BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Evolutionism vs Creationism

I look forward to a productive debate. THE EVIDENCE BEHIND EVOLUTION (Abridged)I'm shortening it up a LOT simply because their is SO MUCH evidence for Evolution that I can't possibly list out every instance of it. It is better that I just describe the forms of evidence. The fossil record clearly shows a gradual progression of change within the phenotypes of species over hundreds of millions of years [1][2][3]. However, there have been accusations that we have no way of knowing if the fossils of two species that LOOK similar actually ARE related, leading us into the next major line of evidence for Evolution: DNA evidence. The analysis of left over DNA in fossils has proven that those species ARE actually related [4][5]. WHY CREATIONISM IS NOT A THEORYPro: "Creationism is a valid theory that can't be refuted by science with the actual knowledge and means it has at its disposal. "All theories start off as hypotheses. When a hypothesis collects enough evidence, it becomes known as a scientific theory [6]. Currently, Creationism is a hypothesis, which means that it cannot logically be accepted as true over an actual scientific theory. It is PRO's job to provide enough evidence for Creationism to be considered a theory. Once Creationism has become a scientific theory, only then can it truly be compared with Evolution. In her argument, Pro concentrated mostly on showing why the concept of Creationism is theologically sound. However, theological soundness is not scientific evidence. Scientific evidence is necessary for moving Creationism from hypothesis status to theory status. Thus, Pro's primary tasks in this debate should be showing evidence for Creationism and (possibly) attacking the theory of Evolution. I wish my opponent good luck in the next round :DSOURCES[1] . http://evolution.berkeley.edu...[2] . http://www.agiweb.org...[3] . http://rationalwiki.org...[4] . http://eveloce.scienceblog.com...[5] . http://humanorigins.si.edu...[6] . http://www.livescience.com...
Evolutionism vs Creationism

I'm going to take a position in favor of creationism and against evolutionism. Con shall take the opposite position. Evolutionism vs Creationism! Some of you may be thinking, "still with this "poop"?? Weren't we over with it? Haven't the evolutionist guys proved their point already?" "Yes!", some of you are saying!; "No!", contests another bunch; "I don't give a poop about this!", admits the guy that came here by mistake. The rivalry between creationists and evolutionists goes much further than just a matter of theories that try to explain the origins of life and of the human race! It's a matter of honor! of not giving up on their beliefs! of fighting for the TRUTH! THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH! Without which we don't have any chance, other than just keep living our lives... It's a matter of how far people can go against the beliefs they are trying to defend to prove the other wrong! of how hypocrite people can become! of how long people can fight against each other, without realizing they have much more in common, than what they have keeping them apart! SCIENCE vs RELIGION ATHEISTS vs (a relative small portion of) THEISTS (around the world, but surprisingly high in America!) This war of beliefs has it all!! Human brilliancy! stupidity! hypocrisy! ingenuity! arrogance! ignorance! It stirs with people cores! It drives people to their limits! Everyone has something to say about it! Even if it's just to claim that it's worthless and that scientists and religious people should be more concerned in trying to help people in need and to secure sustainable life conditions for the next generations, rather than trying to figure out if our ancestors were a result of a monkey mutation or a God miracle. Have I captured your interest? Then here are the points I'm expecting to debate: 1. Creationism is a valid theory that can't be refuted by science with the actual knowledge and means it has at its disposal. 2. Creationism shall be taught in schools, as should Religion. 3. Many evolutionists criticize Creationists, claiming they are close minded and that their faith is an excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence, while doing the exact same thing in regard to their own BELIEVES. You're probably one of them! 4. Does God exist? I don't enjoy discussing God with most atheists, but I don't mind to make an effort once in a while... after all, it is God's will. "Discussing God with an atheist is like discussing colors with a color blind man." - Maria Magalhaes (To spice things a little more ;) Do you disagree with every single topic I presented? Did you get upset with my claims? Do you think I'm being arrogant and ignorant? Do you want to prove me wrong? Then you're invited for this debate! :) You will have 5 rounds to present your arguments, 48 hours, 10 000 characters each. You're invited to begin arguing in the first round or you may wait for me to express my arguments and reply only in the second round. Feel at home! (since you probably are.) The topics don't need to be addressed all in the same round. I will just ask my opponent to try to address them in order and in the final round to summarize his position. Good luck! :)
Narcolepsy

It was not a problem, and thank you for asking this question. A rich learning experience for the both of us. I may not have to mention this, since you already may know, but unfortunately Narcolepsy cannot be cured-it can only be controlled. Venlafaxina (or venlafaxine) can only control the effects of narcolepsy and cataplexy. About your question about being a doctor: A neonatologist is a form of pediatrician, specifically a doctor specializing in the care of newborn children under NICUs, or Neonatal Intensive care units. A doctor's job is very demanding. It requires doctors to work under stress and manage everything effectively. This must be taken into serious consideration if you wish to become a neontologist. Here is a website showing requirements and other things for the job. This link is from New Zealand, so if there are some things that you do not understand, please excuse them. This has quite a bit of detail to go through, so read carefully if you wish to know more. http://www.careers.govt.nz... Other sources: http://en.wikipedia.org... Thank you for raising this. I hope that what I found was helpful to you and that I helped you.
Narcolepsy

Thanks for your opinion about adoption and I think the same as you do. I don't live in the U.S either, I lived there about nine years ago but not anymore. I'm Mexican and I live in Queretaro. But still I'm taking some medicines in Spanish its called Venlafaxina, which I guess is the same as the one you mentioned, but this medicine doesn't make them go away it just control them, it makes them less random. I have another question I also need an opinion on. do you think maybe it would be a bad idea to become a doctor, more specifically a baby doctor or study neonatology, because of my situation? Thank you a lot for answering me it was really helpful to listen to your opinion about this.
Narcolepsy

Thanks for the response. About this: //But in your comment you said Insomnia is not a symptom but my doctor says sometimes Insomnia is a symptom but most of the time it's just sleeping to much.// Please excuse that comment. I am still in the research phase of this and do not know much. Sorry. Ok, so where to begin? Thank you for clarifying what narcolepsy is. Now I can work with that. About the treatment. First of all: Cataplexy: //And just to clarify In my case cataplexy is just when I get really mad (rarely) and when I laugh wich is when it most happens. It can also happen out of nowhere I t just happens// Your symptoms are common among cataplexy sufferers. However, for the use of others, I will list the symptoms here: However, note that in my sources on cataplexy there is nothing on it randomly happening. Question: does this happen at nighttime, during sleep? And if not, is it totally random? Anyhow, the common symptoms: Arm weakness Sagging jaw Drooping head Slumping of the shoulders Slurred speech Generalized weakness Knee buckling Impaired vision Anger and laughter are two causes of cataplexy. However, to control the effects, look below. Treatment: Narcolepsy can be controlled with the help of these drugs: Modafinil (Provigil) for excessive, uncontrollable, daytime sleepiness Sodium oxybate (Xyrem) for cataplexy (sudden muscle weakness) or venlafaxine Cataplexy must be treated differently to narcolepsy, no matter the relevance between the two. If you wish to control it, take venlafaxine, a depressant. It can be found in all US retail stores (but correct me if needed, because I don't live in the US). However, be warned: taking venlafaxine does increase the chance of suicide and other adverse effects. To adress your first question whether to adopt a child or have one of your own, if you do decide to take venlafaxine, it is recommended to adopt. Studies have shown that the use of the drug doubles the chance of miscarriage. However, if you do decide not to adopt, venlafaxine must be taken only when clearly needed. The two other drugs also risk miscarriage during preganancy, so be warned. Something to think about regarding the adopting/having one issue. Genetically: Having a family member with narcolepsy increases the chance of the genetic disorder by 20-40 times. Possibly another reason to adopt? Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://adam.about.com... That is what I have for you this time. . . Please, if you have any more questions post them in the next argument.
Narcolepsy

That's exactly what narcolepsy is. But in your comment you said Insomnia is not a symptom but my doctor says sometimes Insomnia is a symptom but most of the time it's just sleeping to much. And just to clarify In my case cataplexy is just when I get really mad (rarely) and when I laugh wich is when it most happens. It can also happen out of nowhere I t just happens. When I forget my meds the cataplexy "attacks" I call them, lasts longer. The longest episode of cataplexy I ever had was of about one hour and also a have hallucination while having the cataplexy. Cataplexy is a believed to be when you're a sleep there is a level in which your body muscle looses control, the doctors say that episode intervenes in my day with strong emotions int this case it's just when I laugh.
Narcolepsy

Hello, thanks for raising this. I actually don't know much of this myself, but I will do what i can to make sure you are happy. Please, if I am wrong, correct me at any stage. So I would like to start off by just asking the simple question: What is narcolepsy? If I am correct. . . Narcolepsy is a chronic sleep disorder where people with the disorder are prone to falling asleep during the day at any time and any place, even after adequate amounts of sleep. It is not to be confused with insomnia. Insomnia can sort of be classified as a symptom, correct? Narcolepsy sufferers can also experience an event called cataplexy-in short sudden muscle weakness brought on by strong emotions. That's what I have gathered so far. I am sorry that i did not adress your questions but I wished to use this round to clarify narcolepsy. Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org... Thank you. Please, correct me if needed and ask questions.
Narcolepsy

This debate is for me to get an opinion from someone else on something I will explain. I have narcolepsy which is a genetic disease. It is a rare disease, if my opponent wants to do some research on this topic he is welcome. So this is more of an advice. I know I'm too young to start thinking about this stuff, but still I think a lot about the future although sometimes is to far from now. I want my opponents advice on, if it's worth risking having a kid who might inherit this disease or is it better to adopt or to not have child at all. I would never want anyone to have this disease because I've gone through a lot that has technically ruined part of my life or at least didn't allow me to do or experience some things I would of loved to. so What do you think? I'm open to all opinion, and please be totally honest with me.
Gary Johnson should never be president

The negation side would like to first apologize for not being able to complete the Round. By this, the following link provides the current state of the negation constructive speech. The negation will continue to work on this and will be finished by Round #3. Again, the negation greatly apologizes and wishes good luck to the affirmation as they go through Round #3 and their rebuttal speech. Thank you! https://docs.google.com...
Gary Johnson should never be president

GARY JOHNSON IS A THUGGary Johnson recently stated hat he supports quote "vaccinating children at gunpoint."{1} That's right folks, this maniac wants to forcibly inject our children with mercury and all sorts of other toxic substances. If you want to know how bad vaccines are, just take a look at the kind of crap that they use to make them,{2} then look at the side effects of this crap. It als turns out that the aluminum in vaccines might actualy be worse than the mercury!{3}GARY JOHNSON IS A COMPLETE IDIOT Yes, it's true, Gary Johnson is just another libertard who gets offended at anything. Here he says that Trumps comments are 'racist.' {4} Now, everyone understnds that Trump said a whole lot of nonsense in his campaign, but just look at what Johnson is getting mad at:"Johnson was referencing a recent Trump town hall in New Hampshire when a woman who, while pointing to her head, objected to the "heeby jobbies" worn by some employees at the TSA -- an apparent reference to hijabs, or headscarfs that some Muslim women wear. She urged him to replace Muslims with veterans. Trump said: "And we are looking at that."uh, Johnson, that's not racist- I don't even know what he was interpreting as 'racist,' Trump doesn't like Hijabs maybe? I don't really know, but if he was calling Trump a racist on account of him not liking Hijabs, then he should know that Hijabs are not a race, they are an article of clothing. GARY JOHNSON IS A HILLARY PLANTSee here.{5} It's just 1992 all over again, the establishment let Ross Perot runn so he could take votes away from George H.W. Bush, likewise, the esablihment is allowing Johnson to run enable to take votes away from Trump, allowing Hillary to win. This can further be infered by how the media doesn't give nearly enough attention to Jill Stein as they do to Gary Johnson, this is because Jill Stein would take votes away from Hillary and not Trump. GARY JOHNSON IS JUST ANOTHER GLOBALIST PIMPSorry to use fou language but that's what a globalist is- someone who wants to pimp out the nation to foreign goveronments and international corporations. Johnson says he would support the TPP, a dal which deindustrialised our nation, unemployed millions, and created a massive trade deficit.{6} This guy iwould destroy our nations finace even worse than how it is right now. For this reason, Gary Johnson should never become president. {1}. https://www.oathkeepers.org...{2}. http://vaxtruth.org...{3}.http://articles.mercola.com... {4}. http://www.cnn.com...{5}. http://usbacklash.org...{6}. http://independentpoliticalreport.com...
THW give extra votes to the poor.

The poor deserve it. Not for just the fact that they are poor, but that they know the circumstances of an area better than the "wealthier" people do. They will give the government "goals" to achieve with the poor.The opposition might state that just because they are poor, doesn't mean that they should be treated any better than the average income or educated person, nor should that person be treated better than the poor.True, but at least they are able to survive when the prices go up or when inflation emerges, these people cannot cope, not even with the current prices. They are often the ones that get promised the services, yet nothing is come to them. If they were able to vote for the party they think and are convinced- will bring them what they need. Then they should be able to. We will allow not a specific amount, but are working on an amount ranging from 2 to 4.
THW give extra votes to the poor.

I will suit my points to yours for better understanding then. You make good points. I did not say that poor can't vote, as I stated in my previous argument, I actually encourage them to vote, but the reality is, they don't even know what's going on in the country. Their stuck at that current state of poverty. Just a fact I would throw in, The conventional wisdom that Africa is not reducing poverty is wrong. Researchers estimate income distributions, poverty rates, and inequality and welfare indices for African countries for the period 1970-2006. They have shown that: (1) African poverty is falling and is falling rapidly; (2) if present trends continue, the poverty Millennium Development Goal of halving the proportion of people with incomes less than one dollar a day will be achieved on time. The African government ARE doing their best to help the state of poverty now, but the sad truth is, they don't have enough asset to do so. To gain more asset, they main on improving the developing countries in the African Continent. One of their most developing countries are Lybia, and ladies and gentleman, majority of parts in Lybia doesn't even have electricity! But the question is now, how does political views and such spread? By the media. Television is a major part in media. But as we know, the current states in Africa, the closest thing would be newspaper. Newspapers are given mostly ONLY in the developing countries. They pay taxes. They vote. But let's take a look at the rural areas where poverty is undergoing in Africa. As I stated before, the education rate there is VERY low. For them to get informed in politics, they need, at the very least, to know their leaders and what they can do for them. BUT!! Ladies and gentlemen, how are they going to be informed, if they can't even read? And as I stated. Their main source of information is the newspapers. And its majorly given to city areas ONLY. Even if they got hands to them anyway, they wouldn't be able to read them. And lets try to be realistic here, they were raised to not give any reason to care about politics. They are barely even holding up from starvation sadly. As I write this , imagine how many of them have already died. They simply don't have time, or the use of optioning inside politics as MOST of them are barely holding onto their lives. Its not the problem that they should or shouldn't vote. Its the matter of knowing who to vote for, and in this case, they barely even know what their government is up to! To summarize my points : Its better not to vote, than voting blindly, since the technology and education rate is just too low to be informative. I hope this creates a better argument for you. Till then, I rest my case once again.
THW give extra votes to the poor.

I think our views are completely different here, obviously. I live in South Africa, a place full of unemployment, poverty, should i go on ? I think we can all agree that the poor can vote, and they should.Why shouldn't a person's thoughts be taken into account? Just because he is poor!Yes the wealthier pay the taxes, but if the government were to win the hearts of the poor, provide them with the promises they promised, they'd receive more tax because more people employed. This will improve a country's infrastructure and when the poor pay taxes, the gov has a reason to care and need them. The poor are easy to manipulate when it comes to party elections. They know what is going on in the "real" world. Sure an educated person will have knowledge of the world, but wont know how bad people really have it as they-most likely- would have not been exposed to those ares. Areas that need the gov's attention !You need education to vote,yes, but knowing your surroundings and what works for people who are in the same circumstances are enough. I have mentioned before, that they are easy to manipulate, but i correct myself by saying that they are not that easily manipulated. They will have knowledge of what the running parties are for and what they are willing to give and the y would know if a previous party is worth voting for or not, because i'm pretty sure they would be able to tell if their poor circumstances have changed. The poor are best source of reinforcing votes,but if you don't, they do know how to fight back.If they were to gain extra votes for the party they wanted,it brings them up. The poor require extra votes to be represented fairly!So why hold it back from them?They know enough to vote, they too are people. We all preach and praise-EQUALITY-yet here we are, restricting normal from their rights! The poor should vote, no doubt about it !
THW give extra votes to the poor.

There's one problem for poor people. They don't have enough money. Money plays a big role. From politics to survival, its essential for everyone to own money. Ladies gentlemen, poor people should vote. Its called being a responsible citizen. But they shouldn't be given extra votes. Because extra votes from the poor might overshadow normal votes therefore making election farcical. But the main point here is, they just don't have time to care about politics. Many of the poor in the United States are women and children with little education, discretionary income or exposure to political information. These groups inhabit urban inner cities or rural communities. They are more likely to work a job in the service or manufacturing sectors, and often hold several posts to make ends meet. Time-savers that many take for granted, such as owning a car or having access to cash, are harder for the poor. Public transportation is inefficient, and many must wait on long lines to receive poverty benefits such as food stamps. There's little time to be involved in the political process. Politics is usually ruled by wealthy people, corporations, etc etc. I'm not saying that poor people can't option to get involved. But imagine being in their feet, The poor feel disenfranchised, underrepresented and powerless in the face of this asset gap, and option to stay out of the system by not voting. Ones that actually does have interest in politics are like 1 out of 500 poor people. Not to mention the low education rate for them to actually understand their leaders. Ask yourself ladies and gentlemen, the poor CAN vote and CAN get involved. But should they? That is the question.
Resolved: God likes Saturn better then Earth

Evidence that God likes Saturn more then Earth: 1) The song by Beyonce goes, "If you like it then you shoulda put a ring on it, if you like it then you shoulda put a ring on it, whoa-oh-oh......" http://www.youtube.com... 2) Saturn has a ring: http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov... 3) Earth does not have a ring: http://us.123rf.com... 4) Saturn has a ring, which means that God likes Saturn 5) Earth does not have a ring, meaning that God doesnt care for Earth that much Therefore God Likes Saturn better then Earth.
Resolved: God likes Saturn better then Earth

Pretty straightforward, The resolution is that God likes the planet Saturn more then the Planet Earth. I am pro this resolution, con is against this resolution. Whoever accepts this debate accepts that 1) Earth is the third planet from the sun in our Solar System 2) Saturn is the sixth planet from the sun in our Solar System 3) Saturn has a big Ring around it 4) Earth does not have a ring of any kind around it 5) God exists and created the planets If you refuse to accept any of these points then you forfeit the debate. This is a very short debate.