BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Evolution is not a viable origin model

I'll limit myself to acceptence and limited refutation for right now, I don't want to spend a whole lot of time on the salt water thing. I will refute it quickly; the oceans in the last 50 years, as shown in a paper by Science, have been measured in parts to have increased salinity. In other parts, over the same period, salinity decreased. Salinity overall is not increasing, so that claim is simply untrue. I look forward to the rest of this debate anyhow, hopefully you source your claims more often.I will also say that if evolution wasn't viable, the scientific community would have recognized that by now and done away with evolution or modified it to fix any problems. The reason it is viable is because there have not been any holes found in it, and the reason none of the creationist holes count as proof against evolution is that they are often not founded in sound science, like the salt claim. There simply is no real scientific disprove of evolution and no alternative. Evolution is a viable origin model. Note: I think BOP is on pro to show that evolution is not a viable origin model, I simply have to refute him. I would rather not go through a whole proof of evolution because it would be time consuming (at least not an original proof, I may recycle an old proof from an old debate). Since Pro is trying to disprove it he should have the BOP. If he were Con and the resolution was "evolution is a viable origin model" then I'd have BOP, but I think in this case he has it. Cheers to pro anyway and good luck. sources1. http://thenaturalhistorian.com...
Thomas Aquinas's Five Proofs

The Fool Grants you: THE PRINCIPLE OF CHARITY(hurray for you!!!);) The Fool says: I am sorry young Sophist, Did you mean this? Or maybe I heard you incorrectly I am going deaf these days. Argument of conditional and first causes: P1 the world had a beginning P2 something must have created it C1 got created the world Argument of greatness: P1 Things vary in greatness P2 Greatness depend on greatness itself C2. god is greatness in itself Argument of intelligent design: P1 Thing vary with purpose P2 Purposeful actions depend on intelligent beings P3 if there is intelligent being there must have been a creator C3 therefore god is an intelligent designer Final Thesis: C1/p1 god created the world C2/P2 god is greatness C3/P3 god is an intelligent designer C4 God is greatness, intelligence the creator of the world. End of Charity Round The Fool in the sky
Thomas Aquinas's Five Proofs

I am going to argue they work as a proof for the existence of God. My opponent argues the opposite they do not logically work as a proof for the existence of God. In summary, these proofs are as follows (I'll expand on them later I'm just defining what they are here) c/p 1. FIRST MOVER: Some things are in motion, anything moved is moved by another, and there can't be an infinite series of movers. So there must be a first mover (a mover that isn't itself moved by another). This is God. 2. FIRST CAUSE: Some things are caused, anything caused is caused by another, and there can't be an infinite series of causes. So there must be a first cause (a cause that isn't itself caused by another). This is God. 3. NECESSARY BEING: Every contingent being at some time fails to exist. So if everything were contingent, then at some time there would have been nothing -- and so there would be nothing now -- which is clearly false. So not everything is contingent. So there is a necessary being. This is God. 4. GREATEST BEING: Some things are greater than others. Whatever is great to any degree gets its greatness from that which is the greatest. So there is a greatest being, which is the source of all greatness. This is God. 5. INTELLIGENT DESIGNER: Many things in the world that lack intelligence act for an end. Whatever acts for an end must be directed by an intelligent being. So the world must have an intelligent designer. This is God. c/p (1) 4 round debate. First round is for acceptance. Second round opening arguments. Third round rebuttals. Last round is finally the conclusion. 1. http://www.jcu.edu...
toronto maple leafs are better than the vancouver canucks

Really that is your arguement? that was quite weak. First of all, Toronto Maple Leafs are one of the Original Six. They are one of the first teams created in Hockey. they won alot during the early years of hockey when it wasnt as competetive as it is now. the leafs havent won a Stanley in 46 years. Since the NHL brought more teams in the leafs have struggled to win. Second of all the Vancouver Canucks are an expansion team that came into the NHL in 1970 (which is after the last time the leafs won a stanley cup). it is much harder to win now a days as there are more teams all filled with good players. The leafs have 5 division Titles, while the Canucks already have ten. The leafs have no presidents trophies and they have no Conference Championships. Vancouver has 2 president trophies and 3 Conference Trophies. Considering the nearly 100 year history the maple leafs have, to the relatively new Vancouver Canucks you can say the Canucks have accomplished more in there short time in the league.
Hume's Argument Against Miracles Fails

I really, really hate to do this, but I am not going to argue in this round. As it is round 3 and we are still setting definitions, there is just no point. This is my fault, as if I wouldn't have forfeited round 2, this would not be a problem. You deserve to win this debate, if not merely because of my bad conduct. I am sincerely sorry for screwing this up, but I hope we can debate again in the future. Ciao
Death Battle: Marvel vs Capcom

No, I think Amaterasu beat more tail. A nine tailed fox, who also had access to the Celestial Brush! http://okami.wikia.com...And if you wanna compare numbers, Amaterasu fights demons on a regular basis. Amaterasu's most worthy opponents are Orochi, the 7 Canine Warriors, Blight (a knight small enough to hide inside of a man, making him exhale toxic gas while sick in bed), and Yami. Here's Yami's page, by the way: http://okami.wikia.com...Also, Yami was able to remove Amaterasu's abilities and Celestial Brush, and the people's faith in Amaterasu was the only thing that could bring her powers back.In conclusion, my opponent fails to respect the power of the sun goddess. And if we did allow prep time, this gives Amaterasu an advantage as she'd Power Slash the guns. And just a reminder; Punisher is actually weak, and requires a long time to prepare.
Death Battle: Marvel vs Capcom

I would like to ask how The Punisher is able to kill everyone. I've heard amazing things about a variety of the Marvel series, like how Deadpool and Wolverine are indestructable and good in combat, and Thor is literally a god.There's also a few things to consider:1; Punisher used preperation and strategy for all the characters, especially the more powerful ones. For example, he used a tranquilizer to turn the Hulk into Bruce Banner, used a magnetic mine to destroy Doom's robots, zapped Wolverine in an electric fence, and many other Marvel characters weren't shown. But for the really powerful characters, like Iron Man and Thor, it seems Punisher didn't fight them head on, since they'd probably kill him.Amaterasu's Celestial Brush isn't easily countered. While it's being used, it stops time for everyone while Amaterasu draws the needed symbol. The only way to stop the Celestial Brush is with another Celestial Brush, which can only be wielded by celestial deities.2; Punisher is an ordinary human, he's just very angry. And I doubt Amaterasu would let up easily, even with a few bullets. After all, she saved the world from Orochi (a giant 7 headed dragon), and Yami (the ruler of darkness). Chances are Ammy could handle it.We haven't seen really incredible feats from Punisher, whereas we can easily measure basic feats from Amaterasu by watching a let's play, or even better, just check out VS Battles wiki; http://vsbattles.wikia.com...(%C5%8Ckami)We can't just say that because Punisher killed everyone, he's super strong, therefore able to kill this god. I suggest you really dig deep.
Death Battle: Marvel vs Capcom

Now, I could go all formal and set stuff up like you did, but since I feel like this is more of a "for fun" kinda debate, I'm not going to. Frank Castle, The Punisher. Ex-military, fluent in gunplay and multiple martial arts, always has a Kevlar vest on. That's not why he'd beat up your pooch so hard he'd catch a PETA case. No, the reason I'm going to win in the first round is so mindbogglingly obvious it'll make you crap your pants: Castle has successfully killed every single character in the Marvel franchise. In 1995's Punisher Kills the Marvel Universe, he kills literally everyone (including Deadpool) at least once. If Frank Castle can kill Thor, Odin, The Hulk, Thanos, AND Deadpool, magical wolf dog can't do much.
Death Battle: Marvel vs Capcom

Definitely an interesting choice, though Amaterasu has many different powers I'll get into later.Strength:Amaterasu can destroy stone, iron ore, and diamond ore by bashing into them [Source 1]. She can also dig through stone when needed. However, Amaterasu's main methods of attack are the Celestial Brush and her Divine Instruments, which I'll get into later.Agility:Amaterasu can run decently fast, likely as fast as a real wolf. This is 35mph to 40mph [Source 2], whereas Usian Bolt set a record for running over 23mph, at most perhaps 27mph [Source 3, 2nd paragraph]. Amaterasu also has a double jump (Holy Eagle), a wall jump, a dodging technique (Fleetfoot) [Source 4], and can use the Celestial Brush technique Veil of Mist to slow time.Durability:Amaterasu has fought demons that wield fire, ice, electricity, and blades. And she can definitely take a lot of it, too [having a maximum of 20 health units in Okami].Abilities:Celestial Brush:Amaterasu is able to wield the holy power of the Celestial Brush. She can control a total of 13 powers. She can control fire, water, lightning, wind, and ice. There's also the Power Slash, which slices through iron ore, and even diamond! Amaterasu can also create a Cherry Bomb, which is a fire cracker. And like I said before, Veil of Mist can slow time. She can also control day and night, use Greensprout (making lily pads, trees grow, bloom flowers and trees, and Vine a konohana blossom to a target), repair broken or missing items, and providing there's a statue nearby, she can climb walls. [Source 5] This does run on divine ink, but Amaterasu has a big amount and it recharges at a comfortable pace. She also won't waste this ink by spamming brush techniques.Equipment:Amaterasu's main weaponry are Divine Instruments, which there are 3 different types. [See source 6]Reflectors are her prime Divine Instrument. They're balanced with decent speed and attack power. And if timed right, Amaterasu can unleash a powerful counter attack.Rosary can reach a long range and hits in rapid succession. Rosary can even become projectiles and fire at Amaterasu's enemy. THe Tundra Beads are a notable rosary that deals ice damage.Glaives are slow but strong swords, and can charge up for greater impact. The Thunder Edge has electric power.In conclusion, looks like the Punisher is in for a pretty divine challenge. I hope he's ready.Sources:1: http://okami.wikia.com...;2: http://www.howfastcan.com...;3: http://www.newyorker.com...4: http://okami.wikia.com...5: http://okami.wikia.com...;6: http://okami.wikia.com...;
Death Battle: Marvel vs Capcom

I've decided to post another battle on this site. My opponent can choose any Marvel or Capcom character, assuming it doesn't violate the given rules:Rules:1) Your character can't be immortal (like Deadpool) or have the strength to destroy a planet (like Galactus or Dr Strange).2) Your character can't bring any friends to the battle. No outside help. [Even if it's not a friend, you can only have your chosen character fight.]3) Match ups and information in the actual Marvel vs Capcom games won't be valid evidence for a conclusion.4) We'll be arguing for 5 different categories: Strength (physical and spiritual), Agility (speed and nimblness), Durability (how much damage the character can take), Abilities, and Equipment.5) Equipment will be their weapons and armor. No healing or buffing items can be brought.6) No trolling, semantics, or kritiks.7) Refusing to follow these rules will result in an instant loss.I'll be choosing Amaterasu from Okami. [I don't think she can destroy a planet, but she is strong.] Here's the wiki page: http://okami.wikia.com...
I hoped this site would improve my comunications but it has not.

I don't care what your limited knowledge is. I have limits too. I expected a word for word conversation to express our point of view. If you try and express yourself in an argument,....I would never question it. As long as it is you. This is what a debate is about. Our views and expressions. Nobody can take this away from us. Only ourselves.That's only true for debates about philosophy and funny debates. For any other kind your opinions don't matter; what matters is the facts and what you can prove. For example a creationis might say "I believe in creationism" as there argument in a debate about whether creationism is true but that is only their opinion it doesn't prove anything. Basically you want philosophy.
I hoped this site would improve my comunications but it has not.

1)when one debates is it acceptable to post links when presenting your argument if not asked for?Yes2) did you copy and past any words that were not your own?Yes because I wouldn't be able to give a proper description with my limited knowledge.3) do you think its acceptable to paste information and call it a debate?We were debating whether or not time travel is possible so in that case yes, because what I needed was evidence to prove my case. Also I did explain my evidence.The 2 paragraphs you posted in our first debate were from wikipedia. (you quoted it) There was not a single thought of your own. Am I wrong? I could write an essay and then compare it to wikipedia Why would I need to come here ? Whats the point?That was a debate about whether or not something was impossible; in other words no opinions because opinions don't prove anything.If a new member comes to this site and the first opponent he/she faces simple quotes data from another source is that debate?Read above.CONCLUSIONWhat pro was expecting was probably philosophy.
I hoped this site would improve my comunications but it has not.

First off I apologize again. I was entirely intoxicated when I made my comments. If you do not accept it I understand. The reason I go upset is because I believe you simply pasted information which I do not believe to be your own. Regardless, its clear others do not think this to be the case as you have crushed me in the previous debate. I ask you these questions 1)when one debates is it acceptable to post links when presenting your argument if not asked for? 2) did you copy and past any words that were not your own? 3) do you think its acceptable to paste information and call it a debate? The 2 paragraphs you posted in our first debate were from wikipedia. (you quoted it) There was not a single thought of your own. Am I wrong? I could write an essay and then compare it to wikipedia Why would I need to come here ? Whats the point? If a new member comes to this site and the first opponent he/she faces simple quotes data from another source is that debate?
Advocating Vegetarianism Is Not A Solution To Animal Cruelty in Slaughter Houses

I'll start with the most direct counter that you had to my argument. Theoretically, if enough people stopped eating pork, corporate pork producers would feel the financial effects, and perhaps alter their practices to try to win back the customers who decided to boycott because of inhumane practices. What I'm trying to argue is that the likelihood of that happening is far less than the likelihood of successfully rallying supporters to pressure Congress into implementing stricter industry standards. You mentioned that this is a moral issue, and I would agree (although I don't think killing animals is morally wrong, which I'll adress in a bit.) I think that this IS a moral issue, and that's precisely why pressure must be applied directly to industry. Convincing individuals to become vegetarians is a long and arduous process, and it would take a long time to actually impact the profits of industry, and an even longer time for industry to respond to the demands of those consumers. I think that it is a much more effective use of resources to, instead of advocating for vegetarianism, advocate for much tighter control over the meat industry, and much greater oversight of the USDA. If it's really a moral imperative, shouldn't we be making that clear and trying to stop it as quickly and directly as we can? Now to the fun part - addressing whether killing animals is morally wrong. I do not think killing animals is morally wrong - if I did, I would have to be a vegetarian. I think killing animals inhumanely is certainly wrong, because you are correct that they are capable of feeling pain, and have nervous systems similar to those of humans. However, I do think that a human life is intrinsically much much MUCH more valuable than the life of an animal - at least the life of an animal like a pig, cow, turkey, etc. Thosee animals are not capable of living purposefully the way humans are, because they are still mostly instinctual and habitual. A pig does not roll in the mud because the pig enjoys mud - it's a way to cool the pig's body. I'm sure this will open up a whole new dimension of the debate, so I'm curious to see how you respond to this!
Advocating Vegetarianism Is Not A Solution To Animal Cruelty in Slaughter Houses

I have several friends who are adamant vegetarians, and every once in a while they convince me to watch a video on the inhumane practices adopted by many companies that produce food in the U.S. and around the world. I don't think there is any doubt that there is rampant animal cruelty and abuse in the food processing industry, but I do think that the conclusion that my friends, and these videos, come to is illogical. These videos usually end with "don't eat meat." I think we can accept that no matter how hard vegetarians try, there will still be meat-eaters in the world, and a lot of them. Spending time and resources trying to convince people one by one to stop eating meat is going to have very little impact on the animals being abused and mistreated in these videos. Instead of vege-vengalism, groups who advocate against cruelty to animals should be lobbying the U.S. Congress to adopt tougher standards on industry, and scrutinize the USDA a lot more heavily. This is how change will be effected - not by trying to convince others to stop eating meat.
We need to focus on energy security and income inequality

Why my opponent advocates is pure ridiculousness. Why in the world would we want a currency backed by electricity? Pro gives no reasons why we should. They also advocate switching are whole energy economy over to thorium. Thorium is a new and untested energy source, and Pro says the government should ban all other energy sources and put all our resources into mining one new form of energy. Then they go on to say that employees should be given part of their employers profits. Not only is ridiculous, it is also literally theft. In incentives people to not start businesses. The government would intrude upon voluntary contract and force the owner to give his money to the worker. In fact, what is so bad about income equality? Unless pro answers this, why should we pursue radical wealth redistribution. Also, we set to become he greatest energy producer on the planet so why do we need to follow your bizarre agenda.
In 1948, Israel was put back on the map, democratically.

Again, as expected, My opponent leaves his manners at the door. No matter, I will simply finish with a few things, and then let my opponent finish. He claims I am debating an imaginary opponent. He calls me racist, using that term very lightly, I might add. He called my arguments shameful. He claims to know what I 'don't dispute', although he has no idea, because I leave those topics for another debate, altogether. I will refrain from using this kind of rhetoric, and allow my opponent to argue HIS debate. I will say this, though. If someone physically attacks me, I will defend myself and will take something for my troubles. This makes perfect sense, as far as the legal system goes. The bottom line is this. If that coalition had not decided to attack Israel, they would still have their land, yet you call me racist for saying it. That is as far as I am willing to go into another topic during this debate. The resolution stands.(my shameful bid for victory) Thank you in advance for what I am sure will be an insightful, on-topic argument.
In 1948, Israel was put back on the map, democratically.

he made in the Politics Forum. For example, he doesn't here dispute that critical to the establishment of Israel was the expulsion of Arabs by new, Jewish landlords. Nor does he dispute that the original Zionists were religious socialists, nor that Judaism is historically an exclusive religion and that Zionism is no exception. Nor does he deny that Israel has conquered militarily as much land as it was given by the British Empire. Nor does he deny that Israel is in violation of international law. Nor does he dispute any of the claims made by the distinguished Jewish author Norman Finkelstein in the book whose name he can't even get right, The Holocaust Industry. Nor does he deny that Israel has discriminated against Arabs even within Israel proper. In fact, his resolution has so little to do with the impetus for his calling me an idiot that, depending on the definitions, I might agree with it! It's indisputable, for example, that some land was given to the Jews under British and international law; it's indisputable that Israel proper is a democracy. What's demonstrably false is that Israel has obeyed international law in its occupation of the Palestinian territories and that Israel is a democracy in the sense of giving voting rights to all adults within Greater Israel. If Gavin agrees, let me apologize for failing to defend his straw man; I'll defend only assertions I've actually made.
In 1948, Israel was put back on the map, democratically.

There are some common misconceptions, which I would like to bring to light in this debate. My only goal here is to show, using facts, that Israel was given to a Jewish/Democratic government legally and democratically. I hope my opponent and I are on the same page, and that definitions are unnecessary. I look forward to my opponents' introduction, and rounds 2 and 3 will be for arguments.