BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Is this interpretation of a poet/scientist critique of science/ maths accurate

I have several arguments:1) Pro’s argument is incoherent and unoriginal, so it certainly meets the interpretation under consideration: that the author’s work does not add anything to human understanding. It isn’t my burden to disprove this- Pro needs to demonstrate that the author’s work is coherent and original or he loses this debate.2) The incoherency of the author means that any interpretation that addresses the disparate assertions of Pro is a legitimate interpretation. I could reconstruct Pro’s “philosophy” in any number of ways and they would all be legitimate and defensible. This is especially true because the original source is so unclear. The lack of clarity opens the door to many interpretations.3) All of Pro’s presentations seem to support the interpretation that the author is just arguing that internal contradictions in human language (i.e. math and science) means that humans can’t claim any special access to truth based.For example, Pro says:“Now just as mathematics and science show us that absurd or meaningless views can be "true" it also shows us that views which are mutually contradictory can each explain or predict the correct results and thus be both "true" at the same time.”This seems to be saying that contradictions in math and science mean that they provide us no special access to “truth,” no matter how coherent. This is no different from sense/perception based solipsism.4) The conclusion of the interpretation is certainly correct:“We are left with two options: either we renounce all attempts to understand the universe, or we proceed in our current manner regardless.”Pro seems to be arguing that science is contradictory but still works. As the original interpretation points out, this leads to a “so what?” situation. Either we throw our hands up or we acknowledge this condition and carry on as usual.Finally, Pro says I am arguing in bad faith because I haven’t read the author’s work and have a vendetta against him. I HAVE looked at the author’s work. It is riddled with spelling errors and incomplete sentences. It is incoherent. Literally the first sentence has a spelling error and incorrect verb conjugation.I do have a problem with Pro. Pro is obviously the same person as the author- Pro can’t stop repeating the author’s name and only debates the author’s “philosophy” and poetry. Pro just wants to spam the website in an effort of self-promotion. He is trying to generate fake controversy and pass himself off as a “leading” intellectual. He is generally dishonest and hurts the quality of content on DDO. For this reason I do admit that I have personal motive in taking this debate.
DNA Phenotyping

Genetic researchers have recently begun to develop a type of DNA-typing that can identify criminal suspects based on traits such as skin, hair, and eye color, geographical ancestry, gait, and predisposition to smoking. Such visual and behavioral characteristics are part of an individual"s phenotype, the expression of his or her genes. Thus, we refer to this technology as forensic DNA phenotyping (FDP), although it is also known as phenotypic profiling, molecular photofitting, visual trait prediction, or ethnic inference. FDP differs from traditional DNA-typing in many regards. Traditional DNA-typing does not reveal personal information. Instead, it determines whether two samples (one from the crime scene"the unknown or evidence sample"and the other from the suspect"called the reference sample) are from the same person. If the samples match, police assume that the suspect is the perpetrator. But this technology is of little use if police don"t have a suspect. FDP seeks to get past this limitation by using the DNA left at a crime scene to create a genetically-based description of the unknown suspect"s appearance that police can use to narrow their search for suspects. Unlike traditional DNA-typing, which confirms a suspect"s identity, FDP predicts the suspect"s appearance. Researchers anticipate it could one day even predict a suspect"s behavior, such the likelihood of smoking. Currently, FDP relies on limited research that identifies gene sequences associated with distinctive features such as red hair or the part of the world a person"s ancestors came from. Genetic identification of ancestry causes particular concern because of its potential to exacerbate tensions in police relationships with racial and immigrant minority groups.
The United States should remove Hugo Chavez from power

http://en.rian.ru... http://www.usnews.com... http://www.heritage.org... I think that this is most of it. If you need more I will post. *Rebuttal "And if... Hugo attacks us, we just nuke them, with the techonology we have we can wipe out venezuela of the map" The object of this topic is that we go and stop Hugo Chavez from attacking us in the first place. Also I do not want to "Wipe out Venezuela" I'm only against Hugo Chavez, not the people of his country. "economic problems we have" Ask yourself which is more important: our economy? Or every Americans life? The issue of the economy would be no problem if everyone was dead. He is funding terrorists to strike us again. And it seems not so far in the future. "we also are in war right now" Exactly why we should take a corrupt person out of power before he declares war on us. It would only expand the issue of war, and more troops would die as a result of the Venezuelan war. If we take him out before war is waged then more American lives are spared. "i am sure that venezuela is not a big threat to the USA" First, just read my original post again. He is a HUGE threat to the US by funding terrorists and then helping them come to our country. They will strike again, and it may be bigger and worse then September 11th. He is without a dounbt a certain threat. Thank you Kk-
The United States should remove Hugo Chavez from power

My opponent has pretty strong points there, and i don't think Hugo should be president, in fact i hate him, he is rellay stupid and looks up to Fidel like he was a great person which hes not. Now that i got off my chest lets start this first of all buddy you're not giving me any websites about hugo buying all that stuff. And USA shouldn't be doing this right now with the economic problems we have,, and we also are in war right now, i am sure that venezuela is not a big threat to the USA. If for some reason Venezuela declares war on whoever as long as its not us we shouldn't fight anymore wars. And if... Hugo attacks us, we just nuke them, with the techonology we have we can wipe out venezuela of the map. Now i have nothing else to say. I would like some websites that say Hugo is doing all the stuff you've posted, and don't get me wrong, I would love Hugo out of the position he is, but the USA does not have time nor the money to start crap with Venezuela.
Earth is better off without humans

If we are meant to be here, are we also meant to pollute? Are we meant to take away the things that make this planet what it is such as wildlife? Earth would have billions of healthy years ahead if it weren't for us, but projections prove that in the next 100 years overpopulation will cause overconsumption of resources needed for species other than us, a damaging carbon footprint, complete deforestation, heavy desertification and the list goes on. Earth is surely better off without us.
Earth is better off without humans

The sun is not irrelevant to the topic. The sun itself will destroy the earth with or without the help of humans. With this being said, earth has no way to escape its destruction. Some other factors are all have to be considered such as tsunamis, volcanic eruption, land masses and animal extinction. Therefore, we humans are natural. We are meant to be on this earth. We may have animals that have gone extinct but there are plenty of animals that we have not discovered and continuing to discover.
Earth is better off without humans

The Sun is irrelevant for this debate topic, but its potential effects actually support my position. It will kill all Earth life only in 4.5 billion years or if we destroy the ozone layer with heavy pollution and/or use of nuclear weapons. Humans are more likely to destroy the planet eons before the Sun which is again why Earth is better off without us. Finding life on other planets may be our last hope after we squeeze the last resources out of Earth to sustain billions upon billions of humans.
Earth is better off without humans

The sun is getting hotter not only because of the global warming cause by human activity but also the sun itself. When the sun's heat reach a certain extent where the earth is unlivable planet, all living things will die. So with or without human, earth will eventually eradicate itself. On the brighter note, humans come up with amazing technology. We discover a lot of great things. Hopefully, as advanced as we get with technology, life in other planet is not far from being discovered.
Earth is better off without humans

The relationship you speak of is one-sided. We're taking way more than we're giving. We fully depend on Earth; it doesn't depend on us, it's only hurt by us. We dump 14 billion lbs of garbage into the ocean every year. With these and other pollutants we murder 1 million birds and 100,000 sea mammals. There are no concurrent actions done by us to make up for this. We could be recycling more, using cleaner energy, etc. i.e. caring more, but we worry much more about ourselves than our home planet.
Earth is better off without humans

We are appreciating Earth how I appreciate an apple before I consume it, extract its nutrients with my digestive system and excrete the rest. Similarly, we are abusing Earth to our advantage and in return polluting it with our wastes. Species die out, but we are accelerating their extinctions through habitat destruction and poaching. The more of us there are, the more damage we will inflict. There will be no beauty when we make the planet unlivable by maintaining our increasing rates of abuse.
Earth is better off without humans

However horrific circumstances in our biosphere may be, they would only improve without human influence. The people that care are greatly outnumbered by those that don't. 80% of the world's forests are gone. At the current deforestation rate, all forests will be gone by 2050. This fact alone shows a bleak future for the thousands of forest dwelling species. Whether it is impossible to fully eradicate our race or not, the argument remains that the planet Earth would be better off without us.
The annexation of Texas into the United States was inevitable.

I thank my oppenent for this debate, but my opponent apparently needs a lession in history to realize that this annexation wasn't going to happen.Contention 1: US didn't want TexasI'll give it that a lot of Texans were Americans, but we do have to realize that neither the Whigs nor the Democrats wanted an annexation of Texas. As a matter of fact President Jackson didn't even want to recognize it due to the up coming elections and he knew that any recogniztion or even annexation would backfire on the Democrats, because he knew that it would up end the ballance of slave and free states. [1] When we furthered this looking at Texas down the road we can see that the Tyler-Texas bill that would annex texas failed in the Senate by exactly 2/3's majority showing that the Americans did not want Texas. My opponent also brings up Texas's economy, but by the 1840's their economy began to shrink showing that such an annexation wouldn't really have an impact upon the US economy, but would rather harm it. Contention 2: Texas to rejoin MexicoNot too many people are awhere of this, but President Sam Houston had actually began the process to rejoin Mexico as a semi-quazi state (kinda like how Scottland is in the UK) [2] He dispatched Secretary Upshur to Mexico to negogiate this deal while having Great Brittian as a mediator just in case Mexico abused Texas. Sam Houston wanted to join the US, but he was weiry of doing so as he knew that doing such an act would prevoke an invasion from Mexico and the Texan military didn't have the strength nor did their economy have the ability to support a war at the time. Houston wanted a written statement that if the US did annex Texas that they would send troops to protect them. This bill was defeated in the US Senate as I brought up in my privious contention, so Houston had to persue the joining of Mexico due to the upcoming US election in 1844 and STILL both sides opposed annexation outside of Tyler. Sources1. Wilentz, 2008, p. 558: "... the heightening of sectional tensions in Congress made it imperative that [the Whigs] find some compromise ground in the 1844 election ... the same intersectional logic held true for the Democrats ..." and p. 560: 'Texas annexation had long been a taboo subject for Whigs and Democrats alike."2. Finkelman, 2011, p. 30: "By 1843, the government in Austin [Texas] was negotiating with Great Britain to intercede with Mexico to recognize Texas independence."Freehling, 1991, p. 370–371
The annexation of Texas into the United States was inevitable.

The first leg of the destiny of annexation occurred when Mexico agreed to let Stephen F. Austin let Anglo settlers from the USA enter Texas and make their own colonies. Coming from America, these citizens did not like to be told what to say, what to believe in, and what to do. The major ambassaors of unrest were Americans. Many futile attempts were made by the Mexican government to control tensions and it enraged the settlers even more; having military officials controlling them in their own towns and lands. Eventually tensions got so out of hand that the Anglo Settlers, and some Tejanos, decided to pull away and make their own government. Sam Houston led the freedom fighters bravely throughout the many battles of the Texas Revolution. Finally, after the Battle of San Jacinto, Santa Anna recognized Texas as an independent Republic. Immediately, there were issues with our government and economy. The country that had helped us throughout the Revolution and continued to assist us was the USA. When we hit rock bottom, it was the only hope to join the USA and become part of something organized and well funded, with the right ideals that matched the mindsets of the settlers. Therefore, I stand by my statement that the Texas annexation was inevitable. By allowing Anglo colonization in the Texas area, the Mexicans virtually lost Texas the first day. The USA was looking to expand and without even trying, penetrated the Texas area and infested its citizens within the Texas population. These Anglo settlers wanted nothing to do with the controlling dictatorship of Santa Anna, and their voices were heard by Tejanos and other settlers alike, Freedom sounds good to a lot of people. Without proper funding and a functioning econonmy, a country cannot succeed. That is why Texas is now apart of the USA. Because the people wanted freedom, and they needed someone to support them and help them thrive and prosper.
abortion is wrong

I am against abortion. I am against abortion because if a man is drunk and he drove and ran a stop light and hit a pregnant woman he would get charged for two murders but if a woman gets pregnant and chooses to not have that child she does not get charged with a murder and it is her fault if she gets pregnant but there is a flaw here is she gets raped then she could have the child but put it in a orphanage rather than not letting the kid have a chance to cure cancer or aids or other diseases like that. definitions: abortion-the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy. murder-the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. pregnant-having a child or young developing in the uterus. rape-the unlawful compelling of a person through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse.
We should kidnap Fat People to power the U.S.

The idea is very simple. We build a place, a place where we will kidnap fat people. We will than take them to this place, were we have stationary bikes. We will than have fat people cycle the bike. The bikes will lead to the generators in which will power the country. There is about 160 million americans who are fat. Now if the average person can produce about 100 watts of energy an hour. We can produce sixteen billion Watts of energy a HOUR. That is so much energy that we can use. If the USA uses yearly 97 quadrillion watts of energy we can cut down so much. We are only using fat people, imagine if fit people can do. At the place where they will be cycling they will only cycle for 1 hour and switch out to other people. At the place they will be given a diet, food, water, all the basic necessities. They will be eating less food so they will have less calories in their diet, thus losing weight. I guarantee you, once they realize they lost all this weight, they will want to keep it. So we will allow them to exercise, and eat in the facility, and they can go out to do what they wanna do. This plan will solve the obesity problem, energy problem, and will make the U.S. a more fit country. Citations: http://www.healthdata.org... https://electronics.stackexchange.com... https://www.eia.gov...
Evidence standards in criminal cases are not sufficient

Okay, looks like I win this one... I was going to argue that evidence standards are sufficient: (1) Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is required, which is really high standard. (2) No inadmissible evidence is allowed under Fed. Rule of Evidence 401. (3) No evidence that is more prejudicial than probative is allowed under Fed. Rule of Evidence 403. (4) Character evidence is not allowed (i.e. trying to prove someone committed a crime because they are simply a "bad person"). (5) Hearsay evidence is not allowed because it is unreliable. etc...
Murder is not wrong.

Unfortunately, the purple circles have struck again. Please, If you are a purple circle that is reading this debate, Please, participate in your debate, and do not abandon the topic, just to anger your opponent! This happens much too frequently, and should be stopped. For just 25 cents a day, you, can put an end to purple circle trolling. You can.... you. Please contact me through my profile, and send me a message if you are a purple circle in need of help, or are thinking about committing such a misdeed. This can, and should be stopped. Im sure many people are thinking the same way as I am, and would be willing to help me. Thank you for your time.
Theory of Evolution is valid (Take Two)

I figure I might as well structure the rest of my response. It's something I'll have to get used to.IntroWith regards to Con's clarification, there are a few problems. Micro and macro evolution are the exact same thing. If con wishes to make a distinction between the two, that is fine, but it comes with the caveat that micro and macro are the exact same; the only difference being time.I would also like to point out that "proof" does not belong in a discussion pertaining to science. Proof belongs in mathematics s the answers arrived at in mathematics are axiomatic in nature. This is not the case with science. In science, we deal with evidence, not proof. A small technicality, but an important one to make.Con's Argumentsi) The fossil record is of course imperfect. Very few animals become fossilised as the process for fossilisation requires a very specific set of circumstances. That's the reason for the lack of fossils.Furthermore, whilst the fossil record is imperfect, we see many indications of evoltuion occurring via the study of these fossils. Gogonasus is one such example. For instance, the pectoral fin of Gogonasus shows striking similarities with regards to the pectoral fin of Tiktaalik. However, this could be homoplasy between Gogonasus and early tetrapods [1].So how about another example? How about Australopithecus Afarensis? Specifically, let's talk about Lucy (AL 288-1). This find forms one of the more important examples as Lucy's pelvis structure, vertebrae and femur strongly suggests bipedality [2].ii) Con claims that adaption is different from evolution and that skin tones are because of adaption to the environment. Whilst I am myself not too sure of how different skin tones first originated, Con’s claim that adaption to environmental factors is not evolution is quite frankly, ridiculous. Natural selection is one of the mechanisms by which evolution occurs, so it therefore puzzles me how Con can claim that populations of organisms adapting to their environment is not evolution. [1] http://www.nature.com...[2] https://iho.asu.edu...
Theory of Evolution is valid (Take Two)

As the con speaker in this debate round I will provide some points of clarification as well as three points of refutation. Clarification: - My opponent has essentially defined evolution as changes of alleles over successive generations. I would imagine my opponent is referring to the general concept of macroscopic evolution (large scale changes) as opposed to microscopic evolution (microscopic changes). - Microscopic evolution is a perfectly valid and proven theory. With that said my argumentation will center around the claim that macroscopic evolution is an unproven and invalid theory. Argumentation/Refutation: 1. Lack of Fossil Record - One of the core philosophies of evolution is lots of time. One result of enormous amounts of time is an enormous amount of fossils. With the idea of macro evolution, an organism undergoes progressive changes over numerous generations. What this implies, is that there would be many generations that live and die during this progressive change. However, decades of fossil research has discovered practically no evidence of macro evolution. 2. Adaption vs. Evolution - Often adaption is confused with evolution. For example, humans are white, black, and every color in between. This isn't a result of genetic evolution, it is a result of adaption to the environment. This same principle is applicable most instances of claimed evolution. 3. Evolution is stupid - because it is. I dont feel like typing out another reason. lmao
Theory of Evolution is valid (Take Two)

Evolution is defined as change of allele frequencies over successive generations and the saubsequent diversification of life due to various factors. Endogenous retroviruses, avida simulation and phylogentics make up some of the evidence which supports evolutionary theory. Rules: start off with 3 arguments max. Absolutely no gish galloping. If you're going to take part in debate, do not forfeit rounds. If you are unable to make an argument, post your argument as "forfeiting round," and I will do the same All that said and done, I'm off to make myself a cuppa.