BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Fear & Hope

1. Fear is an emotion caused by being afraid of a person, place, or thing. It often comes from the belief that something is dangerous, painful, threatening, or upsetting 2. Hope is a want or desire for something to happen or be the case 3. It is possible that one could Hope for something to happen, but not fear the opposite. For example, I could hope I win the lottery, but I do not fear not winning the lottery. Hoping to win the lottery is something many people desire to happen, so this fits our definition of hope. However, people do not fear not winning the lottery. I can be disappointed if I do not win, but that is a different emotion than fear. I feel no terror, I am not afraid of the outcome of not winning the lottery. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 4. It is not necessarily the case that hope always leads to fear.
Fear & Hope

Even using your definitions of Fear and Hope: 1. Hope is the desire for something or some event in the future to happen. 2. Fear is the desire for something or some event in the future not to happen. I still find the argument to be invalid. There are certain instances in life where one can desire something to happen, but not necessarily NOT desire the opposite. One can feel positively toward something, and indifferent toward the opposite. Take for example the idea of someone hoping their child to have a baby. They may desire to become a grandparent, and hope their child chooses to have a kid of their own. However, this doesn't necessarily mean that they desire for opposite not to happen. They can be indifferent and not be harmed or upset in any way if their child does not have a baby, but if it does come to pass, this will bring them joy. So in conclusion, it is not necessarily the case that fear has to follow from hope.
Fear & Hope

My only concern is whether or not terror is necessarily a part of fear or is it's own entity. I believe that terror is a separate emotion fear, a more intense feeling that would cause extreme anxiety and make it impossible to function in a rational manner. That being said, I believe it is possible for fear to exist in someone without them feeling terror. Take professional fighters for example. Many of them admit there they experience fear when going into fight, but they are not necessarily terrified of their opponents. They are still able to perform in a reasonable manner during the fight. So in conclusion, fear does not necessarily have to include the feeling of terror. - by Joh Corbett
creation has more evidence for it, and less against it than evolution.

unsupported? do you know about the ICR at all?they back what they say. contact them. okay, I guess you want more links about the Dino's. http://www.lightningshock.com... this one is more explanatory than Prof :) http://sunandshield.blogspot.com... http://www.infobarrel.com... http://www.peje.co.za... http://www.disclose.tv... if you still want more, ask away. okay, so a few might be faulty. so? you can't ignore the evidence. on your next point. fine, here is my argument: there is evidence for creation. here's the site. http://www.icr.org... one site. if you do nothing else, read it. the sickle cell was a hoax. I'm not going to give a link, because it's common knowledge. or it better be! I stooped reading that link, because it's out of date. the moth's illustrate micro-evolution, not macro. I Goggled MRSA, and I don't see how that is good evidence, or evidence at all. a boil? now have I given evidence against evolution? http://www.icr.org... how about now?
creation has more evidence for it, and less against it than evolution.

I need to give a little info about the beginning of the argument. on the last debate I was shoot down so to speak by saying that Dino's existed. everyone said, "so what". so this is so what. evolution puts Dino's at the bottom of the geological column, in the Jurassic age. if dinos really do exist, that this takes away the cretability of the column, and really hurts evolution. here are some links for the existence of dinos today: http://www.youtube.com... http://www.google.com... http://www.livescience.com... http://www.skygaze.com... http://www.zimbio.com... http://cryptid.hubpages.com... i think that is enough links, but i can get more if you want. :) i agree that site wan't very good. ( the one about the whale stomach) my computer doesn't have sound, so i didn't wach that vidio you put. http://www.allansweeney.com... http://appleofgodseye.wordpress.com... http://www.icr.org... http://www.wikihow.com... some of these other links suport what i said about DNA. others are just scientific evidence against evolution. your "proof" about fusion doesn't seem to be much profe at all. to i look like an ape, (: and i have chromosomes like an ape. so? you didn't give a link to provide evidence for what you said about mutations. my source for what i said is it couldn't just happen. http://www.christianbook.com... there is a link to the book. here is another site that explains it. http://creationwiki.org...(Talk.Origins) just because something looks like another thing doesn't mean evolution is true. say a builder wanted to make two houses. would they look the same? partaly. are they? are they desended from each other? no. it's a silly analigy, but think about it all living things look a little bit alike. some more than others. so? i think i have given evidence against evolution in this. last but not least i would like to give a "tiny bit of evidence" for creation. if you can read through it, and disprove it, i will be greatly inpressed. happy reading. :) http://www.icr.org...
creation has more evidence for it, and less against it than evolution.

http://s8int.com... here is your link, it was the first thing that came up. did you really Google it? DNA prevents evolution because there is no way that an animal could have gotten DNA plans for, say, lungs instead of gills or vica versa. without DNA plans for something, the organism has no way to create it. I didn't quite understand what you said at the end there, so could you clarify? mutations, if you mean what I think you mean, doesn't hold water. mutations are almost always negative, and also usually make the organism sterile. there is very little if not no evidence for evolution, which is a little evidence for creation, since it is the only "creditable" theory for hoe the world began besides creation. God is the only way that anything could be alive right now. because of...dirt. you're laughing, admit it. it sound absurd, yes, but it is actually a valid point. for any organism to survive, you must have dirt with dead things already in it to provide the nutrients. to have dead things you must have live things. to have live things you must have dead things in the soil..... and so on. it does sound funny, even to me, but read it couldn't just happen. if you want more on the DNA thing, just read it couldn't just happen as well, but I think I explained it fairly well. 6 you didn't explain very well. I think I know what you mean about nested hierarchy, but to avoid making a fool of myself could you explain it in a little further detail?
creation has more evidence for it, and less against it than evolution.

I would like to point out how odd it is the debate topic deals with creation having more evidence for evolution and you ask the following question 1"Okay, first, how do you explain the grand canyon?" This has nothing to do with evolution, but I'll entertain you. The grand canyon was created by a combination of shifting plates (see plate tectonics) and well known phenomenon called "erosion". If you hadn't noticed there's water in it...over time this water erodes the rocks, carving out the canyon. Here's a short video that gives a brief explanation http://www.youtube.com... I'll now address your questions that either deal with evolution or potentially contradict the timeline. 2."How can evolution take place if the genetic code prevents it? " It doesn't. I don't believe I need to offer anything further on this until you support the assertion that genetic code prevents it. 3."If Dino's are extinct, that how come they found a baby one in a whale's stomach?" This question gave me a chuckle, I googled it to see what you were talking about and not one site popped up with this claim...Can you provide a credible source? 4."How do you explain symbioses?" A random mutation occurred that allowed for a symbiotic relationship, this was beneficial so it was passed on. 5."How did humans become so far advanced from other creatures?" Culture and a more efficient brain, really humans were just living in tribes like apes for hundreds of thousands of years until the invention of language and agriculture. Almost everything we observe in humans is also observable in other mammals, such as tool use, family, ethics, etc. 6"How do you explain human morals." Love, empathy, and culture. I think the benefits from these things are obvious and it's clear why evolution can easily account for them. How does creationism account for the observed nested hierarchy in species? What evidence is there for creationism? How does creationism explain the fusion in human chromosome 2? Why is it there? Let's keep in mind that the topic is "creation has more evidence for it, and less against it than evolution" and you are pro meaning the burden of proof is on you. So far you have done nothing to support creationism and you have not given any evidence against evolution. As a token of good sportsmanship I'll offer this website that may help you in proving evolution to be a hoax http://rationalwiki.org...
creation has more evidence for it, and less against it than evolution.

Evolution is based off a believe in no God. Evolutionists are the ones who drop contrary evidence. You still don't know that sickle cell was a hoax. they covered it up. Qopel even said it was true that it was a hoax. what do you want. to go to a zoo and see a Dino. or a picture taken by a pro. these people only had their phones on them. you don't walk around with a super good camera just because you might happen to see a dinosaur. you didn't quote the rest of what I said. there is still a ton of evidence. the only other evidence you could ask for is one in a zoo. the fossil record? it's actually no transitional forms. now the last person I said this too gave me a wiki site as evidence. all it had was pics. of extinct animals. go figure. if it really takes 100 million years for something to evolve, and everything on earth has evolved, than we should have evidence of them evolving. do we? no. all "transitional forms" can be put into two categories: huge leaps, or tiny leaps. obviously. but, these forms, if they have a set of them in order, the differences are huge, and can be explained as hole new species. others, like forms they claim are between apes and us are 1) half way imagined. I know they don't come in perfect condition, but they once made a plaster skeleton for a tooth they found that was like the perfect transitional form. it ended up that the tooth was a pig tooth. or 2) are just extent species of ape. snow flakes? really? there can if God made a perfectly ordered universe, and you do realize that that is a scientific law. its not dumb, its proven. the sickle cell as evidence for evolution was a hoax. no, there is a difference between micro and macro. micro means that something adapted in a small way, within the plans that it's DNA provide. macro evolution goes outside of the plans that DNA has. say, an animal goes from sea dwelling to land dwelling. where would its DNA get the information to make lungs? you are really set on that chromosome thing. fine, does this explain it? http://lukeplant.me.uk... oh sickle cell its self isn't a hoax, the idea of it as evidence of evolution, not so much. this should explain it to all you who haven't heard. http://www.creationbc.org... mutations can also be evidence for creation. this explains that statement. http://www.icr.org... tons of evidence from catastrophes on earth are largely contradictory to universalism. http://www.icr.org... I think I have made my case, however, if anyone is not satisfied, here is one last link, exposing evidence for creation. http://www.creationsciencetoday.com...
can we mine astriods

As this debate draws to a close, I'd like to point out that even though the title of the debate is "can we mine asteroids," Pro placed the resolution in his OP, saying, "The United States Federal Government should substantaly increase exploration and/or developement of space by mining astriods." My opponent has pointed to how much wealth there is in asteroids, however, he has not defended any claims about the shear cost of mining them. As it was pointed out in my R2, it cost $170 million to mine less than 1 gram of an asteroid. My opponent completely ignored that. While there are trillions of dollars in asteroids, it would cost millions upon billions of trillions (and any other -illions we can think of) to mine it. This shows that it is highly un-profitable. My opponent has presented no other reasons (like for academia or scientific purposes) to mine other than their value. Clearly the value is too costly so the resolution is negated. Thank you,
can we mine astriods

Some day, the platinum, cobalt and other valuable elements from asteroids may even be returned to Earth for profit. At 1997 prices, a relatively small metallic asteroid with a diameter of 1.6 km (0.99 mi) contains more than 20 trillion US dollars worth of industrial and precious metals.[1][2] In fact, all the gold, cobalt, iron, manganese, molybdenum, nickel, osmium, palladium, platinum, rhenium, rhodium, ruthenium and tungsten that we now mine from the Earth's crust, and that are essential for economic and technological progress, came originally from the rain of asteroids that hit the Earth after the crust cooled.[3][4][5] This is because, while asteroids and the Earth congealed from the same starting materials, Earth's massive gravity pulled all such siderophilic (iron loving) elements into the planet's core during its molten youth more than four billion years ago[ Economic analyses generally show that asteroid mining will not attract private investment at current commodity prices and space transportation costs.[12] However, based on known terrestrial reserves and growing consumption in developing countries, there is speculation that key elements needed for modern industry, including antimony, zinc, tin, silver, lead, indium, gold, and copper, could be exhausted on Earth within 50-60 years http://en.wikipedia.org...
can we mine astriods

Despite my opponent not providing sources, I will accept the $170 million price tag for the Hayabusa mission. As such, let me point a few things out. The $170 million was for the single launch, meaning that every trip up into space to go mining is going to cost $170 million. It should also be noted that the Hayabusa was launched May of 2003 and returned June 2010, taking a little over 7 years [1]. It should also be noted that it only recovered 1,500 grains of rock [2], far less than 1/10 microgram of total mass (this is due to a malfunctioning projectile gun). However, even if everything worked perfectly, it would at most, only gather "several hundred milligrams of material if the sampling procedure went as planned" [2]. So the question becomes, should Nasa spend $170 million dollars to mine less than 1 gram (the mass of a single skittle) of metal? A quick look at current market prices shows that no metal is worth that much [3], as such, it is a bad investment that should not be undertaken. Thank you, [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.spaceflightnow.com... [3] http://www.kitco.com...
can we mine astriods

Hayabusa, a Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) spacecraft, is expected to return the first asteroid materials to Earth.65 (The European Space Agency (ESA) is planning a similar mission.66) Nearly 1,000 near-Earth asteroids have been identified that are easier to reach than the moon (requiring a lower delta-V).67 Thousands more of these ï¿½€œvery near-Earth asteroidsï¿½€ï¿½ (VNEAs) are expected to be identified in the next 10-20 years, as new sky-survey telescopes (Pan-STARRS and the LSST68) register 500,000 NEAs.69 With the Hayabusa, JAXA has shown, at a cost of ï¿½€œabout $170 million,ï¿½€ï¿½70 that asteroid materials can be reached and returned to Earth. The number of potential targets is now increasing exponentially. Fine, but is there demand for these materials? Yes, quite a bit. So JAXA has done it to proove that we can do it for 170 million. But to save your breath of what I would be reallocating. We will reallocate $170 million from NASA's existing budget by taking $100 million from the exploration research and development department, $43 million from the education fund, and $27 million from the space technology fund. Next you would say isn't there health risks such as radiation in space? well the Orion (which NASA has tested) uses full radioactive proof amour. 2nd they'd be in the Orion not on the astriod with pickaxes. 3rd in order for a radiocative defect to actually work there would need to be a solar flare which by the way happens every 10 years. Astriods contain silicon, gold, platinum, and every other rare earth metal or REMs to be found on Earth. I proudly await the Negs. response.
can we mine astriods

I would like to first point out a few things and a few questions before allowing my opponent to begin his argument. 1) This debate is only about mining the Trojan asteroids around Earth and does not include the mining of any other asteroids. These asteroids are a collection of asteroids that gather at the L4 and L5 points of orbit [1]. 2) The Orion rocket is not sufficient to harvest any materials from the L4 and L5 points of orbit, because it does not leave the Earth's atmosphere and usually only stays up for a few minutes (Orion isn't the first guy to have that problem) [2] 3) My opponent is going to need to show that this would only cost $170 million as that seems incredibly low. I will allow my opponent to make his argument now. Thank you, [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] . http://www.californiasciencecenter.org...
Is there any scientific evidence for creationism

1) So, in essence you just gave up for this point. You have no refutation to offer, you have no objection, you just say that it fails because you say so and that's that. Hint: That's not how debating works mate. Also, "evolutionist" is a silly term; and it doesn't even make sense in this context; we're talking about astrophysics, not biology for this point. So good job. Because you use "evolutionist" for the remainder of your "rebuttal" towards me, I'll just ignore the term from this point forward. Credentialed creationists. Lol. There's your problem right there. That CRS website is an utter joke bro, and I'd like to recommend you refrain from using that website for any future debates you have. A creationist website is inevitably going to be incorrect; that's just the nature of creationism unfortunately. Whether that be CRS, ICR, AiG, 6000years.org, AllAboutScience or some other obscure creationist website that I have not heard of before, you'd do well to stay well away from them. All you'll find in creationist websites is a compilation of failed arguments thought up by academic puppets who serve as nothing more than cheer-leaders for the creationist cause. That may have been a tad blunt, yes, but I've since learned that creationist sources are never to be trusted. Heck, the website which you have gotten lot of your information from (ICR), is nearly *3 centuries* behind the scientific consensus by claiming that different populations of organisms are different kinds, since Systema Natur" was published in *1735.* And CRS falls into the exact same trap by labelling different populations of organisms as "kinds" (see "Adaptive Genetic Changes by Design: A Look at the DNA Editing by Activation-induced Cytidine Deaminase (AID)" on the CRS website. When your sources are that far behind the scientific consensus, I think you need to get better sources and seriously re-evaluate what type of sources are acceptable to bring forth to a debate. And all you have done here is copy and paste from ICR and CRS. Whilst you at least were upfront with were you got your "information" from, simply copying and pasting a large portion of your arguments from ICR, CMI and apparently CRS, is not meritorious. Actually, you know what? I think we're done here. As you can tell, this comment is nowhere near finished (probably wouldn't even have the room to finish it in this comment anyways come to think of it), but tell me. Why should I expend my time on this debate when my opponent is taking the easy way out and copying and pasting arguments *verbatim* from creationist sources? A huge portion of your arguments against me are copied and pasted verbatim and I know you copied and pasted your most recent response in point 5 from CMI (http://creation.com...). Until my opponent can actually stop copying and pasting arguments from creationist sources verbatim for all of his arguments, then I see no reason to waste any of my time further. 'Til you decide to take this seriously, have a good day.
Is there any scientific evidence for creationism

I'm a fairly passionate person about science and I've been debating creationism for nearly 6 years. If you've got any evidence to present for creationism, I'd like to hear it. It'd be good to hear a new argument to be honest, and I'm hopefully going to get more competent opponents than I do on YouTube comment sections, considering that this website is made for the soul purpose of debating XD. Anyways, if anyone would be able to debate me about this, would be cool; thanks.
Is there any scientific evidence for creationism

In order to avoid this debate getting off track, let me remind readers of the original topic: Is there any scientific evidence for creationism? In answering Yes (Pro), I presented twelve instances of such evidence: 1. Galaxies wind themselves up too fast 2. Comets disintegrate too quickly 3. Not enough mud on the sea floor 4. Not enough sodium in the sea 5. The earth"s magnetic field is decaying too fast 6. Many strata are too tightly bent 7. Injected sandstone shortens geologic "ages" 8. Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic "ages" to a few years 9. Helium in the wrong places 10. Not enough stone age skeletons 11. Agriculture is too recent 12. History is too short At this point there is no further response concerning these examples, so they stand as fulfilling the original challenge of the debate. The personal attacks by my opponent have consisted of ridiculing scientists who support creationism and me for using them as sources. Such ad hominem arguments are well-known fallacies.