BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Life from Non-Life

Well first of all Haemoglobin is just a protein that exists inside redblood cells, the cell itself still have a cellier structure, secondly this is useless when we enter the single celled world because Haemoglobin is used in a blood cells which in itself reside inside the blood vessel's of multicellier organisms.Stemcells use resources from the environment around it and convert it into energy the cell can use, if it didn't it would violate conservation of mass and energy.But you need to understand that there must have been a point early in life's history were this protein machinery simply did no exist, this is because DNA needs proteins to exist and replicate, while proteins need DNA to exist in the first place, a classic chicken or the egg problem, this is why it believed that RNA came before both of them since RNA is a close chemical cousin to DNA, and RNA can act as both a catalyst for reactions, while at the same time RNA can store information like DNA, but one of the main reasons RNA is thought to have kick started this whole process is because RNA is capable of self replication, via a process called template dependent replication. However without protein machinery there would have been no way to get things across the cells phospholipid membrane since phospholipid membranes are too good at creating a barrier, this suggests that the first cell membranes were likely made out of a mix of simple fats and alcohols that could have easily formed on the prebiotic earth, membranes made out of simple fats and alcohols will allow certain molecules such as ribonucleotides to cross between the membrane but keep other unwanted things out, further more it has been demonstrated that when these vesicle's are exposed to free floating fats the vesicle's will grow and even divide on there own, so the conclusion that we have made from this is that the first living thing that we could actually call a "cell" was likely a self replicating RNA inside a self replicating fat alcohol vesicle. The real question is how do we get the origin of DNA and coded protein synthesis from these minimal cells, there is still alot of work being done on this question, however back to how the molecules that make up these minimal cells came into existence in the first place, it has been demonstrated that with the right chemistry you can create Ribonucleotides from much simpler molecules that were on the pre-biotic Earth, and not only that, but when exposed to ultra violate radiation, which would have been plentiful on a young earth without any ozone, leaves only right handed nucleotides which itself can bind into RNA chains by using simple clays or ice as a catalyst. My point is all the talk about proteins and stem cells have little value in this conversation since life at one point was not as complex as stem cells nor did it even use proteins, and likely wouldn't have even been a "cell" at all.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
Life from Non-Life

And do you believe having compounds and elements made up into a perfect arrangement that is suited for existing and surviving would also happen out of nowhere ? (Sorry if it sounds aggressive or something, I am trying to keep this a civilised argument) Also a notable example would be stem cells, which are unspecialised cells in an organism that can undertake almost any task and become specialised in a certain field, which are mostly used for growth, in more serious cases, for repair, but overall, it is simply a cell that can become anything. As we well know, cells, like any other thing in a living organism are made of chemicals, compounds and elements. But what arrangement of random compounds do you think can undertake multiple tasks such as becoming testosterone (a main component in muscles) or blood cells ? I mean, we know that red blood cells are made from a compound called Haemoglobin, which has the chemical formula of exactly C2932H4724N828O840S8Fe4, whereas testosterone has a chemical formula of exactly C19H28O2. Now I'm not sure how it would contain so many elements, enough to take any function as haemoglobin, or in what sort of process would it lose so many to remain with C19H28O2 to be testosterone. Also, how does that happen on a 30 minute basis ? I mean, steam cells reproduce every 30 minutes, so after 1 hour you have 4 and after 2 hours you have 16 and so on. This shouldn't be possible without the consume of energy, which would mean that most of the compounds and elements nature has to offer would run out eventually.
Life from Non-Life

Of course, that is a theory, but only a mere theory. I am not arguing that God in particular created life, I am simply arguing whether life could be created from non-life or not. If it would've been created by a Creator, it would imply that it didn't come out of nowhere. So, you believe that stuff can be spontaneously generated, because of your belief that space existed before time, and matter existed before our history, our DISCOVERABLE history. Ok, I am not denying your argument, but whereas you can provide necessary proof for whether something else in nature rather than simple atoms, which we are aware make up living organisms, that generate instantly, and add an explanation, and also proof that it did not generate from something previous, and so on and so forth, trying to go back to the origin, I believe your point could be more considerable.
Life from Non-Life

Well you are very honest and straight to the point, i kinda fall into a middle ground between atheism and being an agnostic, while i believe that there is a possibility that a supreme being may exist out there, the evidence for such is not met, people will often think im saying that there is a possibility Jesus was the son of god, thats not what i mean however, while i believe that a supreme being may exist, its definitely not going to be the god of the bible, let alone any other gods dreamed up by humanity throughout our history. I dont have much to say on the whole spontaneous germs thing mainly because the tests they did back in the old days didn't take chemistry or anything like it into example, the test was the put meat into two jars, and cover one jar, the open jar rotted, while the closed one didn't, however this only proves that your not gonna generate bacteria with decomposing meat in a jar, on-top of this the biggest misconception i see creationists latching onto is that they think were saying that bacteria like Ecoli were generated from pre-biotic conditions, this is not the case, the first cells were much simpler, to the point were they didn't use proteins or perform metabolism, and probably used a genetic polymer such as RNA to both store and catalyze information and reactions long before proteins and DNA came about. I have read what you have said on the big bang, and i wish to correct it little bit, there was no matter before the big bang, the big bang was a rapid expansion of space and time which itself was filled with just energy in the form of radiation, it was not until some time after this expansion that quarks and gluons, bosons, hadrons, leptons formed from this energy, and these eventually paired up into sub atomic particles, only protons and neutrons survived since they are the most stable of sub atomic particals, eventually the universe cooled down enough that electrons could pair up with protons and neutrons to form the first hydrogen atoms, and its basically cosmological evolution from that point onward. As for how and why the big bang happend, i dont know, and just because i dont know doesn't mean im gonna stick a god must have done it to fill it, you say that the universe cant be endless, but from what we can tell, energy seems to be eternal and when you go back far enough you will encounter a point at the beginning of everything where time simply stops, in other words it appears that space-time gives way to just space if you go back far enough, again i dont know what caused the big bang, but that leaves us able to figure out, like everything else. But if i had to make an educated guess, this would be it "Nothing by definition does not exist, therefor all you are left with is existence" <- not fact, just my take.
Life from Non-Life

Right, so firstly, I'd like to start by saying that I've seen one of your previous (but still ongoing atm) arguments, in which you have debated the statement (in which you took the con side): "I am GOD, prove me wrong." If you could joke about God and religion without fearing consequences, and probably realise that this is clearly blasphemy for most monotheistic religions (particularly Abrahamic ones), then I assume that you either hold really propgressive (or perhaps scientific) views, or you're an atheist. Now this, on it's own, already sets the bottom line that you most likely do not believe that God is the main reason life was created, which sort of leads this argument into a more scientific-theme. So I'll start off by asking you, rather simply, and rather clearly, if you can believe stuff can spontaneously generate. For centuries, people believed that we contained a substance in our bodies called 'phlogiston', which makes things burn, although, weirdly enough, a lot of people who believed in that (mainly in Europe, particularly Western Europe), also believed we were made from Hydrogen and Water, which is still believed and proved today. They also believed that germs were 'spontaneously generated'. This on it's own sets the precedent that it is an outdated and irrelevant thing to argue about, but either way, I'd like to see what you have to say about this. I'd like to take a philosophical approach too. You can create stuff out of nothingness, can you ? I mean, just like the 'Big Bang' happened out of nowhere for no explainable reason (still unexplainable today by using 100% science and not other fields such as religion or philosophy). I mean there's the theory that once a lot of quarks have gathered, atoms are created on the spot. However, we gotta ask ourselves where do these quarks come from ? And it can't be an endless cycle, as it is impossible that 100% of the universe was disintegrated from it's previous state and then later amazingly EXPLODED (sudden and powerful release of energy) back into what it is ? We are made from chemical compounds, which you've specified, that is a fact, but those chemical compounds couldn't've come out of nowhere, could they ? Compounds are made from atoms, atoms are made from quarks, and... Quarks are the last thing on our list, nothing that would be able to be identified beyond those, no point in having such small bits anyways. And they don't fall out of the sky.
Life from Non-Life

I think i should start with a definition for life since alot of people have been making up there own definition for life, the majority of given definitions fail to take in account of virus's and other such pathogens and organisms that may or may not use DNA as an instruction carrier, so for this debate im going to be using the NASA definition for life which is as follows "a self sustaining chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution" I stand that life in its simplest form can originate from organic chemistry since it must have happend at some point in the distant past or we would not be here today to even discus it.
That terrorism meets it's goals.

To reiterate my argument in this final round... Pro has attempted to align the definitions of goal and terrorism in such a way that they are not neutral. While attempting to romanticize the tactic of terrorism, he has failed to acknowledge the short comings and failures of the tactic. Simply put, terrorism is a tactic and like all tactics, prone to failure. It does not always bring about its goals, and in fact it is more likely to impede the progress of your agenda, whether it be social or military based. An organized guerrilla effort does not equate to terrorism. While a goal usually involves creating some kind of change, not all change created by the tactic is the desired goal. Terrorism is usually employed by zealots and fanatics. The goals placed forward by zealots and fanatics usually are set in such an extreme that they are impossible to bring about. The victory conditions put forth by zealots and fanatics usually involve such absolutes that they are unreachable. More often than not, terrorism fails to meet the goals initially put forth by the terrorists due to their over zealous victory conditions. Terrorism is an easy tactic to employ and often times the individuals resopnsible for it have had no formal, nor informal education in the various in depths philosophies and docturines which have been developed by great military minds over thousands of years of human conflict. As such, they are not able to anticipate the results of their actions to the fullest force. All warfare is chaos, and a victor wins by controlling both their chaos and that of their enemies. Terrorism can not succeed in a vacuum where it is the only tactic employed. Terrorism can only achieve destruction - other tactics must be employed to bring about something other than destruction, fear and terror.
That terrorism meets it's goals.

I am glad that you have chosen to accept the definition of goal as I provided. While your definition did not dispute that a goal is a desired outcome, such a phrase was absent from your definition which rather than defining goal attempted to define the goals of terrorism, or rather what their goals are not. Terrorism is a tactic. Fear is a standard result of the tactic. Terrorism is not a weapon. Terrorism describes the way in which a weapon is used. Example: You can use a covertly placed bomb to destroy a railroad bridge, or you can us a bomb on board a passenger train to destroy it. In both cases the bomb is the weapon, but a different tactic is employed. While terrorism certainly causes fear, the "social goal" of a terrorist attack is often not achieved. The numerous bombings of clinics specializing in Womens' Health, and the murder of qualified OGBYNs did not help secure popular support for the constitutional overturn of Roe V Wade. It actually worked against the goal by making more legitimate organizations appear to be in league with fanatics. Terrorism - like every tactic - is prone to failure. For example, the rather infamous shoe bomber didn't successfully achieve anything. Or many airlines successfully shot down by guerrilla organizations which have achieved nothing other than a loss of life and were quickly forgotten. http://en.wikipedia.org... Your argument is an attempt to romanticize a tactic which typically involves the death of civilians and innocents. This tactic is usually employed by individuals who have no regard for human life due to their fanatical devotion to their cause. Those that use this tactic believe that indiscriminate destruction can bring about their social goals, unless the goal is chaos or destruction, their goals are usually not met. Not all insurgencies practice terrorist tactics. Not all terrorist attacks are violent. Do you suggest Weatherman toppled the United States Gov?
That terrorism meets it's goals.

Good luck. You have disagreed with my definition of goals, and then suggested that we debate with goals meaning 'a desired outcome'. I'd just like to point out that my def. did not dispute this at all, just elaborated upon the words goals. My opponent is stating an obvious, I was going into more detail, to make this debate clearer. I accept that I did not define terrorism clearly enough, but a dictionary definition is certainly not correct or necessary. Terrorists use fear, as a weapon, to achieve other goals. As I previously stated, fear itself is not usually the goal of a terrorist attack. Can you honestly say that the weathermen's terrorist attacks, for they were terrorist attacks, were simply to incite fear? Of course not. They used fear as a weapon to attempt to cause a mass social upheaval, and place sufficient pressure upon the Govt. of the time. So my definition of terrorism; the use of violent attacks, alongside of powerful weapon of fear, to achieve a social goal. I hope that my opponent accepts this definition, as it is a more accurate representation of terrorism, in my opinion. With this definition in place, it is clear that terrorism, on most occasions does meet its goals.
That terrorism meets it's goals.

org. I see that this is his first debate, and hope that it will be one of many. Have a disagreement with how pro defines goals, and would like to put forth my criticism for him to consider so that we can arrive that a neutral definition. A goal is a desired outcome. In the definition of goal which pro provides us, he also states that terrorism does not have terror or fear as a goal. I cannot accept this definition and I urge that the con argument accepts the definition of goal as "a desired outcome" Pro has put forth the resolution that terrorism meets it's goals, and has provided to examples of when he feels that terrorism has been successful. Pro has neglected to define what constitutes terrorism. I have borrowed the below definition from Dictionary. com 1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes. 2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization. 3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government. Terrorism is a method of achieving a goal. According to this definition, it can only achieve goals through intimidation, coercion, fear, and forcing submission. A successful guerrilla effort does not equate to terrorism. Consider Wendell Fertig's efforts in WWII. The third portion of pro's argument is that terrorism is a successful method of meeting it's goals. Like any method, it's not always successful. Unless the terror is for the sake of terror, the goal is not necessarily reached. In the case of the Oklahoma City Bombing, many lives were lost and much terror was created. However, the ultimate goal of sparking an American revolution based off of race was never achieved. The Uni-Bomber created a great deal of pain and suffering, but the ultimate goal of pushing society towards a rejection of technology and mat
That terrorism meets it's goals.

Before any argument is put forward, a definition is a necessity in this debate. The word 'goals' is certainly a word that needs explaining. Terrorists, or freedom fighter's goals are not to incite terror, or fear, as many would suggest. In fact, terror is just used as a weapon to achieve alternative goals. These goals are usually either; an attempt to gain awareness, to aid the process of social upheaval, or quite simply, to destroy, and in doing so, send a powerful message. So, with the definition in place, we can begin. I will give two recent examples of terrorism meeting its goals, and an explanation of how and why. My first example is quite controversial, but extremely relevant, and topical; the 9/11 attacks. The terrorist's goals on this occasion were quite clear. To attack the most powerful nation in the world, and in the process, send a chilling message. The world is no longer afraid of you America, they are those of us who can and will stand up to your domineering imperialism. And they succeeded in spectacular fashion. The attacks devastated the American psyche, and began 'The War on Terror'. But the big thing was that America became horribly scared of small militant groups or nations. My second example is terrorism on completely the other side of the spectrum. When Che Guevara, Fidel Castro and a group of around 80 guerrillas invaded Cuba, and set about taking on the oppressive dictatorship of Batista, killing hundreds as they went, they committed acts of terrorism. Their terrorism was classified as a social uprising in a violent form. And it certainly met its goals, a communist revolution took place, and the people were freed from the previous aggressive dictatorship. As you can see from these examples, and there are many, many more, terrorism nearly always meets its goals.
Whether Barack Obama Has Violated the Constitution

Yes I agree with you, every president has used the law to his own advantage, that is how politicians work, however that sentence should not be true. I know this is going off topic, however the president should not need to break the constitution to be able do what he needs to do for the country. The fact is that congress almost forces presidents to do this, often they argue, making simple things into much longer debates. Presidents wanting to make drastic changes quickly will have to avoid congress. However by avoiding congress, they break the founding laws that were set down by our forefathers. The system of checks and balances was set into the constitution to help keep power in check, that means that presidents, and Obama, have to go through congress. Presidents are supposed to be the compromise between the political parties, they need to help pass laws that both can agree upon and that does not violate the constitution. Now back to topic, Obama altogether ignores congress sometimes, as well as other things. Here is a nice list of all the ways he has violated the constitution. http://tisaboutfreedom.wordpress.com... Eventually we will need to have another meeting about revising the constitution for the betterment of the nation. Some of the ideas in it do not work in the times today. But as long as we have it, we need to strictly follow it, because it is what keeps us free.
Whether Barack Obama Has Violated the Constitution

Although I am representing the CON side, I would like to point out that he has in fact several times been extremely close to breaking a law. https://www.committeeforjustice.org...http://www.forbes.com...But there is something called Constitutional interpretation, so basically it depends on how you interbred the constitution, on if he has broken laws. My interpretation is that he has used the law to his advantage. He has ingeniously put through actions to get his plans done, actions which may be very close to breaking a major law.But every president has done that, every president has played with the law to pull through with their plans. You just can't get things done otherwise. "If Congress wont act, I will"That is exactly the attitude you need and America needs, for the benefit of all.
Whether Barack Obama Has Violated the Constitution

Since the start of his term in 2008, Barack Obama has bypassed congress at least 15 times. He has done this with Obamacare, and the minimum wage, as well as immigration laws. From the beginning he has had an "If Congress wont act, I will," kind of attitude. Heritage foundation legal fellow Andrew Closter explained, "Whether it is making unlawful payments to congressional health care plans, making recess appointments in violation of the Constitution, or urging federal contractors to violate the WARN Act," Kloster said, "this administration has taken numerous actions that are abusive or plainly unlawful." Clearly Barack has violated the constitution many times.
Truth

You, My dear opponent, Speak wisely. You have enlightened me to the importance of trusting yourself when finding the truth. However, For the sake of argument, I will continue my point. Yes, History is shifted by humans despite what the truth may bring, But there is still much to learn from it. You can find the lies in history using your inner feelings. If something seems like a lie in history, Then it may well be. Trusting in a high power also helps, But looking it history and adapting it is also key. Being 100% objective is not possible for the average person, But it is still better to attempt this mindset when deciding right from wrong. Focusing too much on emotions will hamper your thinking and drive you further from the truth. I also think science isn"t a good alternative to finding truth. So, I agree with you on most of these things, But you can not throw out reasoning and history when dealing with the human world and it"s flaws.