BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Creationism is far more superior to Evolution

My argument willl be presented in the following manner: your quote -> my rebuttal. Let's begin:1. 'The Big Bang theory disagrees with the first law of thermodynamics, which states that matter cannot be created or destroyed.'The first law of thermodynamics actually deals with the law of conservation of energy, stating that energy cannot either be created or destroyed. The Big Bang does not violate this law, since the moment the Big Bang happened, such as approximately a planck length from when the Big Bang occured, all the energy was condensed to one single point in space-time, and the energy was simply released in a large expansion. I would like to note to my opponent that it is more accurate to describe the Big Bang as an expansion of space-time.2. 'How may the particles from an explosion create new substances?'The energy from the Big Bang created matter, since the simplest form of matter is condensed energy, and according to the attraction forces, this matter became larger matter.3. 'It is pretty easy to explain how God was created. He wasn't'This is a case of special pleading, and it can create an infinite regression. Simply put, if God has always existed, what prevents us from saying that the universe has always existed and requires no creator?4. 'He is outside of time, he is holy. He is seperate. He has no beginning because beginning is a factor in time.' This is an impossibility, since reality itself adheres to temporal behaviours. Reality requires time to exist, that is why there was no reality before the Big Bang since there was no 'before', since 'before suggests time existing without the Big Bang occuring, which is not the case since time came with the Big Bang. Now, onto your suggestion to adhere to Biblical creation principles. Firstly, why can't I use evidence for evolution, to support evolution, which ergo would provide evidence against creation?I am guessing that you would want me to comment on Genesis. The Genesis creation story has many scientific impossibilities, such as the creation of light and darkness first, without the existence of a source of the light. In day 2, God creates the sky, but the sky cannot exist without the Sun, which is created on the 4th day. The water, land and plants are created before the sun! This goes completely against stellar nucleosynthesis and the processes of a star's life leading to the birth of heavier elements present in the earth. Also, without the Sun, the plants would have immediately died, and there are no accounts in the Bible of God keeping the plants alive until the 4th day. Perhaps the most amusing day is the 7th, where God rests. Think about it, why would an omnipotent being need rest? I shall present some further analogies to go against the very nature of the Biblical God:- If God was omnipotent, he would not need rest nor would he have a reason to create the universe seperately in 'days'.- If God was omniscient and omnibenevolent, He would not create the universe the way it is now, or us for that matter, since this current universe does not adhere to God's omnibenevolence of omniscience.
Creationism is far more superior to Evolution

Thank you for challenging me. I just read an article, and it had this one great quote that i would like you to comment on, "Likewise, the evolutionist must use biblical creation principles in order to argue against biblical creation." I think it would be a fair debate if you would try to argue the bible and I would try to argue evolution theories. Let me start off by arguing about the Big Bang Theory. The Big Bang theory disagrees with the first law of thermodynamics, which states that matter cannot be created or destroyed. How may the particles from an explosion create new substances? What caused the singularity before the explosion to suddenly cause the Big Bang? What created the singularity? A popular question to Christians is, "Who created God?" Well, It is pretty easy to explain how God was created. He wasn't. This is the part where most atheists get confused. The problem is that atheists who try to disprove Creationism must look at the Bible, at the context. God was not created, bcause he created time. He is outside of time, he is holy. He is seperate. He has no beginning because beginning is a factor in time. I wish you could answer my questions in the next round.
Creationism is far more superior to Evolution

I am a Christian, but I love science. I would like to start off by asking this, "How can this perfect (as in perfect chemistry, perfect cells, perfect reproductive system among living things, etc. ) world come from something accidental? " I I believe in a Creator because that is the only reasonable thing we have. Why are thre exactly two genders? Why Is Earth in its perfect place, a perfect distancee from the Sun.
Round Robin Story Debate - RD. 1, Logic vs. isallannoyyo

Voting Criteria"1. Conduct is only reserved for members who choose not to either adhere to the rules imposed by the debater, forfeits, trolls and harangues his opponent, and so forth. Note that this story tournament may include twists or not, depending on the whims of the debaters.2. Spelling and grammar should only be rewarded to another opponent if one side displays noticeably poor spelling and grammar (in other words a conspicuous difference).3. Arguments-There is a subjective nature as to who made the better arguments, but both debaters AND voters should beware that this is essentially where one decides on who did the better job in crafting the story--in creating a literary world, imbuing his characters with basic or complicated humanity, geared the story forward, and even entertained the audience. (Note that the latter is contingent on the type of the debate; voters should list whatever factors that colored their perceptions of the debate sides of the stories).4. Sources-This is where one actually decides on who exhibited the better craftsmanship and writing skills--in other words--the best prose, wording, command of the language and flourish. This skill is not all to be confused with storytelling; surely a member can tell good stories but that does not at all correlate with his writing skills or the maturity of such a skill. " - MIGOther matters:Four rounds to debateFirst round is for acceptance ONLY.2 week voting period72 hours to argue8,000 character limitVote comments enabledI should note that the constraints of 64,000 characters ought to be considered in the scope of the story and it's development. For instance, one of us may love to set up a drawn out story set over many years, but it would likely fall apart given such constraints. In this manner, a degree of restraint ought to be exhibited on the writers part.
Question of Free-Will is not a question of secularist importance.

I could have thought up more but I don't want to waist my time when it looks like my opponent won't be finishing this debate.C.1 Moral responsibilityFree-will is necessary for moral responsibility. If I am not free than my actions are based off of external factors. Therefore if I commit a seemingly immoral act, I am not responsible or accountable for it. It is rather obvious that choice is a prerequisite of moral responsibility. If I did not choose to sin, it wasn't really an immoral action. This contention alone has enormous implications. It would entail dozens or hundreds of ethical theories to all crash to the ground.As morality has to do with how we live our lives, this contention shows free-will is a very important question. C.2 Aim of the judicial systemIf we have no free will than we must reconsider the aims of our judicial system. If our actions are determined then criminals are not accountable for their actions except in the way you find fault with an improper tool. It follows that our judicial system should be aimed towards rehabilitation, segregation and perhaps deterrence instead of punishment.C.3 The death penaltyIf accountability is diminished, all harsh crimes become unjustified. Therefore the death penalty would be a blatantly wrong law and should never be used.C.4 Forgiveness/judging If free-will is false than people do things simply because of their physical setup and external factors. We can then come to the realization that we should be more forgiving to people and be less inclined to judge. We could only judge people to the extent that we judge a poor car. Much different than if free-will exists.C.5 PridePeople are often proud of their nationality even though they were just born with it but imagine if that was the only type of pride we could have? That we could only be proud of things because we were born with the ability or nature shaped us that way? It greatly diminishes pride because you come to the realization that you didn't really accomplish anything. It was just inevitable. C.6 Mind body dualism If free-will exists it would give much credibility to the mind-body dualism concept. After-all dualism is one of the main arguments for free will. If free-will were true, then we do not operate according to causality which would immediately be puzzling. The mind is what causes the body to act so we would then have to propagate the fact that the mind may not be material since it would not function according to basic cause and affect mechanism. C.7 Materialism As stated, matter operates according to cause, affect and maybe randomness. If this is true and we establish free-will then that means there is an exception to the laws of physics. The exception could conclude that not everything is material thus refuting materialism. C.8 GodMind body dualism is only plausible really if God exists since dualism would refute naturalism. God is the next probable theory. If another theory is possible than this contention will simply include it. But free-will could suggest God.
Question of Free-Will is not a question of secularist importance.

Thanks to my opponent for making this debate. I agree with pro on his statements in regards to defining free-will but just so we're all on the same page, I would like to define "secularist".Secularist: not connected with religious or spiritual mattershttp://oxforddictionaries.com...Before I hand it to pro, I would also just like to state I am myself a hard determinist and also happen to believe the question of free-will is an extremely important question with many significant implications. Back to pro. Good luck.
Question of Free-Will is not a question of secularist importance.

No doubt question of free will has been one of the most controversial issues among philosophers. I argue it is not something worth debating, especially if one is not concerned with theology. The structure of debate will be intro>argument>arg/counterarg>conclusion Note that the subject matter is the merit of the entire study of free-will per se. I find no need to define and therefore restrict the conception of "free-will", seeing as that the libertarians/hard-determinists have different conception of free-will than the compatibilists.
Lizard People

Con wants another source that says that what we believet to be true means that it is necessarily required to be true, and I will gladly provide one that is somewhat related to what Zerubavel claims in his paper [1].Con is cornered with what Zerubavel is claiming, and he can't refute what it is claiming, so he explicitly says that I have to prove that belief = reality using something other than the social lens. Fair enough, according to the idea of Strong Social Construction, there is no objective reality, just a subjective one where we inject meaning into it. Therefore, what we believe = the reality we live in, and the true continuum of reality.People can have contradictory thoughts on something, that's totally fine. For example, in the game Barnga, there is the concept of aces being high in one table and aces being low in another area - both are within their realms of truth [2]. I only have to prove that lizard people exist, and they do just like high aces do, your objective is to prove that they don't exist. I have proven that they must necessarily exist because of the Social Lens and because of strong social constructionism, and the syllogism that I used saying that has been completely dropped. I don't need to offer reasons why the lizard people haven't taken over the world yet. That's insane - I'm not one (or am I, according to Zerubavel :o) so I can't tell you what their motives are. I don't know why I'd have to tell you what a group of lizard people are thinking even though I am not one. In this debate, I have said that lizard people must necessarily exist due to what Zerubavel is claiming, and the validity of Zerubavel's message was never actually addressed, just who the person was. My syllogism which proves that lizard pepole must necessarily exist was actually NEVER attacked by con, meaning that it must be considered in its full weight. My opponent has claimed that: the lizards look like people, they don't have technology, we'd attack them, and they'd take over. The "lizards look like people" and "technology" claims that I made were thoroughly conceded by con. The "we'd attack them" idea was attacked by me where I said that was an ad populum fallacy and con never responded in a thoughtful manner, and for "they'd take over", you are asking me to prove why a group of lizards think something otherwise you win... yeah, that's not how debate works.My point is unrefuted and stands at its complete weigh - lizard people exist. My opponent's points are left in the dust. Thus, the only logical ballot today is a "pro" one![1]. http://www.control-z.com...[2]. http://pt.educationforsocialjustice.org...
Lizard People

Pro has no direct evidence that Lizard People exist. My definition for "exist" was 'being truly alive within our nation, not fantasy' All Pro stated was that 'if you believe in it, then it definitely exists'. We don't know for a fact that humanity is lizards, we don't have proof of this, but, as pro stated "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". This is true, but we have no evidence supporting these beings' existence either, therefore cannot be certain of their existence. As far as we're concerned, Pro needs to prove one of these things: - Belief = Reality (What people believe in is 100%, without a doubt, accurate and can be backed up with evidence other than the Social Lens) People can have contradicting thoughts on the same matter. Some people believe in Bigfoot. Others think it doesn't exist, and it just a human pretending to be Bigfoot or a big gorilla. Does Bigfoot exist? If Bigfoot exists, then the Lizard People definitely exist! If a person's thoughts are right to assume a being exists, wouldn't it be logical to assume otherwise, and still possibly be correct? Without concrete evidence, it'd be hard to assume a position is correct. You can't just say a being exists, and it exists. Most people think the world will end soon. With great belief at that. But how are we to know if the world really will end? http://www.signs-of-end-times.com... - Why the "Lizard People" haven't taken over right now. If we truly are in the control of these Lizard People with advanced technology and powers, we'd already be their slaves. Sure, they might be gaining power by feeding off of blood and children and whatnot. But all they need to do is occasionally kidnap a sacrifice, and drug them so they're unconscious, allowing the Lizards to being their feeding ritual. (I know it's late in the debate, but it occurred to me) Upon doing this, they'd be powerful enough for world domination in a few years. So why didn't they think of this? If they had the technology to fly over here to Earth, they certainly should have some powerful sedatives (sleeping drugs) to use. And if not, they can go to a drug store. I mean, it's Obama, right? He's rich! He only needs to buy 50 lbs of drugs, right? If Pro is able to refute my final stance, I'll concede.
Lizard People

What I am saying is that lizard people are real because at least some people believe in them with good faith, and Zerubavel claims that this is a cut from the continuum of big-r Reality, meaning that it is a component of the BIG Truth of the universe and the BIG Reality of it. Your example of "unicorns exist because I have the belief" is false, since it is these: 1. made in bad faith and 2. an argument from ignorance. I don't need photographic proof of something that has a Reality in the universe - and if I provided one, it would be dismissed as photoshop or something simiar. It is necessarily true that they exist because of the infallibility of subjective truth - this you concede because you drop it. You essentially drop my conclusion since you drop the components of the conclusion.My responses to yours:1. You say that the actors are simply acting so of course they are not injured, that'd be insane! But, how do we know that these lizard people are not simply masquerading as humans and overtaking the government? I have already proven that lizard people exist through my syllogism, I need no more proof; you concede that my proof is true because you drop it.2. You concede that just because we don't have the technology to do something doesn't mean that other civilisations do not.3. You just shrug off my claim pointing to gods or demons or mythical beings. That's good and all, but that's besides the point and you are missing what I am saying.Sources:1. It's a Google Book, which is just a preview of a bigger book that you can buy. The book is true, since it was written by Erivitar Zerubavel, a sociologist who has the credentials to make these sort of claims. Just saying that this isn't true without warrants means that your allegations of worthlessness are unfounded and should be ignored.2. The Vice documentary was to prove that people actually had a good faith belief in lizard people. I'm not saying that the documentary is completely accurate, and I don't need to, I'm just showing that people believe in lizard people in good faith. That's all that I needed to show for my syllogism.Con has actually given no offensive constructive reasons that lizard people don't exist, as their BoP is to do (and they agreed that they have the BoP). I have given a syllogism that proves that they must necessarily exist, and this syllogism was dropped by con. I see no reason I should not be given the win, even if my arguments are a bit obscure.
Lizard People

Interesting perspective you have there. So... what you're saying is that they may or may not be real? Based off of a person's ideas. It's like saying "Unicorns exist because I have the belief". We don't know for a fact if Unicorns exist or not. Likely not, as with Lizard People! A person's opinion does not contribute to the existence of these lizard people. Do you have any photographic proof or anything of said nature that can convince me of their existence? Your counters are: A) " It may be true that these lizard people have human fetaures, just as much true that all actors that have makeup showing gruesome injuries must have injuries" The actors don't have injuries, the character they're playing as are injured. If you can prove the lizard people shape-shifted or are reptilian, please do so! B) "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" I kind of have to agree with this point. But we can't find said technology in which these so called "lizard people" came here using. C) " just because a majority don't believe it to be so means that it is not so." same could technically be said for demons, gods, and mythical beings. But we don't have good evidence (if any evidence) that these beings do in fact exist. Refuting Pro's facts: Google: This is just the Social Lens thing (basically saying "if you believe it's true, it's true"), which isn't true VICE David Icke: This is just an interview with Icke. I'm not sure it's supposed to prove the existence of the Lizard People. (I watched Part 1 and 2) If Pro can support his VICE evidence, please do. Other than that, I'm sure I'll be fine. I await your response.
Lizard People

Observation 1. As Zerubavel claims in his book The Fine Line, in the section "The Social Lens", big-r Reality is a continuum from which all societies cut up discrete chunks, making islands of meaning in what is otherwise an expanse of no inherent meaning; these islands of meaning may be different for each society in the ways that they are cut (differences in the way that marriage "ought" to be, for example), or some islands may exist in one society's archepelego that does not have another representation in another society's (the concept of "weeks" or specific hours for specific things in the Bushmen people of Africa don't exist, for example). Zerubavel claims that reality is a continuum and the way that we cut it up is what meaning we make out of it. Therefore, reality is in a sense subjective, in that it can take many forms, all being components of the bigger picture. This means, in extension, that truth is a subjective component of the unattainable continuum that is Reality.My arguments will be based around Zerubavel's claim and my extensions to it; lizard people subjectively are alive within the nation.P1. Subjective truth is unfalsifiable, if it is made in good faith.P2. At least some people have the subjective truth that lizard people are real and alive within the nation, made in good faith.C1. Lizard people are necessarily real (cuts of the big-r Reality continuum in which mainstream society do not have)Now, onto my opponent's arguments.1. It may be true that these lizard people have human fetaures, just as much true that all actors that have makeup showing gruesome injuries must have injuries (which is not a claim made in good faith).2. "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". Just because we can't go to Mars doesn't mean that a different lifeform can't go from other planets.3. You are arguing from the "ad populum" fallacy - just because a majority don't believe it to be so means that it is not so. That's not a reason why they don't exist, it's just a fact. And they are not actually making these claims out of good faith, rather these claims are made from ignorance, which means that this argument isn't turnable by my observation. Basically, just because most of society hasn't found these out yet (ignorance of fact), doesn't mean that they don't necessarily exist.Back to you con.[1]. https://books.google.com...[2]. ;
Lizard People

This debate is about the existence of the so called "Lizard People". Do you have any evidence that proves our presidents are Lizards? If the evidence is faulty, then this means the presidents and government are not lizards and I win. My evidence are as follows: 1) They have human features (skin, regular tongues, no claws). Therefore, they are human. 2) How would they come from another planet? We don't have the technology to go as far as we'd need to go (past our solar system. Scientists are still working on getting to mars!) 3) If they were indeed Lizard alien beings, society would point this out, and we would shoot them. Pro must refute these 3 points and come up with why they DO exist in reality. I have to refute Pro's assertions.
Lizard People

Lizard People. I have heard of this a few times on this website. If these "lizard people" exist, enter this debate and prove so. Just a few definitions to go off of: Lizard People: beings from space/another dimension that are supposedly "mind controlling" us. Exist: being truly alive within our nation, not fantasy Space: Outer Space; another planet that can hold life Dimension: another universe separated from our own. Requires advanced technology to go to other dimensions. Rules: A) No Insulting the Opponent. B) "Mind Control", "Illusions" and "It's true" (or anything along those lines) are not valid arguments without valid PROOF this is the case. C) If you're quoting a website, post the link within that round. D) If you time out, you will concede the debate. E) Pro can give arguments Round 1, ask me questions, or just accept. F) BoP is on Pro, as it is obvious that Donald Trump isn't a lizard (If Pro disagrees, I'll accept to his/her terms ONLY on this rule.