists call "microevolution". If one really wanted to push it though - give (micro)evolution enough time and big changes that could constitute as "macroevolution" will occur. Again, this was not an argument; this was a warning. Thank you.
humans are no longer evolving

Well... Just for more fun ideas. Humans are always creating new philosophies, new ideas, new inventions. Obviously if we had entirely stopped evolving we wouldn't bother coming up with any of these. (At the rate at which we do anyways) People with inheritable genetic diseases die quicker. Therefor the inheritable disease dies more and more. People with immunities tend to die less. (Immunities can be genetic traits that get transfered more often.) I don't know, maybe I will think of some more. I feel like I had many good arguments on this.....