BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Disprove the Theory of Evolution

.. .IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITYPro puts forth two premises from which the conclusion can be drawn that the theory of evolution is false:I. If irreducibly complex biological structures exist, then evolution is falseII. Irreducibly complex biological structures existPremise II is not debatable. According to the definition provided by Pro, such structures DO exist. However, premise I can be proven false, as there are some very viable explanations for how such complex structures could exist, including biochemical scaffolding, which involves gene duplications and deletions rather than additive mutations [1][2]. We can see that alternative explanations exist with the bacterial flagellum example provided by Pro. One of the most promising explanations goes as follows:". .. the vast majority of the components needed to make a flagellum might already have been present in bacteria before this structure appeared. It has also been shown that some of the components that make up a typical flagellum - the motor, the machinery for extruding the "propeller" and a primitive directional control system - can perform other useful functions in the cell, such as exporting proteins," [3]. Basically, the proteins that bacterial flagella are made of served other purposes before they became components of flagella. This is generally the case with the alternative explanations of many of the irreducibly complex structures that supposedly disprove evolution. With one of the premises refuted, the conclusion becomes invalid. . .. JUNK DNAPro argues that the fact that 80% of all DNA is functional shows that the theory of Evolution can't be true. However, I question his logic as to why this is so. Evolutionary theory does not necessarily require enormous amounts of DNA to be "junk". In fact, organisms that don't have to waste energy producing junk DNA would have the evolutionary advantage, so this argument would actually go to support the theory of evolution. .. True, evolutionists used to lord the supposed existence of junk DNA over Creationists' heads, but that is just a past misconception; it in no way implies that the current theory of Evolution REQUIRES that to be the case. . .. CONCLUSIONS1) The existence of irreducibly complex structures does not disprove Evolution at all, as they have their own viable evolutionary explanations2) The lack of junk DNA does not at all disprove Evolution; in fact, it supports it, if anything. SOURCES[1] . http://rationalwiki.org...[2] . http://schneider.ncifcrf.gov...[3] . http://www.newscientist.com...
The Abrahamic God can not be proven to exist

I believe that you are arguing for the existence of God. The subject was "The abrahamic god cannot be proven to exist or not exist. My opponent stated that if you died and something happens that it automatically proves the existence of the abrahamic deity. But i must ask what if you die and you see vishnu? Or zeus? or maybe even a 12 sided dildo god named xanthar? I very much believe that this is the worst argument I've ever had to argue, but i guess thats what i get when a highschool sophmore accepts a debate.
The Abrahamic God can not be proven to exist

Pro said that I am arguing the existence of a soul. I would like to point out that if God does exist, then everyone has a soul, according to the Bible, which is where the Abrahamic God comes from. So, in a roundabout way, I am arguing that souls can be proven to exist by showing that God can be proven to exist, which I have; die, and you'll know.He also said that "proof" is to be considered a "worldly accepted fact". I think that everyone can agree that if you die, you'll find out if God is real.Another thing: my opponent does not know what "ad hominem" is. For my voters, ad hominem is a logical fallacy when you attack the person instead of the argument. An example of ad hominem would be, "My opponent is dumb, and therefore his argument is invalid." I have not once insulted my opponent. My attack that he said was ad hominem is not, in fact, ad hominem. I was stating that, as Pro, my opponent has the burden of proof. He must show that God cannot be proven to exist. Since all he has done this whole round is attempt to refute my arguments, and has not posted a case of his own, he has no ground to stand on. I however, have provided a viable way to prove that God does or does not exist.Because it is completely possible to prove that God exists (by dying), and because my opponent has not refuted this, I see no other ballot than that of the Con.Thank you.
The Abrahamic God can not be proven to exist

My opponents stated " If you die and go to heaven (or otherwise), then you'll know that He exists. If you die and nothing happens, then He doesn't exist. Simple." My main problem with this is the part where my opponent says "if you die and nothing happens he doesn't exist." So my next question to pro is: "How can a dead man know anything?" does the brain not stop functioning at the time of death? If there are no active sensory receptors at death then how could a dead man know anything. I believe what my opponent is arguing is the existence of a soul. which is not what this debate is about. My opponent also stated "My opponent attacked my way of proving whether or not God exists by saying that by "proof", he meant someone living actually accepting a fact. Just to clarify for my voters, I am alive. And I have proposed a completely possible way to find out if God does or does not exist." One problem I have with this argument is where con states "saying that by "proof", he meant someone living actually accepting a fact." I must correct con on his argument by reminding him that I said that it must be a world accepted fact. Not just that of one person. My opponent also claimed that since i did not fulfill my duty as a Pro that my argument was incorrect. This is obviously an ad hominem logical fallacy which should not be apparent in a debate. This fact should have no affect however on Cons argument. One more thing.The inability to, "prove", in any sense of the word, that the Abrahamic God exists or doesn't exist is an impossible request because there is no quantifiable test that proves the existence or nonexistence of said God so no way to prove the negative or the non-existence. It is up to con to provide proof of this claim.
The Abrahamic God can not be proven to exist

My opponent attacked my way of proving whether or not God exists by saying that by "proof", he meant someone living actually accepting a fact. Just to clarify for my voters, I am alive. And I have proposed a completely possible way to find out if God does or does not exist. Because of this, my opponent's defense of my preposition falls, and my preposition flows through. Since I have defended my side of the argument, I would like to point out that Pro has not given any indication as to how God cannot be proven to exist. As any experienced debaters will know, the burder of proof falls on the Pro unless specified otherwise. What this means is that it is not the Con's job to come up with proof. It is the Pro's job. Because Pro has not fulfilled his duty as Pro to empirically show that God cannot be proven to exist, there can be no other ballot than that of the Con. Thank you.
The Abrahamic God can not be proven to exist

My opponent said that I am arguing for the existence of God. To put it simply, no, I am not. The resolution says that God can't be proven to exist, and I have shown that he can be proven to exist or not exist. And yes, if you die and something happens, then that confirms the existence or nonexistence of God. If, like in the example my opponent brought up, you die and see Vishnu, then you will know that God doesn't exist, therefore upholding the resolution.Also, I find it depressing that Pro must resort to vulgarity to defend his pathetic points? A dildo god? Really?I also find it interesting that, even though I am a freshman in high school, I have provided far more convincing arguments, was far more mature, far better manners, and had far better spelling, punctuation, capitalization and grammar than my opponent, a 22-year-old.Because my opponent made a negligible defense of my attacks that I have easily refuted, I see no other ballot than that of the Con.Thank you.
Limiting screen time for children under 16

Even though you have explained the IDEAL system for this there are still major holes in the theory. The Government would control this? The government is for the people, not the other way around. If the government controls screen time,it is only a matter of time before the government has complete control of what appears on the screen. Who decides what is absolutely necessary? Who is to say when and where this scan card is used?This is an opinionated decision to be made by the parent or guardians
Limiting screen time for children under 16

You would need to scan a card every time you use a device. If your card runs out for that day or week it is locked by pass code. Every parent or guardian has the passcode for the child to use if at school or if absolutely necessary. The passcode can be changed in case the child finds out the passcode when not intended. This is how it would work and to answer your question about emergency calls. If you are out of hours you have an emergency call to call 911. That is how it would work.
Limiting screen time for children under 16

This is a very good idea, except that it has several flaws. Who would enforce this limit? How do you account for online learning? What if the device is the child's only way to communicate with peers and parents who could help them with homework? I know that these are not the only things that students use their phones for, but all parameters and exceptions must be carefully thought out. Taking away devices will not necessarily increase productivity or increase fitness.
Limiting screen time for children under 16

Children under the age of 16 should only be able to have 1 hour of screen time a day or 7 hours of screen time a week. This should be put in effect because children are spending to much time on there devices and barely socializing with people in the real world and aren't focusing on there studies. They would get more exercise and be much smarter if they went to the library and did research there instead of doing it on a device
The Christian God does gives humanity freedom of choice.

I would like to ask that in his rebuttals, he not block quote my arguments. I. Determinism While ignorance does not fly as a rebuttal, I will put it in fifth grade terminology. Neuroscience, the study of the human brain, shows that determination, the process of deciding course of action, rests entirely on information stored in DNA, past experience stored in different areas of the brain [1], and external stimuli, which are occurences outside of one's self. There is no "free will". The brain works like a complicated machine. Resolution negated. II. Existence of God The ability to create a stone that He cannot lift is not applicable to the "boundary" theory because it is an ability, not an action. God either can or cannot do it, and either way, he is not omnipotent. Resolution negated. III. Nature of God My opponent's argument that God is good because he saved one while murdering thousands/millions can make God "good" in a sense, but not omnibenevolent. The argument that people are responsible for their own actions is irrelevant because free will does not exist. My opponent's analogy to parent's punishing their kids is an expected yet irrelevant rebuttal. The key difference is in that God is omniscient, and knew that man would sin before they did. Therefore, to create them with full knowledge that they would sin and then punish them for it is unethical, and therefore God is not omnimoral and omnibenevolent. This argument can be taken further, to the question, "Was sin part of God's plan? " If God is omniscient, then he knew about sin before it happened. Therefore, sin was part of his "plan". How can he punish it then if it was inevitable? This means that God is not omnibenevolent. The resolution is negated. Thank you. [1] . http://thebrain.mcgill.ca...
The Christian God does gives humanity freedom of choice.

"II. The Existence of God My opponent's objection is a metaphor, which is also invalid. He does not present an affirmative case claiming that God exists; he only attempts to negate mine. The truth is that there is no answer to the question that leaves God omnipotent. Either he can create such a stone, in which case he is not omnipotent, or he can't, in which case he is not omnipotent. Therefore, God cannot exist. The resolution is negated. " _ I apologize for my bad work, now let me say this again, Can God do anything? The answer is no, because God Himself put boundaries around Him, as a Christian, my opponent ought to know there are certain things God can't do, such as: 1. Sin (Lie, Cheat, Steal) 2. Learn (He is all knowing and the source of all wisdom) 3. Force you to love Him 4. Break His own laws, rules and boundaries. Or more importantly, being less perfect, the Bible in Deu 32:4 stated: "He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he. My opponent tried to use this paradoxal question that the Atheist had tried for decades to question the omnipotence of God. But does that mean that God is not God because He put boundaries around Him? No, for an example, if I'm a doctor who work 10 hours a day, but now I just work 8 hours a day, will I be lesser than a doctor? No, same concept with God. "III. The Nature of God My opponent tries to salvage God by calling him a life saver whilst being a mass murderer. This would not make God all-loving; it would only make him partially loving. An all loving God wuld not create a race, knowing that they would defile, and then murder them for it. Therefore, the Christian God is false. The resolution is negated. " _ My opponent again, tried to state that because God used the flood(which is true), to killed the human race, the act of Him gave the news to Noah to create the arch is just showing that God is partially long. I want to make an analogy here, we all know every parents love their kids, especially to little ones. Now we also know every parents tell their kids to not smoking, now for an example if one day my kid smokes, he keep smoking and smoking until he dies, the thing is that my kid killed himself, though I told him to stop smoking, he keep doing that and he dies. Now does that mean that I had loved my kids less? If God does not love human race, he won't tell Noah to create a big arch for 120 years to wait for others to come to the arch, Noah believed in God, he built the arch and he's saved. But others had killed themselve for not listen to Noah. So the Christian God is not false simply because He did not force the people to come to the arch or stop the flood, but it is false to blame God, the Christian God for everything human had did for themselve.
The Christian God does gives humanity freedom of choice.

My opponent has not presented an affirmative case and forfeits his opportunity to do so. I. Determinism My opponent objects, claiming I must source an article form Dr. Ye, who does not write articles on this topic. Nevertheless, I will source from other neuroscientists with sourcable information. In a well-sourced paper [1], a well-decorated neuroscientist named Ian Weinburg concludes, "There is now sufficient evidence to endorse the full quantum model of consciousness and the concomitant concept of quantum determinism". This paper should be significant enough to meet my opponent's challenge to my claim. His general objections are easily conquered. His first ignores the influence of genetics, from which instincts originate. His second has a narrow definition of external stimuli, limiting it to external living stimuli. A caveman could teach himself to play violin with readable instructions or by experimentation. In general, my opponent's objections single out each component of neurological determinism and say that alone they cannot function. This is called composition fallacy. http://fallacyfiles.org... Free will does not exist. The resolution is negated. II. The Existence of God My opponent's objection is a metaphor, which is also invalid. He does not present an affirmative case claiming that God exists; he only attempts to negate mine. The truth is that there is no answer to the question that leaves God omnipotent. Either he can create such a stone, in which case he is not omnipotent, or he can't, in which case he is not omnipotent. Therefore, God cannot exist. The resolution is negated. III. The Nature of God My opponent tries to salvage God by calling him a life saver whilst being a mass murderer. This would not make God all-loving; it would only make him partially loving. An all loving God wuld not create a race, knowing that they would defile, and then murder them for it. Therefore, the Christian God is false. The resolution is negated. [1] http://www.wellness.org.za...
The Christian God does gives humanity freedom of choice.

One can easily conclude here that libertarian free will cannot exist. Therefore, the resolution is negated. " _ I would like to see any real articles or anything from Dr. Ye before I conclude this, but Dr. Ye theory can be wrongful for these reasons. : * Not all determination can come from past experience, that fact is that lots of people who have never have any past experience can indeed, have a determination to do something. If a person have never had sex, he can still determine to have sex somehow, without past experience. * Not all determinations come from external stimuli, there are things other have no such interest, no encourage nor discourage it, but that person still have a determination to do it. For an instance, I determined to learn my violin without any external stimuli. Therefore, I fail to see why freewill can't exist. "II. The Existence of God An omnipotent cannot exist just as an infinity cannot. An omnipotent God should be able to create a stone it cannot lift, assuming it has all powers. However, if he cannot lift the stone, he is not omnipotent. Therefore, an omnipotent God cannot exist. Therefore, the resolution is negated. " _ Lots of non-believers had offered this question to question the omnipotence of God, but the answer is right there, themselve, or should I say human. Human is the rock, the only rock that does not flow with the wave like other creatures, human is the only creation of God that dare to turn back and question God. That, my friend, is the rock that God Himself can't lift, spiritually. But that's just an addictional information, this is non-sequitur, just because there's a question that hard to answer does not propose a disproval about the existence of God. "III. The nature of God This point is only relevant, of course, if a God exists. The Christian is by nature omnibenevolent; however, he has enacted justice in the form of a mass killing in the Book of Genesis, in which he mass-murdered the world's civilian population with a Great Flood. An omnibenevolent omniscient God cannot create knowingly and get upset about what happens. Therefore, the doctrine of omnibenevolence is in direct contradiction with the Christian God. Therefore, the resolution is negated. " _ My opponent said: "Because God killed people with the Great Flood, therefore He can't be omnibenevolent, but this is just a Naturalistic fallacy. My opponent should know beside the flood what did God given? Who did God put over there, the one that's building a colossal boat? Noah, and how many years before the boat finished? 120 years. Thus far, the civilization had killed themselve just because of their stubborness. So beside what so called "Mass Murdered", should we offer that God Himself also gave the people a life saver?
The Christian God does gives humanity freedom of choice.

I will allow my opponent to present an affirmative case, but I will recognize that he has burden of proof. The resolution is negated if one of the following is true: -freedom of choice does not exist -God does not exist -the God that exists is the Christian God My opponent has burden of proof, and therefore must prove the following to affirm the resolution: -Free will exists. -God exists. -this God that exists is the Christian God. Please note that I will be taking a "Devil's Advocate" position on all three save the former. Now, for the negative case: For all purposes of this debate, the term "God" shall refer to any omnipotent entity, while "Christian God" shall refer to the God of Christianity. "Free will" refers to the "libertarian free will" theory, which states that determination is ultimately entirely free of external factors. I. Determinism According to Dr. Ye, whom I have interviewed for Science Fair, determination is derived from three things: DNA, past experience, and external stimuli. One can easily conclude here that libertarian free will cannot exist. Therefore, the resolution is negated. II. The Existence of God An omnipotent cannot exist just as an infinity cannot. An omnipotent God should be able to create a stone it cannot lift, assuming it has all powers. However, if he cannot lift the stone, he is not omnipotent. Therefore, an omnipotent God cannot exist. Therefore, the resolution is negated. III. The nature of God This point is only relevant, of course, if a God exists. The Christian is by nature omnibenevolent; however, he has enacted justice in the form of a mass killing in the Book of Genesis, in which he mass-murdered the world's civilian population with a Great Flood. An omnibenevolent omniscient God cannot create knowingly and get upset about what happens. Therefore, the doctrine of omnibenevolence is in direct contradiction with the Christian God. Therefore, the resolution is negated. I will now let my opponent present his case.
The Banking Concept of Education is Oppressive

You say, "An uninformed min can be as dangerous to the world as an invading army." Yet with full knowledge of his abilities and power Adolf Hitler continued his work. Men like Bundy and Manson walked the planet with the same basic knowledge that was fed to them. Becoming what they became and you are still worried of an "uninformed mind"? You were right, I was being taught something new that day. Yet it was not the lesson taught, but to remember people (teachers/ instructors) will stand in your way, and tell you how life is. I just need to remember to look around them in order to get where I"m going. In being told I could not do something, I made a point to prove that I could.
The Banking Concept of Education is Oppressive

As a student, your role is to be a container for knowledge. As a child "lack of intergenerational information is a serious problem for the nation". (Hirsch) To say a child in a poor country has a basic knowledge of the world is a bit ludicrous, to have a basic knowledge a student must be taught and receive information. An uninformed mind can be as dangerous to the world as an invading army. "You say that "being told you were wrong or couldn't do something put a strain on your abilities"" how can you say that if at that point you were being taught something new, your questioning may have in fact impeded your ability to learn.
The Banking Concept of Education is Oppressive

As a student I have felt oppressed by my teacher. Not only in knowledge but in ability. In being told I was wrong or i couldn't do something puts a strain on my actual abilities and knowledge. "His (the teacher) task is to 'fill' the students with the contents of his narration-contents which are detached from reality" This quote from Freire explains how the knowledge being fed to the children does not help them on a social standpoint but more a knowledge "dump site" where memorization and brain wash occur. As Freire puts it, "Education thus becomes an act of depositing, in which the student are the depositories and the teacher is the depositor." Not only do we learn from instruction, we also learn from watching. To say a student could not show a teacher how to do something is preposterous, as the famous quote goes, "we learn something new each day."