BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Theistic Evolution is the most reasonable explanation for the formation of Life

Thank you for the interesting argument.Now then I will refute Pro's argument in two simple parts.Firstly and foremost we have the issue of the length in which the creation of the Universe and creation of the natural world revealed to us really was.1. We both accept the Bible is 100% The word of God.2. We both accept the universe begins with Genesis 1:1From these two agreed points we can deconstruct the argument for Theistic Evolution.I.In the other books of the bible the mesuarement of time is a constant. The idea that a day can actually be intrepreted as tens of millions of years is a dangerous one. For example imagine if Jesus was not resurrected for 1.9 Million years. We both know this is ridiculas and in reality his resurection took place over the course of a mere few 24 hour periods. In the Classical World the only difference in the understanding of the definition of a day is that the transition of days happens at sunset rather then at midnight as we have today. The Greeks, Hebrews, and Romans all had words for long mesuarements of time during the Biblical age. Why would God choose to reveal the creation of the universe in a unit of measure not consistant with reality? Since the Bible is God's word on earth to give light to the masses it is insanity to propose that God would intenionally attempt to confuse us. II.Furthermore since PRO accepts the "proof" that modern evolutionists have agreed on then one would find the statement a serious problem for Theistic evolution: "Theistic evolution, however, will point out that while man was the last to develop when it comes to evolution"Now the scientific theory of evolution and darwinism believes all animals are constantly delvolping and moving forward. I would like PRO to point out how exactly this fits in with the Scripture?Conclusion~Unless Pro can provide us with any reason as to why God would choose to reveal creation in a set of days rather then any of the other measurements of time understandble to man at the time then all of his arguments cannot function. Furthermore Pro must explain how scientific Darwinism and Evolution do not contradict the creation narrative and Christan Scripture.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument(Part 2)

My opponent did not answer my questions. Therefore, his entire 5th round (centered around my answers to his question) are void and he should lose conduct on the basis of claiming my arguments are "(silly games)". Furthermore, I would like to state I didn't reword any one of his questions; I simply took it apart so that he could see the flaw in his logic. My opponent does not seem to understand this logic: "Before my existance, I didn't exist. When I did not exist, there was no way to be certain I did not exist. " My opponent states "Pro states that everything has a cause, then says, God didn't have a cause, outright contradiction. " I thought we were argueing the Kalam Cosmological Arguement? The position you gave me to defend is that on my side, God is real. On yours, he is not. We must prove which side is more logical. You can not attack God, for he is a part of this arguement and his existence is not the debate. My opponent says everything but the Flying Spaghetti Monster and Chuck Norris has no creation. So, we can assume those two beings are God, because they are not mortal nor do they abide by the laws of nature, suiting the definition of GOD. Here my opponent has supported my case in a way that does not support his and he can not refute. Therefore, by this alone I should win this debate. My opponent wants to say "if there is no time with God, God can't exist "before" anything now can he? " Yes, he can! Man created time. There was no time before man. Dinosaurs and everything ran amuck before us. Then we can into existance and created time to measure events. Time is a measurement, like feet or cubic yards. Cubic yards, a measurement, didn't exist before we made it! Time is nothing but an abstract idea. God didn't make time; we did. Therefore, time was not the beginning of the universe, it was GOD. That is my foundation of this debate. God made the universe. God came before the universe. Two things must exist for it to base time on, hence my basement arguement. If God was the only thing existing, there is not time. Since God made the universe, we, as humans, can use our created thought of time to say he came before it. Before is not a direct measurement of time. Before, after, and during is a direct line of events. Time is the measurements between the two. ==CONCLUSION== The Kalam Cosmological Arguement is the debate. Since there are to objects of the debate "God, or the Universe? ", we are both obligated to prove which is more logical. Through the debate, I believe I have made my point apparent. I would now like to state the one fool-proof reason why I should win the debate My opponent presented (a) God(s): Chuck Norris and the FLYING SPAGEHETTI MONSTER. For these reasons and arguments above, I believe I have won the debate.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument(Part 2)

Pro Says "My argument in relation to the universe was that if it was smaller ten minutes ago, and ten before that, then there must be a time that it did not exist! Because if it's even expanding it had to start somewhere" This conflates expansion as the same with beginning to exist. Pros' argument is..... 1) The universe is always expanding 2) Therefore the universe began to exist Even if we accept premise 1 here, that only proves that the expansion of the universe had a beginning, not that the universe it self had a beginning. Pro says "It must have been created if it had a starting point, which it did because it is only logical that if you go back for enough time it had not to exist" Notice here pro is claiming that there was a state of reality in the past where the universe did not exist. So pro is saying that the universe did not always exist, and that the universe not existing (please refer to note 1)was the reality BEFORE its existence. This affirms what I have been saying all along, that something that begins to exist comes AFTER it did not exist. (Note 1: The claim that the universe did not exist, is a description of reality, and is not giving attributes to something that does not exist yet, in this case the universe) Now the trouble with this argument, is that in the Kalam argument, that time began to exist too, that time began to exist along with the beginning of the universe. My argument is as follows.......... 1) There was no "before" the universe 2) Therefore there has never being a time where the universe has not existed. 3) There for its impossible for the non existence of the universe to be the state of reality before the existence of the universe 4) Therefore the universe did not begin to exist. In order to drive this point home, about something that begins to exist, comes after a state where it did not exist, I will answer my own questions I asked Pro, and also ask that they answer them too. If you get a different answer than my answer, please explain why. 1) Would you agree that the you have not always existed ? Yes 2) If you did not always exist, would you agree that means their was a state of reality where you did not exist ? Yes 3) Would you agree that this state of reality where you did not exist, preceded its existence ? Yes I look forward to Pros reply. On a side note, has anyone else noticed that what ever changes they have made to debate.org it has screwed up the spacing in between lines.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument(Part 2)

NSA :) My opponent states: "Would you agree that means their was a state of reality where the child did not exist ?" No, because if the child is not part of reality, it can not be considered. The only thing that can be considered is that I have no children. Because if you say that, I could never have a child. Then the statement you just gave would be false, because that reality will never be. Therefore, not reality and not a state-of-being, which is likely, seeing I'm gay. Nonexistence is not a state- a solid, liquid, gas, or plasma is a state. If it is none of these, it is not reality. NOTHING can be in a state of nonexistence, because it is not even real enough to sustain a state, only a fact. Unicorns are not a state of existance, but it is fact they don't exist. However, the IDEA of them can. You can only see the picture drawn, and that's as near as reality as they can get. My opponent made a well-place point on my NSA; however, I think it backfired. He is saying, that something had to cause the existance of the squirrel before it was created. However, he is saying that at one point it did not exist until something else CAUSED it. If you go back far enough in time, everything was a like at one point until something changed it. The universe as we know it did not exist. If a professional, expert scientist says something is scientific fact, it can be accepted, legally and socially. There are, however, some scientist who believe these are anomalies, paranormal activity that can not be readily explained. The true nature of "ghosts" or "spirits" have yet to have been 100% proven, but scientific evidence has increased over the years with technologies. I am not claiming God is anything. That can not be proven and is not the objective of this debate. I honestly have no clue what or who God is, but I know he exists. The example I gave with the blocks was a metaphor. What the principal is is that God is the builder. Whether he has hands, tentacles, or is just pure energy- I don't know, but I know He's there. God IS the beginning. He is everything and nothing. The causation of everything He did had a consequence, but there is no consequence to God. If he is pure energy, then the universe was started by an unexplainable anomaly. Evolution, even. I will not entertain the fact that I have a child, because I do not. I would be entertaining a non-existent subject! Something that will probably never exist because I like boy-holes. Furthermore, my opponent completely ignored my arguement of the universe expanding and how it is not as big now as it will be in a few minutes.
Scientific Proof Carbohydrates Cause Disease

1. It appears that you don't understand the basic principles of debate. You are supposed to address my statements, point by point. Giving your reasons for disagreeing with each point and offering alternatives to these ideas. You have done none of these things, thus far. The statements of Doctor Loren Cordain remain unchallenged, and thus, still stand. 2. quote - "A diet high in carbohydrates may increase the risk of pancreatic cancer in sedentary and overweight women," BMJ 2002;325:566" Thanks for posting this reference, it adds credibility to my case. lol Soda is not a carbohydrate unless you put sugar into it. Soda is only unhealthy because it has sugar in it. Thus, it is the carbohydrate element of soda that is unhealthy. Quote - "Diet is clearly implicated in the origin of colorectal cancer, with risk factors for the disease including reduced consumption of vegetables, fiber, and starch and increased consumption of red meat and animal fat. Nutr Cancer. 2000;37(1):19-26." Doesn't state the quantities of fibre, vegetables, red meat and fat. Thus, the information is useless. Of course a diet low in fibre and vitamins will result in cancer. Carbohydrates come in 3 basic types - 1. Simple carbohydrates - fructose, glucose, honey etc 2. Complex carbohydrates - rice and wheat 3. Complex fibrous carbohydrates - most vegetables The first 2 categories will make you sick if eaten in a highly processed variety. A diet of 50% or more of these carbohydrates will definitely lead to disease. The 3rd category is harmless and wont affect your health in a bad way, but will add vitamins and make you feel better.
Scientific Proof Carbohydrates Cause Disease

Just because a website is called 'Quack Watch', doesn't necessarily follow that they are there to stop fraudulent medical practises. We have to consider that the possible purpose of 'Quack Watch' may be to protect an already corrupt medical system from cheap and effective natural cures which might undermine expensive and patented medicines. The medical/pharmacy system is a multi-billion dollar system which has influence on governments, doctors and universities. They need to protect their financial investments from cheap or free products which may replace expensive patented products. They will do almost anything to stop the public from finding out about the many deceptions that they have employed over the last 200 years or so. Their biggest deception being 'germ theory' and the related hidden knowledge that disease is really caused by an unnatural diet and has nothing to do with external germs invading the body. The Late Role of Grains and Legumes in the Human Diet, and Biochemical Evidence of their Evolutionary Discordance by Loren Cordain, Ph.D. Repercussions of antinutrient load. As has been suggested by John Yudkin almost 30 years ago, cereal grains are a relatively recent food for hominids and our physiologies are still adjusting and adapting to their presence. Clearly, no human can live on a diet composed entirely of cereal grains (for one thing they have no vitamin C). However, that is but one consideration, since eating raw cereal grains (as well as cooked cereal grains) wreaks havoc on the primate gut because of the high antinutrient content of grains. When cereal grain calories reach 50% or more of the daily caloric intake, humans suffer severe health consequences. One has to look no further than the severe pellagra epidemics of the late 19th century in America and the beri-beri scourges of southeast Asia to confirm this. Additionally, in not only human beings, but in virtually every animal model studied (dog, rat, guinea pig, baboon, etc.), high cereal grain consumption promotes and induces rickets and osteomalacia [Robertson 1981; Ewer 1950; Sly 1984; Ford 1972, 1977; MacAuliffe 1976; Hidiroglou 1980; Dagnelie 1990]. Recent research has also implicated zinc deficiency due to the effects of excessive cereal grain consumption in retarding skeletal growth [Reinhold 1971; Halsted 1972; Sandstrom 1987; Golub 1996], including cases of hypogonadal dwarfism seen in modern-day Iran. The pathologies introduced by higher levels of cereal grain consumption discussed above are due primarily to the effects of phytates in grains, which bind to minerals, preventing adequate uptake. To this point, we haven't even touched upon the other antinutrients which inflict damage on a wide variety of human physiological systems. These antinutrients include protease inhibitors, alkylrescorcinols, alpha-amylase inhitors, molecular-mimicking proteins, etc. We will look further at these additional problems below. Clearly, however, cereal grains cannot contribute substantial calories to the diet of primates unless they are cooked and processed. http://www.marksdailyapple.com...
Scientific Proof Carbohydrates Cause Disease

Akhenaten in another debate has cited that a mercola article that claims carbohydrates cause disease. "Carbohydrates cause nearly all age-related diseases." Kent Rieske I Con will argue that the hypothesis that Carbohydrates cause disease is false. Akhenaten Pro will reinforce the hypothesis that Carboyhdrates indeed cause disease. Let's first look at quackwatch.org. " But the BlockShopper Chicago Web site states that in 2006 he purchased a house in South Barrington, Illinois, for $2 million and that it now has 5,563 square feet." Quackwatch.org Its pretty clear to me that James Mercola is a quack. By promoting Mercola, you are practicing quackery. "Quackery is the promotion of an unproven product or service. The operant word is promotion rather than intent. (Quacks quack!)" Quack Quack Quack you are promoting an unproven product or service Akhenaten. Let's see what quackwatch.org says about vegetarian. "Vegetarianism: Healthful but Unnecessary" quackwatch.org In other words vegetarian is healthful, good luck being a vegetarian on a low carb diet. :) "The popularity of low-carbohydrate diets has encouraged food companies to market low-carbohydrate foods for people who want to "watch their carbs." Most of these foods are much higher in fat than the foods they are designed to replace. I believe that "low-carb" advertising is encouraging both dieters and nondieters to eat high-fat foods, which is exactly the opposite of what medical and nutrition authorities have been urging for decades. Following a low-carbohydrate diet under medical supervision may make sense for some people, but a population-wide increase in fat consumption would not. My advice to people who are considering a low-carbohydrate diet is not to try it on their own by reading a book, but to seek supervision from a physician who can monitor what they do. " Quackwatch.org You seem to bent on germs theory. As you probably already know germ theory and vaccinations are closely linked. "Immunizations should be part of routine health care obtained through one's personal physician (or in some instances, through one's local health department). Long-lasting protection is available against measles, mumps, German measles (rubella), poliomyelitis, tetanus (lockjaw), whooping cough (pertussis), diphtheria, chickenpox (varicella), Hemophilus influenzae b (Hib), and hepatitis B. Immunization against all of these is recommended for children by the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Family Practice, and the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)." Quackwatch.org You seem intent on spreading your quackery, and I intend on stopping it. http://articles.mercola.com... http://www.quackwatch.org... http://www.quackwatch.org... http://www.quackwatch.org... http://www.quackwatch.org...
Scientific Proof Carbohydrates Cause Disease

1. You still haven't responded to my previous articles despite giving warnings of this omission. Thus, the statement in regards to Doctor Loren Cordain still remains unchallenged. 2. Soda drinkers are generally unhealthy people and would have lots of bad dietary habits which would lead to obesity. 3. Aspartame is a poisonous substance which can damage brain tissue. As a result of its unnatural structure, your body processes the amino acids found in aspartame very differently from a steak or a piece of fish. The amino acids in aspartame literally attack your cells, even crossing the blood-brain barrier to attack your brain cells, creating a toxic cellular overstimulation called excitotoxicity. MSG is also an excitotoxin, and works synergistically with aspartame to create even more damage to your brain cells. Aspartic acid, also known as aspartate, acts as a neurotransmitter in your brain by facilitating the transmission of information from neuron to neuron. Too much aspartate in your brain kills certain neurons by allowing the influx of too much calcium into the cells. This influx triggers excessive amounts of free radicals, which kill the cells. The neural cell damage that can be caused by excessive aspartate is why they are referred to as "excitotoxins." They "excite" or stimulate the neural cells to death. 4. Humans have evolved an external stomach which is called a cooking pot. Thus, eating cooked food is part of our evolved solution to reducing body weight which allows us extra leisure and hunting time.
Scientific Proof Carbohydrates Cause Disease

I spent a lot of time on that last article. My sources are scholarly peer reviewed, so I am winning based upon superior sources cited. As for soda you rationalize that soda is unhealthy because of carbohydrates. Yet, you must know that diet soda has very little carbohydrates. Yet, the detrimental health effects are still present. Meaning the carbohydrates are not the cause of the disease. "It saves you the 140-plus calories you'd find in a sugary soft drink while still satisfying your urge for something sweet with artificial sweeteners like aspartame, saccharin, and sucralose." health.com "Researchers from the University of Texas found that over the course of about a decade, diet soda drinkers had a 70% greater increase in waist circumference compared with non-drinkers." health.com "Granted, the evidence of health risks is a lot clearer for sugary drinks; a recent study presented at a meeting of the American Heart Association linked them with 180,000 deaths around the world." huffingtonpost.com "Artificial sweeteners induce glucose intolerance by altering the gut microbiota" Nature 514, 181"186 (09 October 2014) doi:10.1038/nature13793 The probiotic video is boring in my opinion yet diet soda is mentioned as destroying the health gut bacteria. I contend that soda is detrimental to health because of the artificial sweeteners. Another problem with soda is the liquid form. Assuming Darwin's theory of evolution. What evolutionary base can we have for packing so many calories into a liquid? Wild chimpanzees eat honey, so there would be some ability. Yet, honey wouldn't be available on a daily basis. Evolution and natural selection prepared us for eating fruits and leafy greens just like wild chimpanzees and bonobo monkey. The idea that man suddenly evolved to eat lots of cooked meat is inconsistent with the theory of evolution. Perhaps man evolved to eat small quantity of cooked meat. As a scavenger primitive humans could have picked up washed up sea life in coastal regions. The idea of man evolving to eat a large herbivore like a cow makes no sense. Not only would a herd of wild cows be dangerous but it would be feast or famine. Instead cooked tubers make sense as seen in the below nytimes article. http://www.health.com... http://www.huffingtonpost.com... http://probioticamerica.com... http://www.nytimes.com... http://www.nature.com...
Teachers should use the "long method" in teaching mathematics rather than the "short method"

oh please you are going exactly out of the way. firstly , i dint mention that your method is improper in any of my arguments ,i was just saying that- you were saying that teaching short methods is equal to teaching improperly or in your language ,by taking short cut . I was just saying that teaching students short methods will help them to utilize their time . And this is obveios that maths needs practice or we should say maths is just about practice . By mentioning " help them to utilize their time" i mean their time in exam or in an Olympiad, not while they are practicing. Suppose a child goes in an Olympiad ,the time given to solve one question is about one or two minutes . If a child at that time knows the short method to solve that question ,it will help him . And not only maths each and every subject needs to teach elaborately . AND i myself being a student knows that short methods really help.
Teachers should use the "long method" in teaching mathematics rather than the "short method"

"yea I agree but if the teacher teaches students using short methods it will help them to utilize time ." so you do agree. In Mathematics you require practice and practice requires time. Of course time is important in answering questions however this debate is about TEACHING mathematics and to teach you should make your students understand and to understand takes time and and elaborate lessons properly "Its about TEACHING THEM SHORT METHODS NOT TEACHING THEM IMPROPERLY. " How is teaching the students all about short methods? You cannot simply shortcut everything. It lacks consistency as it only goal is to GIVE us the answer and not TEACH us. How is my method "Improper"? "YEA A TEACHER SHOULD TEACH CHILDREN MATHEMATICS ELABORATELY BUT ALSO TEACH THEM TO USE SHORT METHODS." You cannot elaborately teach them with the short method, it merely gives us the formula to use to get the answer without explanation, and That is not an elaborate way of teaching.