BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
For someone to believe the bible literally they must either not understand or be ignorant of science

I shall begin with rebuttals :)Rebuttal:"E=MC^2 is simple and people can understand it, sure. However, what if I told you E=MC^2 is false? And scientists knew it? The equation e^2=m^2c^4+p^2c^2 is often simplified to E=MC^2 just so the average person can "understand" it."This argument does not support your point because teachers would not be teaching something that is incorrect if they knew it was wrong. Therefore your hypothetical situation is not sound.Rebuttal of Link 1:This link provides numerous points attempting to support evolution beyond the scope and understanding of any person who really has not extensively studied biology so you can hardly say it simplifies the concept of evolution. However on this site I noticed on the FAQ section is supports evolution as an fact and a theory and also supports that a person does not need to be an atheist to believe in evolution (1).Rebuttal:"You also have yet to rebut most of my points from round 1."I didn't rebuttal your points because they all were mentioning theories and conclusions that scientists have made about the world. Your question states "For someone to believe the bible literally they must either not understand or be ignorant of science". By mentioning the fact that many students go to school and learn about biology and still believe in the bible and their religion negates any ignorance of science they might have.Rebuttal:"Religious do choose god over science. I am also in High School, and in my very first biology class we were asked what evolution was. Every religious person said it was the sacrilegious theory that we came from monkeys."This quote actually counters the question you posed in your debate. As I said before the question was, "For someone to believe the bible literally they must either not understand or be ignorant of science". Yet you are saying that people in your biology class learned all the same things that you learned about biology in the class but rejected it. This shows that they are not ignorant of it but choose not to accept it. If your question is something like "People that believe in the bible are in deniable about scientific facts" than that the statement makes sense. But not in this argument.Furthermore you are using the students in your school to exemplify the opinion of every person that believes in the bible yet learns science. Yet I mentioned students in my school that believe in the bible but can accept scientific theories. Furthermore the link you gave me supports that some Christians believe in Evolution (1).In conclusion, many of your arguments seem to be attempting to support a different question. Your second link represents an idea that many people support including people that believe in the bible.1). http://www.talkorigins.org......
For someone to believe the bible literally they must either not understand or be ignorant of science

E=MC^2 is simple and people can understand it, sure. However, what if I told you E=MC^2 is false? And scientists knew it? The equation e^2=m^2c^4+p^2c^2 is often simplified to E=MC^2 just so the average person can "understand" it. The energy mass equivalence formula is complicated. People can know, energy equals mass, okay. However, to truly understand what that means requires a lot more dedication, and I myself do not feel qualified to attempt to explain in depth. Religious do choose god over science. I am also in High School, and in my very first biology class we were asked what evolution was. Every religious person said it was the sacrilegious theory that we came from monkeys. They, just like many people think of E=MC^2, thought that through their limited knowledge they understood it. The difference was, religious claim it to be false, without even understanding it. You want a theory as sound as 2+2=4? If your going philosophical you could claim that only mathematics can be proven because we may not be able to trust our senses. But for practical purposes I'm going to assume our senses are reliable. Evolution has been directly observed. (1) The earth has been dated(I went over this earlier). The heliocentric theory:) (2)You also have yet to rebut most of my points from round 1.1) http://www.talkorigins.org... 2) http://io9.com...
For someone to believe the bible literally they must either not understand or be ignorant of science

I don't really find it neccesary to rebuttal most of your arguments during this specific round because I feel the point I have to make stands firm against it.My School:I am in highschool and in highschool and many students I know, whom are pretty religious take lots of science classes including ones that are very extensive such as AP Biology and AP chemistry. Even with these intense understandings of science, they still generally choose to believe in God.In my school is practically mandatory to take biology your freshmen year. All Christians I know that take biology are still Christians in believe in the Bible. So basically they have made the personal choice to not accept science as their reasoning on life but Christianity and the bible as it.However I do feel the need to rebuttal one point which sounds a bit silly to me.Rebuttal"Premise: If you deny 2+2=4, you either cannot understand it or do not want to understand it. There is no way to say that 2+2≠4, because it has been proven otherwise."I don't think any of the scientific theories are as full proof as 2+2=4. If you could show me evidence of any of these theories however which appear so full proof I would be more then happy to examine them. And I understand that you are saying that they are complicated and therefore difficult to define but in my opinion and through experiences many things which are full proof appear to be able to defined into simple terms.For example: E=MC^2. This is a simple equation defining a process which is quite complicated.
Legend of Zelda is better than Elder Scrolls

I'm not really talking resolution and frame rate; I'm talking more of the fact that Majora's Mask is just reused assets from Ocarina of Time reassembled and sold at market price, while Skyrim is a groundbreaking, massive open world game that also lets the player modify the game to their own liking. The combat is more fleshed out even considering the innovation Z-targeting was, and the player is granted almost complete freedom within this open world. You might say that it's a limit of technology; I say that Elder Scrolls 2 Daggerfall came out two years prior and still hosts one of the largest maps in gaming, second only to Minecraft. I won't say that Ocarina of Time is a bad game. It isn't. Dark Souls could be considered the next in line with a matching style, and I love that game with a vengeance. But it is a relic of the past, and following Zelda games are just graverobbing at this point. See you next time, Duncan.
Legend of Zelda is better than Elder Scrolls

Now, I'd like to address the character of Link. You see, while Link has been more of a character in games such as Wind Waker, but the fact that every Link is a reincarnation means that each one is not the same person. While Skyrim doesn't have a main character as they are custom made, you can at least choose the appearance of the Dragonborn. Link is stuck in his tunic and hat, colour is the only changing factor, and there is no character to get to know. I don't recall sneaking into Terminam in Majora's Mask. Aren't you chasing Skull Kid? And while I did like the moon's constant reminder of the consequences should you fail, Skyrim still has the Throat of the World towering above the player reminding them of their goal. Loading screens are in Scrolls games, but they also feature massive maps with dungeons dotting the landscape. LoZ also had the Song of Time and the Song of Soaring as loading screens. This might be a bit unfair, but I'm talking technical next round. Duncan.
Legend of Zelda is better than Elder Scrolls

You've made the word count small, so I'll only be covering adventure as a theme. I would like to begin with the central theme of the original Legend of Zelda. Most people would agree the original theme of the game was adventure, allowing exploration and challenge in equal measures. This was one of the key factors that shaped games such as Pokemon too, getting to explore a new world with new sights. But it died fast. The Zelda formula was devised. With the formula made, all games became practically the same. Mechanically superb, but stagnant. The plot was gone, the adventure was gone. Skyrim and Oblivion gave the player a world to explore at their own pace and leisure. Few dungeons require progress in the main quest to enter. On the other hand, to get to a dungeon in Ocarina required you to find permission to enter the dungeon. This barrier is for narrative purpose, but you can find the Elder Scroll in Skyrim before asked to get it. Next round, Link the character with some rebuttal.
Legend of Zelda is better than Elder Scrolls

I" Think that Legend of Zelda series is better because it allows the player to see new temple's and new items which have more challenge, "I" understand that elder scrolls gives the player the ability of character making but having a character provided makes you be able to actually get into the series since you seen him in other game's it makes you be able to be adjusted to him. it also allows the player to get to know the character better when the character is provided, the challenges are more unique for the fact that in legend of Zelda Majora's mask the character has to sneak into the kingdom and prevent being avoided while creature's attack, it also gave a better atmosphere with the whole moon crashing down, "I" noticed that the loading time for Elder scrolls even when going in a small building is Long, I'M also aware of the side quest for Elder scrolls but having just one big story and a couple of activity's in a legend of Zelda Game just makes the series more awesome.
Mitt Romney isn't telling the Truth (as a GOP candidate)

C1: “ [Obama] said he’d cut the deficit in half. He’s doubled it. He’s doubled it.”Mitt Romney wasn't as accurate as he could have been. How could he have forseen what Obama would do with fiscal policy. Obama quadrupled the deficit in 2009.http://blog.heritage.org...C2: "Obama wants to end Medicare as we know it."You presented this point disingenuously. The end of the quote goes, "by allowing it to bankrupt in less than 15 years." The Medicare Trust Fund Will Be Bankrupt In 2024, because President Obama has Proposed “Only Minimal Curbs On The Unsustainable Growth Of Medicare.” Furthermore, President Obama has failed to propose “Meaningful Reforms In Entitlements.” http://online.wsj.com...http://dyn.politico.com...;C3: “Time and again, I pointed out I’m not in favor of a health care plan that includes a national mandate.”Mitt Romney's plan doesn't have a national mandate, because he's not proposing a national healthcare system. His site talks about the power of the free market guiding the medical profession, and allows states to have the power to choose their own health care plans.http://www.mittromney.com...C4: “President Obama wants to raise your taxes; I’m going to cut them.”Since taking office, President Obama has signed into law at least seven new or higher taxes on families making less than $250,000 per year. You didn't provide a source for your statement, I did.http://www.freerepublic.com...C5: “You know how many trade agreements this president has negotiated? Zero.” He said that statement prior to November 14th when Obama negotiated with the TPP.http://www.huffingtonpost.com...C6: “My plans will … will not add to our deficit. They will abolish it.”He has plans for cutting spending would take spending down to 20% of GDP, that would be about a fifth lower than it is currently. Cutting spending is the best method for fighting deficits, and that's exactly what he'll do. You should read his policies every once and a while. http://www.mittromney.com...C7: “Did you hear this? He believes he ranks among the top four presidents in American history. Can you believe that? I’d find a different spot for him.”"I would put our legislative and foreign policy accomplishments in our first two years against any president - with the possible exceptions of Johnson, F.D.R., and Lincoln - just in terms of what we've gotten done in modern history." http://www.abc15.com... http://gazzfriends.forumotion.com...http://donstorch.com...;C8: "This president went before the United Nations and castigated Israel for building settlements. He said nothing about thousands of rockets being rained in on Israel from the Gaza Strip."Yeah, I concede that point.C9: Eliminating "Obamacare" ... "saves $95 billion a year."Yeah.C10: "Barack Obama "never worked in the private sector" before he was elected president."Mitt Romney meant that Obama has never worked for a big firm like he has..THANKS :D
Mitt Romney isn't telling the Truth (as a GOP candidate)

CON, my points are only going to relate to Mitt Romney lying as a GOP candidate in this election cycle.C1: “ [Obama] said he’d cut the deficit in half. He’s doubled it. He’s doubled it.”In reality, the deficit went from $1.3 trillion when Obama took office. Since then, it has declined to (this year) $1.1 trillion. The only modern presidents to double the debt on their watch were Reagan and George W. Bush.http://www.northiowatoday.com...C2: "Obama wants to end Medicare as we know it."Not only is this not true, Romney has endorsed the Ryan plan, which actually ends Medicare and makes it a voucher scheme. Obama's Affordable Care Act actually strengthens Medicare, and protects it. http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com...C3: “Time and again, I pointed out I’m not in favor of a health care plan that includes a national mandate.”Not only is this a lie, Romney advocated the health care mandate and pressed Obama to adopt it in his health care reform plan. http://www.usatoday.com...C4: “President Obama wants to raise your taxes; I’m going to cut them.”Lie. Obama has only said he wants tax increases (tax cuts expired) on those making $250K or more a year. Also, Romney's plan increases the tax payed by the poor.C5: “You know how many trade agreements this president has negotiated? Zero.”Obama has signed free trade agreements with Panama, Columbia, and South Korea that will help America's economy in many ways.http://content.usatoday.com...C6: “My plans will … will not add to our deficit. They will abolish it.”Not true. To think you can cut taxes by 1/5th and balance the budget is absurd, and untrue.http://money.cnn.com...C7: “Did you hear this? He believes he ranks among the top four presidents in American history. Can you believe that? I’d find a different spot for him.”Obama never said that.C8: "This president went before the United Nations and castigated Israel for building settlements. He said nothing about thousands of rockets being rained in on Israel from the Gaza Strip."Not true. Obama has actually bluntly opposed the attacks on Israelis.http://www.politifact.com...C9: Eliminating "Obamacare" ... "saves $95 billion a year."Actually, eliminating Obamacare ultimately increases the deficit. He may be correct on his statement, but only for 2016. The CBO states that repealing Obamacare would increase the deficit significantly.http://www.politifact.com...C10: "Barack Obama "never worked in the private sector" before he was elected president."Obama was a private attorney, author, and a community organizer. Plus he worked at Baskin Robbins as a teenager (just for humor).http://www.politifact.com...I also urge my opponent and the readers to see the video that is clear and short, and lists 8 more Romney lies. http://www.youtube.com...
Mitt Romney isn't telling the Truth (as a GOP candidate)

"PRO: Has to point out at least 10 cases in which Mitt Romney has not told the truth as a GOP candidate in this election cycle. CON: Has to rebut PRO. If 9 or less cases are pointed out by PRO and stand, CON wins. If 10 or more are pointed out and stand, CON loses. "A couple issues with this:(1) Almost all politicians in history could be shown to have prevaricated greater than 10 times, making your setup extremely skewed toward the Pro side. To make this an equitable debate. .. (2) In addition to my rebuttals, I should be permitted to make an argument pertaining to the truth of Mitt Romney. OFF THE RECORD: Mitt Romney is a big-government, lobbyist-fueled, Keynesian politician who disregards all principle to mold his speech to his audience in the most abject way. The only issues that make him not as sh*tty as Obama are taxation and fiscal policy. I'm a cashew, let's do this.
Mitt Romney isn't telling the Truth (as a GOP candidate)

Mitt Romney: The guy who is the son of former Michigan Governor George Romney. This dude http://www.google.com...Truth: The true or actual state of a matterTelling: Revealing, indicating through speech ------Setup-------R1: AcceptanceR2: Main ArgumentsR3: RebuttalsPRO: Has to point out at least 10 cases in which Mitt Romney has not told the truth as a GOP candidate in this election cycle.CON: Has to rebut PRO. If 9 or less cases are pointed out by PRO and stand, CON wins. If 10 or more are pointed out and stand, CON loses.This debate is not meant as a deep debate.Good Luck.
Drone strikes in middle eastern countries are justified

My conclusion: Once again, the information drones gather does not need to be used by having those drones actually carrying out strikes. While moving in with troops absolutely poses more of a risk to our soldiers, it poses LESS of a risk to non-combatants. Drone strikes may be aimed at terrorists, but they often kill others, civilians in the process. Throwing a bomb into a neighborhood that has a terrorist into it will kill 0 Americans, is AIMED at a terrorist, yet is still the wrong thing to do because of the other casualties. We have actually killed Pakistani military officials AND Pakistani civilians. If you don't believe me, hit me up in comments after the debate and I'll be free to send some links on it. (I don't want to start linking in a debate without them at the end.) The War on Terror does not in fact imbue our officials with perfect knowledge of everyone who is a terrorist, and Drones, while protective of our brave soldiers, do nothing to make accurate killings more viable. Thank you for the good debate as well. Whoever wins the votes, I had fun and hope to catch you in more in the future.
Drone strikes in middle eastern countries are justified

To your first point: Once again it is not debatable drones fly all over countries that is why they have access to more information. While yes they do hover people using the drones do so for days in advance allowing them to continue gathering information until they have as much as they need. Spying with drones then going in after the terrorists with ground troops risks US troops lives, and is still inefficient. To your second: Since the drone strikes are aimed at terrorists it is not as if we are targeting civilians so by being able to sit behind a desk and kill them does not make us more opt to just kill people it allows us to kill without putting our troops in harms way To your third: We are not killing Pakistani military we are killing terrorists within that country and others.
Drone strikes in middle eastern countries are justified

1. Even if it is true that drones have more access to viewing time (which is debatable, Drones don't get as close or linger typically as they have to keep flying and cannot hover) it would be just as effective to use drones to spy and gather intelligence, then send troops in to execute orders. Trying to fire missiles FROM a drone affords way more room for mistakes. 2. It might seem more humane to the person pulling the trigger, yes, but making it so someone can easily kill without moral consequence means they may opt to kill more readily and with less humanity. If I could kill YOU right now (to win this debate I guess) by just pressing a key on my keyboard and I never had to look you in the eye, it would be very easy for me to do so. If I had to go and see you, it would be way more difficult, thus I would make decisions far more humanely. 3.You mentioned in your opening paragraph that we're using Drones to kill militants in Pakistan. Are we at war with Pakistan? Do we have some unique right to go and kill anyone we don't think is good in countries we don't like? The fact that no American soldiers are dying in these attacks keeps public attention from being focused on them. Our leaders have the option to be judge, jury, and executioner, and with no American life at stake, what is to keep them from using it with impunity. Today, maybe a terrorist who has killed civilians, sure...but tomorrow, maybe just someone who the president happens to not like.
Drone strikes in middle eastern countries are justified

First to rebut your rebuts conventional methods are ground troops and traditional flying, that's the point. The reason why drones are better than troops are because drones can view a target for hours or days in advance, ground troops do not have such luxury. Now to rebut your arguments, drones are not inhumane because not one an controls a drone so instead of having one soldier deal with having to kill a man by himself up close in personal they can sit at a desk with others and kill a man. While you say drones would allow the US to go and attack any country, why would we? We would not waste money going after a country we have no quarrel with, instead drones save US troops lives while attacking those countries who are harmful.
Drone strikes in middle eastern countries are justified

First, to rebut: 1. That depends on what you mean by "Conventional Methods". If you mean large bombing campaigns, sure, but why accept those as the only viable alternative? If we were to actually send boots on the ground into combat, more of our soldiers might die, but there would likely be far less civilian casualties since trained soldiers can identify hostile targets that drones or bombs can't distinguish. Morally this would be better: Soldiers sign on to die, civilians do not. 2. Why couldn't soldiers do the same? What makes drones special? 3. Drones do not have magical abilities that allow them to home in on terrorist leaders. They have the same odds of killing a high-profile target as any other means of war. But, there's a reason we didn't send in a drone to take out Osama Bin Laden: a drone would not have been able to bring the body out for verification that it was him. Drones are less effective for securing proof of high-level targets killed. And now to introduce arguments of my own: 1. Drones are immoral. By depriving soldiers of face-to-face interaction with their targets, they are deprived of the choices that make their job potentially humane. The more we dehumanize war with machines, the more we are capable of committing war crimes. 2. Authorizing strikes in other countries that we are not officially at war with in the name of killing "militants" sets a chilling precedent. What is to prevent the US from simply declaring anyone they choose to be such a militant, and simply opting to take them out? What if we get a corrupt president who kills people who stand up against American corporations simply because it hurts their profits? It's too much power and no one should be allowed to have it. I look forward to your response.
Drone strikes in middle eastern countries are justified

Rules are simple: Civil debate, anything goes, please cite sources or else they are not accountable and that is it so here are my arguments, 1. Because drone strikes save more lives than do conventional methods they are justified because even though civilians are killed it is less than what conventional methods do 2. Drone strikes do do there job, they kill militants. Thousands of militants have been killed in Pakistan and hundreds in Yemen and Somalia 3. Finally drone strikes do kill terrorists leaders so they help hinder the operations so they hinder what those terrorists groups can do